I am making a CPLEX model with C++, and I need a function like:
IloConstraint f(...){
IloConstraint constr;
if(condition1){
constr = (x+y >= 1);
return constr;
}
if(condition2){
constr = false;
return constr;
}
constr = true;
return constr;
}
I think that I succeded in creating a true and false constraints by
constr = (x==x); and
constr = IloNot(x==x);
I assume that this approach is not very optimal because it adds extra conditions and variables. Is there a more optimal and more readable way to do this? Something like
constr = IloConstraint(IloFalse); ?
IloConstraint(IloFalse) will not work since this will be interpreted as IloConstraint((IloConstraintI*)0) (IloFalse just expands to the literal 0 (zero)), which will create a constraint without implementation.
There is no literal for a true or false constraint. You can go without extra variables if you do something like IloExpr(env, 1) == IloExpr(env, 1) (and != for the false constraint). Another option for a constant true constraint would be use an empty IloAnd or an empty IloOr.
However, just going with x == x, 1 >= 2 or things similar to that seems a lot more readable to me. Additional expressions should usually not pose a problem. The engine will remove those in preprocessing.
Another option would be to use IloCplex::ifThen() to create a conditional constraint. Maybe this is even more readable then your function that returns a constraint.
The following code
model FunctionCall
Boolean result;
function F
input Real p1;
output Boolean result;
algorithm
result :=p1 < 0.5;
end F;
algorithm
result :=F(time);
end FunctionCall;
(also described in http://www.modelica-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2) still throws an error in Dymola 2018FD01, while in OpenModelica it is accepted.
Is this wrong Modelica code or a Dymola bug?
Thanks in advance.
The model is incorrect.
3.8 "For an assignment v:=expr or binding equation v=expr, v must be declared to be at least as variable as expr"
Boolean variables are discrete-time expressions according to 3.8.3 "Discrete-time variables, i.e., Integer, Boolean, String variables and enumeration variables, as well as Real variables assigned in when-clauses"
F(time) is not a discrete-time expression, since 3.8.3 only includes "Function calls where all input arguments of the function are discrete-time expressions"
All according to Modelica 3.4.
The reason is that Boolean variables in models should only change at events, and the result of a function such as F(time) can neither guarantee that nor reliably generate events.
Hans answer is the correct one for your question.
Your unasked question may be how one can get the same behavior within the language specifications. Below I have provided one possible solution.
model FunctionCall
Boolean result;
function F
input Real p1;
output Integer result;
algorithm
result := if p1 < 0.5 then 1 else 0;
end F;
algorithm
result := if F(time) < 0.5 then false else true;
end FunctionCall;
I am currently programming in BCPL for an OS course and wanted to write a simple is_digit() function for validation in a program of mine.
A code snippet of my current code follows:
let is_digit(n) be {
if ((n >= '0') /\ (n <= '9')) then
resultis true;
}
I am aware that BCPL has no notion of types, but how would I be able to accomplish this sort of thing in the language?
Passing in a number yields a false result instead of the expected true.
is_digit() is a function returning a value, rather than a routine, so should use = VALOF rather than BE. Otherwise, the code is OK.
let is_digit(n) = valof {
.....
resultis true
}
Functions that return values should be using valof rather than be, the latter (a routine rather than a function) can be called as a function but the return value you get back from it will be undefined(a).
In addition, you should ensure you return a valid value for every code path. At the moment, a non-digit will not execute a RESULTIS statement, and I'm not entirely certain what happens in that case (so best to be safe).
That means something like this is what you're after, keeping in mind there can be implementation variations, such as & and /\ for and, or {...} and $(...$) for the block delimiters - I've used the ones documented in Martin's latest manual:
LET is_digit(n) = VALOF {
RESULTIS (n >= '0') & (n <= '9')
}
(a) Since Martin Richards is still doing stuff with BCPL, this manual may help in any future questions (or see his home page for a large selection of goodies).
Given an arbitrary list of booleans, what is the most elegant way of determining that exactly one of them is true?
The most obvious hack is type conversion: converting them to 0 for false and 1 for true and then summing them, and returning sum == 1.
I'd like to know if there is a way to do this without converting them to ints, actually using boolean logic.
(This seems like it should be trivial, idk, long week)
Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, this is more of a code-golf / theoretical question. I'm not fussed about using type conversion / int addition in PROD code, I'm just interested if there is way of doing it without that.
Edit2: Sorry folks it's a long week and I'm not explaining myself well. Let me try this:
In boolean logic, ANDing a collection of booleans is true if all of the booleans are true, ORing the collection is true if least one of them is true. Is there a logical construct that will be true if exactly one boolean is true? XOR is this for a collection of two booleans for example, but any more than that and it falls over.
You can actually accomplish this using only boolean logic, although there's perhaps no practical value of that in your example. The boolean version is much more involved than simply counting the number of true values.
Anyway, for the sake of satisfying intellectual curiosity, here goes. First, the idea of using a series of XORs is good, but it only gets us half way. For any two variables x and y,
x ⊻ y
is true whenever exactly one of them is true. However, this does not continue to be true if you add a third variable z,
x ⊻ y ⊻ z
The first part, x ⊻ y, is still true if exactly one of x and y is true. If either x or y is true, then z needs to be false for the whole expression to be true, which is what we want. But consider what happens if both x and y are true. Then x ⊻ y is false, yet the whole expression can become true if z is true as well. So either one variable or all three must be true. In general, if you have a statement that is a chain of XORs, it will be true if an uneven number of variables are true.
Since one is an uneven number, this might prove useful. Of course, checking for an uneven number of truths is not enough. We additionally need to ensure that no more than one variable is true. This can be done in a pairwise fashion by taking all pairs of two variables and checking that they are not both true. Taken together these two conditions ensure that exactly one if the variables are true.
Below is a small Python script to illustrate the approach.
from itertools import product
print("x|y|z|only_one_is_true")
print("======================")
for x, y, z in product([True, False], repeat=3):
uneven_number_is_true = x ^ y ^ z
max_one_is_true = (not (x and y)) and (not (x and z)) and (not (y and z))
only_one_is_true = uneven_number_is_true and max_one_is_true
print(int(x), int(y), int(z), only_one_is_true)
And here's the output.
x|y|z|only_one_is_true
======================
1 1 1 False
1 1 0 False
1 0 1 False
1 0 0 True
0 1 1 False
0 1 0 True
0 0 1 True
0 0 0 False
Sure, you could do something like this (pseudocode, since you didn't mention language):
found = false;
alreadyFound = false;
for (boolean in booleans):
if (boolean):
found = true;
if (alreadyFound):
found = false;
break;
else:
alreadyFound = true;
return found;
After your clarification, here it is with no integers.
bool IsExactlyOneBooleanTrue( bool *boolAry, int size )
{
bool areAnyTrue = false;
bool areTwoTrue = false;
for(int i = 0; (!areTwoTrue) && (i < size); i++) {
areTwoTrue = (areAnyTrue && boolAry[i]);
areAnyTrue |= boolAry[i];
}
return ((areAnyTrue) && (!areTwoTrue));
}
No-one mentioned that this "operation" we're looking for is shortcut-able similarly to boolean AND and OR in most languages. Here's an implementation in Java:
public static boolean exactlyOneOf(boolean... inputs) {
boolean foundAtLeastOne = false;
for (boolean bool : inputs) {
if (bool) {
if (foundAtLeastOne) {
// found a second one that's also true, shortcut like && and ||
return false;
}
foundAtLeastOne = true;
}
}
// we're happy if we found one, but if none found that's less than one
return foundAtLeastOne;
}
With plain boolean logic, it may not be possible to achieve what you want. Because what you are asking for is a truth evaluation not just based on the truth values but also on additional information(count in this case). But boolean evaluation is binary logic, it cannot depend on anything else but on the operands themselves. And there is no way to reverse engineer to find the operands given a truth value because there can be four possible combinations of operands but only two results. Given a false, can you tell if it is because of F ^ F or T ^ T in your case, so that the next evaluation can be determined based on that?.
booleanList.Where(y => y).Count() == 1;
Due to the large number of reads by now, here comes a quick clean up and additional information.
Option 1:
Ask if only the first variable is true, or only the second one, ..., or only the n-th variable.
x1 & !x2 & ... & !xn |
!x1 & x2 & ... & !xn |
...
!x1 & !x2 & ... & xn
This approach scales in O(n^2), the evaluation stops after the first positive match is found. Hence, preferred if it is likely that there is a positive match.
Option 2:
Ask if there is at least one variable true in total. Additionally check every pair to contain at most one true variable (Anders Johannsen's answer)
(x1 | x2 | ... | xn) &
(!x1 | !x2) &
...
(!x1 | !xn) &
(!x2 | !x3) &
...
(!x2 | !xn) &
...
This option also scales in O(n^2) due to the number of possible pairs. Lazy evaluation stops the formula after the first counter example. Hence, it is preferred if its likely there is a negative match.
(Option 3):
This option involves a subtraction and is thus no valid answer for the restricted setting. Nevertheless, it argues how looping the values might not be the most beneficial solution in an unrestricted stetting.
Treat x1 ... xn as a binary number x. Subtract one, then AND the results. The output is zero <=> x1 ... xn contains at most one true value. (the old "check power of two" algorithm)
x 00010000
x-1 00001111
AND 00000000
If the bits are already stored in such a bitboard, this might be beneficial over looping. Though, keep in mind this kills the readability and is limited by the available board length.
A last note to raise awareness: by now there exists a stack exchange called computer science which is exactly intended for this type of algorithmic questions
It can be done quite nicely with recursion, e.g. in Haskell
-- there isn't exactly one true element in the empty list
oneTrue [] = False
-- if the list starts with False, discard it
oneTrue (False : xs) = oneTrue xs
-- if the list starts with True, all other elements must be False
oneTrue (True : xs) = not (or xs)
// Javascript
Use .filter() on array and check the length of the new array.
// Example using array
isExactly1BooleanTrue(boolean:boolean[]) {
return booleans.filter(value => value === true).length === 1;
}
// Example using ...booleans
isExactly1BooleanTrue(...booleans) {
return booleans.filter(value => value === true).length === 1;
}
One way to do it is to perform pairwise AND and then check if any of the pairwise comparisons returned true with chained OR. In python I would implement it using
from itertools import combinations
def one_true(bools):
pairwise_comp = [comb[0] and comb[1] for comb in combinations(bools, 2)]
return not any(pairwise_comp)
This approach easily generalizes to lists of arbitrary length, although for very long lists, the number of possible pairs grows very quickly.
Python:
boolean_list.count(True) == 1
OK, another try. Call the different booleans b[i], and call a slice of them (a range of the array) b[i .. j]. Define functions none(b[i .. j]) and just_one(b[i .. j]) (can substitute the recursive definitions to get explicit formulas if required). We have, using C notation for logical operations (&& is and, || is or, ^ for xor (not really in C), ! is not):
none(b[i .. i + 1]) ~~> !b[i] && !b[i + 1]
just_one(b[i .. i + 1]) ~~> b[i] ^ b[i + 1]
And then recursively:
none(b[i .. j + 1]) ~~> none(b[i .. j]) && !b[j + 1]
just_one(b[i .. j + 1] ~~> (just_one(b[i .. j]) && !b[j + 1]) ^ (none(b[i .. j]) && b[j + 1])
And you are interested in just_one(b[1 .. n]).
The expressions will turn out horrible.
Have fun!
That python script does the job nicely. Here's the one-liner it uses:
((x ∨ (y ∨ z)) ∧ (¬(x ∧ y) ∧ (¬(z ∧ x) ∧ ¬(y ∧ z))))
Retracted for Privacy and Anders Johannsen provided already correct and simple answers. But both solutions do not scale very well (O(n^2)). If performance is important you can stick to the following solution, which performs in O(n):
def exact_one_of(array_of_bool):
exact_one = more_than_one = False
for array_elem in array_of_bool:
more_than_one = (exact_one and array_elem) or more_than_one
exact_one = (exact_one ^ array_elem) and (not more_than_one)
return exact_one
(I used python and a for loop for simplicity. But of course this loop could be unrolled to a sequence of NOT, AND, OR and XOR operations)
It works by tracking two states per boolean variable/list entry:
is there exactly one "True" from the beginning of the list until this entry?
are there more than one "True" from the beginning of the list until this entry?
The states of a list entry can be simply derived from the previous states and corresponding list entry/boolean variable.
Python:
let see using example...
steps:
below function exactly_one_topping takes three parameter
stores their values in the list as True, False
Check whether there exists only one true value by checking the count to be exact 1.
def exactly_one_topping(ketchup, mustard, onion):
args = [ketchup,mustard,onion]
if args.count(True) == 1: # check if Exactly one value is True
return True
else:
return False
How do you want to count how many are true without, you know, counting? Sure, you could do something messy like (C syntax, my Python is horrible):
for(i = 0; i < last && !booleans[i]; i++)
;
if(i == last)
return 0; /* No true one found */
/* We have a true one, check there isn't another */
for(i++; i < last && !booleans[i]; i++)
;
if(i == last)
return 1; /* No more true ones */
else
return 0; /* Found another true */
I'm sure you'll agree that the win (if any) is slight, and the readability is bad.
It is not possible without looping. Check BitSet cardinality() in java implementation.
http://fuseyism.com/classpath/doc/java/util/BitSet-source.html
We can do it this way:-
if (A=true or B=true)and(not(A=true and B=true)) then
<enter statements>
end if
False is equivalent to 0 and True is equivalent 1 so it's possible to do something like this:
def bool_to_str(value):
"""value should be a bool"""
return ['No', 'Yes'][value]
bool_to_str(True)
Notice how value is bool but is used as an int.
Is this this kind of use Pythonic or should it be avoided?
I'll be the odd voice out (since all answers are decrying the use of the fact that False == 0 and True == 1, as the language guarantees) as I claim that the use of this fact to simplify your code is perfectly fine.
Historically, logical true/false operations tended to simply use 0 for false and 1 for true; in the course of Python 2.2's life-cycle, Guido noticed that too many modules started with assignments such as false = 0; true = 1 and this produced boilerplate and useless variation (the latter because the capitalization of true and false was all over the place -- some used all-caps, some all-lowercase, some cap-initial) and so introduced the bool subclass of int and its True and False constants.
There was quite some pushback at the time since many of us feared that the new type and constants would be used by Python newbies to restrict the language's abilities, but Guido was adamant that we were just being pessimistic: nobody would ever understand Python so badly, for example, as to avoid the perfectly natural use of False and True as list indices, or in a summation, or other such perfectly clear and useful idioms.
The answers to this thread prove we were right: as we feared, a total misunderstanding of the roles of this type and constants has emerged, and people are avoiding, and, worse!, urging others to avoid, perfectly natural Python constructs in favor of useless gyrations.
Fighting against the tide of such misunderstanding, I urge everybody to use Python as Python, not trying to force it into the mold of other languages whose functionality and preferred style are quite different. In Python, True and False are 99.9% like 1 and 0, differing exclusively in their str(...) (and thereby repr(...)) form -- for every other operation except stringification, just feel free to use them without contortions. That goes for indexing, arithmetic, bit operations, etc, etc, etc.
I'm with Alex. False==0 and True==1, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Still, in Python 2.5 and later I'd write the answer to this particular question using Python's conditional expression:
def bool_to_str(value):
return 'Yes' if value else 'No'
That way there's no requirement that the argument is actually a bool -- just as if x: ... accepts any type for x, the bool_to_str() function should do the right thing when it is passed None, a string, a list, or 3.14.
surely:
def bool_to_str(value):
"value should be a bool"
return 'Yes' if value else 'No'
is more readable.
Your code seems inaccurate in some cases:
>>> def bool_to_str(value):
... """value should be a bool"""
... return ['No', 'Yes'][value]
...
>>> bool_to_str(-2)
'No'
And I recommend you to use just the conditional operator for readability:
def bool_to_str(value):
"""value should be a bool"""
return "Yes" if value else "No"
It is actually a feature of the language that False == 0 and True == 1 (it does not depend on the implementation): Is False == 0 and True == 1 in Python an implementation detail or is it guaranteed by the language?
However, I do agree with most of the other answers: there are more readable ways of obtaining the same result as ['No', 'Yes'][value], through the use of the … if value else … or of a dictionary, which have the respective advantages of hinting and stating that value is a boolean.
Plus, the … if value else … follows the usual convention that non-0 is True: it also works even when value == -2 (value is True), as hinted by dahlia. The list and dict approaches are not as robust, in this case, so I would not recommend them.
Using a bool as an int is quite OK because bool is s subclass of int.
>>> isinstance(True, int)
True
>>> isinstance(False, int)
True
About your code: Putting it in a one-line function like that is over the top. Readers need to find your function source or docs and read it (the name of the function doesn't tell you much). This interrupts the flow. Just put it inline and don't use a list (built at run time), use a tuple (built at compile time if the values are constants). Example:
print foo, bar, num_things, ("OK", "Too many!)[num_things > max_things]
Personally I think it depends on how do you want to use this fact, here are two examples
Just simply use boolean as conditional statement is fine. People do this all the time.
a = 0
if a:
do something
However say you want to count how many items has succeed, the code maybe not very friendly for other people to read.
def succeed(val):
if do_something(val):
return True
else:
return False
count = 0
values = [some values to process]
for val in values:
count += succeed(val)
But I do see the production code look like this.
all_successful = all([succeed(val) for val in values])
at_least_one_successful = any([succeed(val) for val in values])
total_number_of_successful = sum([succeed(val) for val in values])