(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)))
Related
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 need to write procedure for calculation of weighted sum in follow functionality:
((weighted-sum 1) 5)
5
((weighted-sum 1/2 1/2) 3 1)
2
etc..
So far I did only how to get parameters for procedure:
(define (weighted-sum x . xn) (cons x xs))
(weighted-sum 2 3)
> '(2 3)
How to get ((weighted-sum 2 3) X X) parameters?
Thank you.
Your question doesn't have one easy answer. It sounds like you're supposed to write a function that accepts a sequence of weights, and returns a function that accepts a sequence of weights, and sums the products of the weights and the sums (by the way, stating this yourself would have been really helpful...).
1) Is this your design, or someone else's? I would not design this function this way.
2) You can write functions that return functions in a bunch of different ways. E.g.:
;; these all do the same thing.
;; they all have the type (number -> (number -> number))
(define a (lambda (x) (lambda (y) (+ x y))))
(define ((a x) y) (+ x y))
(define (a x)
(define (b y) (+ x y))
b)
So weighted-sum takes a variable number of values as parameters (let's call them ws) , and returns a new procedures that, in its turn, takes a variable number of parameters (vs) and does the calculation.
In racket, the for/fold construct comes in handy:
(define (weighted-sum . ws)
(lambda vs
(for/fold ((res 0)) ((i (in-list ws))
(j (in-list vs)))
(+ res (* i j)))))
or even
(define ((weighted-sum . ws) . vs)
(for/fold ((res 0)) ((i (in-list ws))
(j (in-list vs)))
(+ res (* i j))))
Alternatively, using a more classic foldl returning a named inner procedure:
(define (weighted-sum . ws)
(define (sub . vs)
(foldl
(lambda (i j res) (+ res (* i j)))
0
ws
vs))
sub)
For any of those:
> ((weighted-sum 1) 5)
5
> ((weighted-sum 1/2 1/2) 3 1)
2
I already tried this problem multiple times but can't seen to get it right. I want to write an iterative procedure decompose-as-sum-of-squares which inputs a positive integer n and outputs the first integer p such that p^2 + q^2 = n, where q^2 = (n - p^2), and neither p nor n - p^2 is 1. If such p does not exist, the function should return n.
A sample output is (dss 65)returns 4.
This is my code so far.
(define (dss n)
(define (sum-of-squares n)
(if (zero? n) 0
(cons (expt n 2)
(sum-of-squares (- n 1)))))
(sum-of-squares 1))
The output I get is
(dss 65) ; (1 . 0)
Which is clearly wrong. Please help!
Lists have nothing to do with this problem, the solution follows from the definition: you have to test all p values starting from 2 and see if we can find an integer q greater than 1 that satisfies the formula p^2 + q^2 = n. Something like this:
(define (dss n)
(define (sum-of-squares p)
(cond ((>= p n) n)
((let ((q (sqrt (- n (sqr p)))))
(and (integer? q) (not (= q 1))))
p)
(else (sum-of-squares (add1 p)))))
(sum-of-squares 2))
(dss 65)
=> 4
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)
This is Trying code
(defun f (a n)
(if (zerop n)
1
(* a (f a (- n 1)))))
(f 3) should return 27, (f 4) should return 256
I tried using two variables, but it be against the rules.
Is it possible to use only one variable using recursive?
Thanks for any ideas
I don't know CL, but I do know Clojure and other languages that use recursion.
In cases where a recursive function has 1 parameter acting as an accumulator, but is only set on the first call, the typical way around this is to wrap f in another function. There are 2 (basically the same) ways of doing this:
(defun g (a n)
(if (zerop n)
1
(* a (g a (- n 1)))))
(defun f (n)
; I'm assuming you want the initial value of "a" to be 1
(g 1 n))
Or, more succinctly:
(defun f (n)
(let (g (fn (n)
(if (zerop n)
1
(* a (g a (- n 1))))))))
; Instead of f being recursive, f calls g, which is recursive
(g 1 n))
Excuse any syntax errors.
Using an additional variable to count down would be the sane choice, but you don't need to change the contract of just one numeric argument input just for this. You can make a helper to do that:
(defun exptnn (n)
"Get the (expt n n)"
(check-type n integer)
(labels ((helper (acc count)
(if (zerop count)
acc
(helper (* acc n) (1- count)))))
(if (< n 0)
(/ 1 (helper 1 (- n)))
(helper 1 n))))
Now to solve with without any helpers just with one argument is possible since there is a solution doing that already, but I must say that is like programming in Brainf*ck without the joy!
CL-USER 15 > (defun f (n)
(labels ((g (m)
(if (zerop m)
1
(* n (g (1- m))))))
(g n)))
F
CL-USER 16 > (f 0)
1
CL-USER 17 > (f 1)
1
CL-USER 18 > (f 2)
4
CL-USER 19 > (f 3)
27
CL-USER 20 > (f 4)
256
CL-USER 21 > (loop for i below 10 collect (f i))
(1 1 4 27 256 3125 46656 823543 16777216 387420489)
This is a solution where no functions with more than one parameter are used (except for =, +, *, logand, ash; note also that logand and ash always take a constant as second parameter so they can be implemented as unary functions too).
The idea is to "hide" the two parameters needed for the obvious recursive approach in a single integer using odd/even bits.
(defun pair (n)
(if (= n 0)
0
(+ (* 3 (logand n 1))
(ash (pair (ash n -1)) 2))))
(defun pair-first (p)
(if (= p 0)
0
(+ (logand p 1)
(ash (pair-first (ash p -2)) 1))))
(defun pair-second (p)
(pair-first (ash p -1)))
(defun subsec (p)
(if (= 2 (logand p 2))
(- p 2)
(+ (logand p 1) 2 (ash (subsec (ash p -2)) 2))))
(defun pairpow (p)
(if (= (pair-second p) 1)
(pair-first p)
(* (pair-first p)
(pairpow (subsec p)))))
(defun f (n)
(pairpow (pair n)))
No reasonable real use, of course; but a funny exercise indeed.
Yes, this is possible:
(defun f (n)
(cond
((numberp n)
(f (cons n n)))
((zerop (car n))
1)
(t
(* (cdr n)
(f (cons (1- (car n))
(cdr n)))))))
The trick is that you can store any data structure (including a pair of numbers) in a single variable.
Alternatively, you can use helpers from the standard library:
(defun f (n)
(apply #'*
(loop repeat n collect n)))
But that doesn't use recursion. Or simply:
(defun f (n)
(expt n n))