I'm trying to modify the function below to compose two functions in Scheme.
(define (compose F1 F2)
(eval F1 (interaction-environment))
)
rather than
(define (compose f g)
(λ (x) (f (g x))))
But I'm not sure about how to use eval.
From your suggestion, I guess you want to use Scheme's macros / preprocessing capabilities. eval isn't meant for code transformation. Composition ∘ can be defined in Scheme as
(define (∘ f g)
(lambda (x) (f (g x))) )
or
(define-syntax ∘
(syntax-rules ()
((∘ f g)
(lambda (x) (f (g x))) )))
where the arity of expressions f and g is 1.
(define (plus-10 n) (+ n 10))
(define (minus-3 n) (- n 3))
(display
(map (∘ plus-10 minus-3)
(list 1 2 3 4) ))
The map expression at compile-time becomes
(map (lambda (x) (plus-10 (minus-3 x)))
(list 1 2 3 4) )
equal?s
(list 8 9 10 11)
Related
I would like to write the Racket function find-subsets. The function produces the list of subsets of a list of numbers w/o helper functions and that only uses lambda, cond, cons, rest, first, and other primitive functions.
For instance, the following check-expects should be satisfied:
(check-expect (find-subsets '(2 2 3 3)) '(() (2) (3) (2 2) (2 3) (3 3) (2 2 3) (2 3 3)
(2 2 3 3)))
(check-expect (find-subsets '(1 2 3)) '(() (1) (2) (3) (1 2) (1 3) (2 3) (1 2 3)))
Basically, this function produces the power set of a set of numbers, but I'm not sure how it can produce all of the elements, without recursion.
#lang racket
(define-syntax-rule (my-let ([var val]) body)
((λ (var) body) val))
(define-syntax-rule (Y e)
((λ (f) ((λ (x) (f (λ (y) ((x x) y))))
(λ (x) (f (λ (y) ((x x) y))))))
e))
(define-syntax-rule (define/rec f e)
(define f (Y (λ (f) e))))
(define/rec my-append
(λ (l1)
(λ (l2)
(cond [(empty? l1) l2]
[else (cons (first l1) ((my-append (rest l1)) l2))]))))
(define/rec my-map
(λ (f)
(λ (l)
(cond [(empty? l) empty]
[else (cons (f (first l)) ((my-map f) (rest l)))]))))
(define/rec my-power-set
(λ (set)
(cond [(empty? set) (cons empty empty)]
[else (my-let ([rst (my-power-set (rest set))])
((my-append ((my-map (λ (x) (cons (first set) x))) rst))
rst))])))
Summary:
I took the standard definition of powerset from here and curried it. Then I replaced let, append, and map with my-let, my-append, and my-map. I defined the Y combinator as the Y macro and a helper define/rec that makes a function recursive. Then I defined my-append and my-map using the define/rec macro (note that they're curried too). We can substitute everything to get the desired code.
The interpreter for Racket gives me errors
in my attempt to implement the recursive
function for Exercise 1.11:
#lang sicp
(define (f n)
(cond ((< n 3) n)
(else (+ f((- n 1))
(* 2 f((- n 2)))
(* 3 f((- n 3)))))))
(f 2)
(f 5)
The errors given by the Racket intrepreter are:
2
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: 4
arguments...: [none]
context...:
/Users/tanveersalim/Desktop/Git/EPI/EPI/Functional/SICP/chapter_1/exercise_1-11.rkt: [running body]
As others noted, you're calling f incorrectly
Change f((- n 1)) (and other similar instances) to (f (- n 1))
(define (f n)
(cond ((< n 3) n)
(else (+ (f (- n 1))
(* 2 (f (- n 2)))
(* 3 (f (- n 3)))))))
(f 2) ; 2
(f 5) ; 25
I'm trying to implement a Division function with clisp Lambda Calc. style
I read from this site that lambda expression of a division is:
Y (λgqab. LT a b (PAIR q a) (g (SUCC q) (SUB a b) b)) 0
These are TRUE and FALSE
(defvar TRUE #'(lambda(x)#'(lambda(y)x)))
(defvar FALSE #'(lambda(x)#'(lambda(y)y)))
These are conversion functions between Int and Church numbers
(defun church2int(numchurch)
(funcall (funcall numchurch #'(lambda (x) (+ x 1))) 0)
)
(defun int2church(n)
(cond
((= n 0) #'(lambda(f) #'(lambda(x)x)))
(t #'(lambda(f) #'(lambda(x) (funcall f
(funcall(funcall(int2church (- n 1))f)x))))))
)
This is my IF-THEN-ELSE Implementation
(defvar IF-THEN-ELSE
#'(lambda(c)
#'(lambda(x)
#'(lambda(y)
#'(lambda(acc1)
#'(lambda (acc2)
(funcall (funcall (funcall (funcall c x) y) acc1) acc2))))))
)
And this is my div implementation
(defvar division
#'(lambda (g)
#'(lambda (q)
#'(lambda (a)
#'(lambda (b)
(funcall (funcall (funcall (funcall (funcall IF-THEN-ELSE LT) a) b)
(funcall (funcall PAIR q)a))
(funcall (funcall g (funcall succ q)) (funcall (funcall sub a)b))
)))))
)
PAIR, SUCC and SUB functions work fine. I set my church numbers up like this
(set six (int2church 6))
(set two (int2church 2))
Then I do:
(setq D (funcall (funcall division six) two))
And I've got:
#<FUNCTION :LAMBDA (A)
#'(LAMBDA (B)
(FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL IF-THEN-ELSE LT) A) B) (FUNCALL (FUNCALL PAR Q) A))
(FUNCALL (FUNCALL G (FUNCALL SUCC Q)) (FUNCALL (FUNCALL SUB A) B))))>
For what I understand, this function return a Church Pair. If I try to get the first element
with a function FRST (FRST works ok) like this:
(funcall frst D)
I've got
#<FUNCTION :LAMBDA (B)
(FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL IF-THEN-ELSE LT) A) B) (FUNCALL (FUNCALL PAR Q) A))
(FUNCALL (FUNCALL G (FUNCALL SUCC Q)) (FUNCALL (FUNCALL SUB A) B)))>
If I try to get the int value with Church2int (Church2int works OK) like this:
(church2int (funcall frst D))
I've got
*** - +:
#<FUNCTION :LAMBDA (N)
#'(LAMBDA (F)
#'(LAMBDA (X)
(FUNCALL (FUNCALL (FUNCALL N #'(LAMBDA (G) #'(LAMBDA (H) (FUNCALL H (FUNCALL G F))))) #'(LAMBDA (U) X)) (LAMBDA (U) U))))>
is not a number
Where I expect to get 3
I think the problem is in DIVISION function, after the IF-THEN-ELSE, I tried to change it a little bit (I thought it was a nested parenthesis problem) but I got lots of errors.
Any help would be appreciated
Thanks
There are several problems with your definition.
DIVISION does not use the Y combinator, but the original definition does.
This is important, because the DIVISION function expects a copy of itself in the g
parameter.
However, even if you added the Y invocation, your code would still not work
but go into an infinite loop instead. That's because Common Lisp, like most of today's languages, is a call-by-value language. All arguments are evaluated before a function is called. This means that you cannot define conditional functions as elegantly as the traditional lambda calculus semantics would allow.
Here's one way of doing church number division in Common Lisp. I've taken the liberty of introducing some syntax to make this a bit more readable.
;;;; -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
;;;; --- preamble, define lambda calculus language
(cl:in-package #:cl-user)
(defpackage #:lambda-calc
;; note: not using common-lisp package
(:use)
(:export #:λ #:call #:define))
;; (lambda-calc:λ (x y) body)
;; ==> (cl:lambda (x) (cl:lambda (y) body))
(defmacro lambda-calc:λ ((arg &rest more-args) body-expr)
(labels ((rec (args)
(if (null args)
body-expr
`(lambda (,(car args))
(declare (ignorable ,(car args)))
,(rec (cdr args))))))
(rec (cons arg more-args))))
;; (lambda-calc:call f a b)
;; ==> (cl:funcall (cl:funcall f a) b)
(defmacro lambda-calc:call (func &rest args)
(labels ((rec (args)
(if (null args)
func
`(funcall ,(rec (cdr args)) ,(car args)))))
(rec (reverse args))))
;; Defines top-level lexical variables
(defmacro lambda-calc:define (name value)
(let ((vname (gensym (princ-to-string name))))
`(progn
(defparameter ,vname nil)
(define-symbol-macro ,name ,vname)
(setf ,name
(flet ((,vname () ,value))
(,vname))))))
;; Syntax: {f a b}
;; ==> (lambda-calc:call f a b)
;; ==> (cl:funcall (cl:funcall f a) b)
(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
(set-macro-character #\{
(lambda (stream char)
(declare (ignore char))
`(lambda-calc:call
,#(read-delimited-list #\} stream t))))
(set-macro-character #\} (get-macro-character #\))))
;;;; --- end of preamble, fun starts here
(in-package #:lambda-calc)
;; booleans
(define TRUE
(λ (x y) x))
(define FALSE
(λ (x y) y))
(define NOT
(λ (bool) {bool FALSE TRUE}))
;; numbers
(define ZERO
(λ (f x) x))
(define SUCC
(λ (n f x) {f {n f x}}))
(define PLUS
(λ (m n) {m SUCC n}))
(define PRED
(λ (n f x)
{n (λ (g h) {h {g f}})
(λ (u) x)
(λ (u) u)}))
(define SUB
(λ (m n) {n PRED m}))
(define ISZERO
(λ (n) {n (λ (x) FALSE) TRUE}))
(define <=
(λ (m n) {ISZERO {SUB m n}}))
(define <
(λ (m n) {NOT {<= n m}}))
(define ONE {SUCC ZERO})
(define TWO {SUCC ONE})
(define THREE {SUCC TWO})
(define FOUR {SUCC THREE})
(define FIVE {SUCC FOUR})
(define SIX {SUCC FIVE})
(define SEVEN {SUCC SIX})
(define EIGHT {SUCC SEVEN})
(define NINE {SUCC EIGHT})
(define TEN {SUCC NINE})
;; combinators
(define Y
(λ (f)
{(λ (rec arg) {f {rec rec} arg})
(λ (rec arg) {f {rec rec} arg})}))
(define IF
(λ (condition if-true if-false)
{{condition if-true if-false} condition}))
;; pairs
(define PAIR
(λ (x y select) {select x y}))
(define FIRST
(λ (pair) {pair TRUE}))
(define SECOND
(λ (pair) {pair FALSE}))
;; conversion from/to lisp integers
(cl:defun int-to-church (number)
(cl:if (cl:zerop number)
zero
{succ (int-to-church (cl:1- number))}))
(cl:defun church-to-int (church-number)
{church-number #'cl:1+ 0})
;; what we're all here for
(define DIVISION
{Y (λ (recurse q a b)
{IF {< a b}
(λ (c) {PAIR q a})
(λ (c) {recurse {SUCC q} {SUB a b} b})})
ZERO})
If you put this into a file, you can do:
[1]> (load "lambdacalc.lisp")
;; Loading file lambdacalc.lisp ...
;; Loaded file lambdacalc.lisp
T
[2]> (in-package :lambda-calc)
#<PACKAGE LAMBDA-CALC>
LAMBDA-CALC[3]> (church-to-int {FIRST {DIVISION TEN FIVE}})
2
LAMBDA-CALC[4]> (church-to-int {SECOND {DIVISION TEN FIVE}})
0
LAMBDA-CALC[5]> (church-to-int {FIRST {DIVISION TEN FOUR}})
2
LAMBDA-CALC[6]> (church-to-int {SECOND {DIVISION TEN FOUR}})
2
I wish to expand
(foo x (f n) (f n) (arbitrary) (f n) ...)
into
(begin (x 'f n) (x 'f n) (arbitrary) (x 'f n) ...)
my attempt is:
(define-syntax foo
(syntax-rules ()
((_ l a ...)
(let-syntax ((f (syntax-rules ()
((_ n) (l (quote f) n)))))
(begin a ...)))))
(define (x t1 t2) (cons t1 t2)) ;; for example only
(define (arbitrary) (cons 'a 'b)) ;; for example only
(foo x (f 1) (f 2) (arbitrary) (f 3))
Using a macro stepper I can see that the first stage of the macro expands to
(let-syntax ((f (syntax-rules () ((_ n) (x 'f n)))))
(begin (f 1) (f 2) (arbitrary) (f 3)))
Which, when evaluated in isolation works perfectly, but when executed as a whole I get an error about f being an undefined identifier. I assume this is an issue in scoping, is this type of macro expansion possible?
Yeah, you need to get f from somewhere -- your macro just makes it up, and therefore it is not visible to users of foo. When you do consider that you need to get it from somewhere, the question is where would you get it from? Here's a fixed version of your code that assumes that it is the first thing in the second subform of foo:
(define-syntax foo
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ l (f a) more ...)
(let-syntax ([f (syntax-rules ()
[(_ n) (l 'f n)])])
(list (f a) more ...))]))
(define (x t1 t2) (cons t1 t2))
(define (arbitrary) (cons 'a 'b))
(foo x (f 1) (f 2) (arbitrary) (f 3))
(I also made it expand into a list to see that all forms are transformed.)
However, if you want a global kind of f to be used inside foo, then you really have to do just that: define a global f. Here's a limited way to do that:
;; no body => using `f' is always an error
(define-syntax f (syntax-rules ()))
(define-syntax foo
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ l a ...) (list (foo-helper l a) ...)]))
(define-syntax foo-helper
(syntax-rules (f) ; match on f and transform it
[(_ l (f n)) (l 'f n)]
[(_ l a) a]))
(define (x t1 t2) (cons t1 t2))
(define (arbitrary) (cons 'a 'b))
(foo x (f 1) (f 2) (arbitrary) (f 3))
The main limitation in this is that it will only work if one of the a forms is using f -- but it won't work if it is nested in an expression. For example, this will throw a syntax error:
(foo x (f 1) (f 2) (arbitrary)
(let ([n 3]) (f n)))
You can imagine complicating foo-helper and make it scan its input recursively, but that's a slippery slope you don't want to get into. (You'll need to make special cases for places like inside a quote, in a binding, etc.)
The way to solve that in Racket (and recently in Guile too) is to use a syntax parameter. Think about this as binding f to the same useless macro using define-syntax-parameter, and then use syntax-parameterize to "adjust" its meaning inside a foo to a macro that does the transformation that you want. Here's how this looks like:
;; needed to get syntax parameters
(require racket/stxparam)
;; same useless definition, but as a syntax parameter
(define-syntax-parameter f (syntax-rules ()))
(define-syntax foo
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ l a ...)
;; adjust it inside these forms
(syntax-parameterize ([f (syntax-rules ()
[(_ n) (l 'f n)])])
(list a ...))]))
(define (x t1 t2) (cons t1 t2))
(define (arbitrary) (cons 'a 'b))
(foo x (f 1) (f 2) (arbitrary)
(let ([n 3]) (f n)))
(define (repeated f n)
if (= n 0)
f
((compose repeated f) (lambda (x) (- n 1))))
I wrote this function, but how would I express this more clearly, using simple recursion with repeated?
I'm sorry, I forgot to define my compose function.
(define (compose f g) (lambda (x) (f (g x))))
And the function takes as inputs a procedure that computes f and a positive integer n and returns the procedure that computes the nth repeated application of f.
I'm assuming that (repeated f 3) should return a function g(x)=f(f(f(x))). If that's not what you want, please clarify. Anyways, that definition of repeated can be written as follows:
(define (repeated f n)
(lambda (x)
(if (= n 0)
x
((repeated f (- n 1)) (f x)))))
(define (square x)
(* x x))
(define y (repeated square 3))
(y 2) ; returns 256, which is (square (square (square 2)))
(define (repeated f n)
(lambda (x)
(let recur ((x x) (n n))
(if (= n 0)
args
(recur (f x) (sub1 n))))))
Write the function the way you normally would, except that the arguments are passed in two stages. It might be even clearer to define repeated this way:
(define repeated (lambda (f n) (lambda (x)
(define (recur x n)
(if (= n 0)
x
(recur (f x) (sub1 n))))
(recur x n))))
You don't have to use a 'let-loop' this way, and the lambdas make it obvious that you expect your arguments in two stages.
(Note:recur is not built in to Scheme as it is in Clojure, I just like the name)
> (define foonly (repeat sub1 10))
> (foonly 11)
1
> (foonly 9)
-1
The cool functional feature you want here is currying, not composition. Here's the Haskell with implicit currying:
repeated _ 0 x = x
repeated f n x = repeated f (pred n) (f x)
I hope this isn't a homework problem.
What is your function trying to do, just out of curiosity? Is it to run f, n times? If so, you can do this.
(define (repeated f n)
(for-each (lambda (i) (f)) (iota n)))