How does one write the Pythagoras Theorem in Scala? - scala

The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
This is Pythagoras's Theorem. A function to calculate the hypotenuse based on the length "a" and "b" of it's sides would return sqrt(a * a + b * b).
The question is, how would you define such a function in Scala in such a way that it could be used with any type implementing the appropriate methods?
For context, imagine a whole library of math theorems you want to use with Int, Double, Int-Rational, Double-Rational, BigInt or BigInt-Rational types depending on what you are doing, and the speed, precision, accuracy and range requirements.

This only works on Scala 2.8, but it does work:
scala> def pythagoras[T](a: T, b: T, sqrt: T => T)(implicit n: Numeric[T]) = {
| import n.mkNumericOps
| sqrt(a*a + b*b)
| }
pythagoras: [T](a: T,b: T,sqrt: (T) => T)(implicit n: Numeric[T])T
scala> def intSqrt(n: Int) = Math.sqrt(n).toInt
intSqrt: (n: Int)Int
scala> pythagoras(3,4, intSqrt)
res0: Int = 5
More generally speaking, the trait Numeric is effectively a reference on how to solve this type of problem. See also Ordering.

The most obvious way:
type Num = {
def +(a: Num): Num
def *(a: Num): Num
}
def pyth[A <: Num](a: A, b: A)(sqrt: A=>A) = sqrt(a * a + b * b)
// usage
pyth(3, 4)(Math.sqrt)
This is horrible for many reasons. First, we have the problem of the recursive type, Num. This is only allowed if you compile this code with the -Xrecursive option set to some integer value (5 is probably more than sufficient for numbers). Second, the type Num is structural, which means that any usage of the members it defines will be compiled into corresponding reflective invocations. Putting it mildly, this version of pyth is obscenely inefficient, running on the order of several hundred thousand times slower than a conventional implementation. There's no way around the structural type though if you want to define pyth for any type which defines +, * and for which there exists a sqrt function.
Finally, we come to the most fundamental issue: it's over-complicated. Why bother implementing the function in this way? Practically speaking, the only types it will ever need to apply to are real Scala numbers. Thus, it's easiest just to do the following:
def pyth(a: Double, b: Double) = Math.sqrt(a * a + b * b)
All problems solved! This function is usable on values of type Double, Int, Float, even odd ones like Short thanks to the marvels of implicit conversion. While it is true that this function is technically less flexible than our structurally-typed version, it is vastly more efficient and eminently more readable. We may have lost the ability to calculate the Pythagrean theorem for unforeseen types defining + and *, but I don't think you're going to miss that ability.

Some thoughts on Daniel's answer:
I've experimented to generalize Numeric to Real, which would be more appropriate for this function to provide the sqrt function. This would result in:
def pythagoras[T](a: T, b: T)(implicit n: Real[T]) = {
import n.mkNumericOps
(a*a + b*b).sqrt
}
It is tricky, but possible, to use literal numbers in such generic functions.
def pythagoras[T](a: T, b: T)(sqrt: (T => T))(implicit n: Numeric[T]) = {
import n.mkNumericOps
implicit val fromInt = n.fromInt _
//1 * sqrt(a*a + b*b) Not Possible!
sqrt(a*a + b*b) * 1 // Possible
}
Type inference works better if the sqrt is passed in a second parameter list.
Parameters a and b would be passed as Objects, but #specialized could fix this. Unfortuantely there will still be some overhead in the math operations.
You can almost do without the import of mkNumericOps. I got frustratringly close!

There is a method in java.lang.Math:
public static double hypot (double x, double y)
for which the javadocs asserts:
Returns sqrt(x2 +y2) without intermediate overflow or underflow.
looking into src.zip, Math.hypot uses StrictMath, which is a native Method:
public static native double hypot(double x, double y);

Related

Scala equivalent of Java's Number with divide method

I want to generalise this function
def selfSufficiency(a: Seq[Double], b: Seq[Double]): Double =
a.sum/b.sum
I tried using the ideas provided here to implement a more general function that work with Doubles, Floats, Ints, etc.:
def selfSufficiency[A](a: Seq[A], b: Seq[A])
(implicit n: Numeric[A]):A = {
import n._
a.sum/b.sum
}
I however get a remark from eclipse saying that
value / is not a member of type parameter A.
1- How can I implement this in functional/generalisable way?
2- Does my implementation limits the user to have the same type "A" for both inputs? In other words, can I do this with my code?
selfSufficiency(Seq(1,2,3), Seq(2.0,1.3))
if I cannot, please explain how to implement this?
Please note that the code here provide a toy example. In my production function, I add, subtract, find the larger number, etc.
The problem is that Numeric doesn't encode the division function - you need a Fractional.
Thus your code becomes
def selfSufficiency[A](a: Seq[A], b: Seq[A])
(implicit n: Fractional[A]):A = {
import n._
a.sum/b.sum
}
And now it works.
Edit
I just read this part of your question.
Does my implementation limits the user to have the same type "A" for both inputs? In other words, can I do this with my code?
Because both Fractional and Numeric are parametrized in just one T, both arguments have to be from the same type - for example take a look to the div function.
However, since numeric values of less precision are subtypes of the ones with higher (fig 1). You can make it work by upcast, but you will need to help the compiler a little more.
selfSufficiency[Double](Seq(1,2,3), Seq(2.0,1.3)) // res1: Double = 1.8181818181818183
Note: Without specifying the type as Double, the compiler will yield the following error.
error: could not find implicit value for parameter n: Fractional[AnyVal]
fig 1
Reference: https://www.artima.com/pins1ed/scalas-hierarchy.html
What you are looking for is the Fractional trait which is a more narrow Numeric (subtype) that supports div.

Scala Implicit Conversion Function Name Clashes

I am working with a simple complex number case class in Scala and would like to create an add function that works between complex numbers, doubles and ints. Below is a simple example of a working solution:
case class Complex(re: Double, im: Double)
implicit def toComplex[A](n: A)(implicit f: A => Double): Complex = Complex(n, 0)
implicit class NumberWithAdd[A](n: A)(implicit f: A => Complex) {
def add(m: Complex) = Complex(n.re + m.re, n.im + m.im)
}
Note I am deliberately not including the add function in the complex case class. Using the above I can do all of this:
scala> val z = Complex(1, 2); val w = Complex(2, 3)
z: Complex = Complex(1.0,2.0)
w: Complex = Complex(2.0,3.0)
scala> z add w
res5: Complex = Complex(3.0,5.0)
scala> z add 1
res6: Complex = Complex(2.0,2.0)
scala> 1 add z
res7: Complex = Complex(2.0,2.0)
I'd like to use '+' instead of 'add, but however this does not work. I get the following error:
Error:(14, 4) value + is not a member of A$A288.this.Complex
z + 1
^
Both z + w and 1 + z still work however.
What I'd like to know is why does changing the function name from 'add' to '+' break this? Is there an alternate route to getting this functionality (without simply putting the add function in the complex case class)? Any help would be appreciated.
Edit - Motivation
I'm playing around with monoids and other algebraic structures. I would like to be able to generalise the '...WithAdd' function to automatically work for any class that has a corresponding monoid:
trait Monoid[A] {
val identity: A
def op(x: A, y: A): A
}
implicit class withOp[A](n: A)(implicit val monoid: Monoid[A]) {
def +(m: A): A = monoid.op(n, m)
}
case class Complex(re: Double, im: Double) {
override def toString: String = re + " + " + im + "i"
}
class ComplexMonoid extends Monoid[Complex] {
val identity = Complex(0, 0)
def op(z: Complex, w: Complex): Complex = {
Complex(z.re + w.re, z.im + w.im)
}
}
implicit val complexMonoid = new ComplexMonoid
Using the above I can now do Complex(1, 2) + Complex(3, 1) giving Complex = 4.0 + 3.0i. This is great for code reuse as I could now add extra functions to the Monoid and withAdd function (such as appling op n times to an element, giving the power function for multiplication) and it would work for any case class that has a corresponding monoid. It is only with complex numbers and trying to incorporate doubles, ints, etc., that I then run into the problem above.
I would use a regular class, not a case class. Then it would be easy to create methods to add or subtract these Complex numbers, like:
class Complex(val real : Double, val imag : Double) {
def +(that: Complex) =
new Complex(this.real + that.real, this.imag + that.imag)
def -(that: Complex) =
new Complex(this.real - that.real, this.imag - that.imag)
override def toString = real + " + " + imag + "i"
}
As the source page shows, it will now support something that looks like operator overloading (it's not, because + and - are functions and not operators).
The problem with implicit class NumberWithAdd and its method + is that the same method also exist in number classes such as Int and Double. The + method of NumberWithAdd basically allows you to start with a number that can be casted to Complex and add a Complex object to that first item. That is, the left hand value can be anything (as long as it can be converted) and the right hand value must be Complex.
That works great for w + z (no need to convert w) and 1 + z (implicit conversion for Int to Complex is available). It fails for z + 1 because + is not available in the class Complex .
Since z + 1 is actually z.+(1), Scala will look for other possible matches for +(i: Int) in classes that Complex can be converted into. It also checks NumberWithAdd, which does have a + function but that one required a Complex as right hand value. (It would match a function that requires an Int as right hand value.) There are other functions named + that do accept Int, but there's no conversion from Complex to what those functions want as left hand values.
The same definition of + does work when it's in the (case) class Complex. In that case, both w + z and z + 1 simply use that definition. The case 1 + z is now a little more complicated. Since Int does not have a function + that accepts a Complex value, Scala will find the one that does (in Complex) and determines whether or not it is possible to convert Int into Complex. That is possible using the implicit functions, the conversion takes place and the function is executed.
When the function + in the class NumberWithAdd is renamed add, there's no confusion with functions in Int because Int does not have a function +. So Scala will try harder to apply the function add and it will do the Int to Complex conversion. It will even do that conversion when you try 1 add 2.
Note: My explanations may not fully describe the actual inner workings.

Function to compute partial derivatives of function with arbitrary many variables

I am trying to write a function in Scala that will compute the partial derivative of a function with arbitrary many variables. For example
One Variable(regular derivative):
def partialDerivative(f: Double => Double)(x: Double) = { (f(x+0.001)-f(x))/0.001 }
Two Variables:
def partialDerivative(c: Char, f: (Double, Double) => Double)(x: Double)(y: Double) = {
if (c == 'x') (f(x+0.0001, y)-f(x, y))/0.0001
else if (c == 'y') (f(x, y+0.0001)-f(x, y))/0.0001
}
I am wondering if there is a way to write partialDerivative where the number of variables in f do not need to be known in advance.
I read some blog posts about varargs but can't seem to come up with the correct signature.
Here is what I tried.
def func(f: (Double*) => Double)(n: Double*)
but this doesn't seem to be correct. Thanks for any help on this.
Double* means f accepts an arbitrary Seq of Doubles, which is not correct.
The only way I can think of to write something like this is using shapeless Sized. You will need more implicits than this, and possibly some type-level equality implicits as well; type-level programming in scala is quite complex and I don't have the time to debug this properly, but it should give you some idea:
def partialDerivative[N <: Nat, I <: Nat](f: Sized[Seq[Double], N] => Double)(i: I, xs: Sized[Seq[Double], N])(implicit diff: Diff[I, N]) = {
val (before, atAndAfter) = xs.splitAt(i)
val incrementedAtAndAfter = (atAndAfter.head + 0.0001) +: atAndAfter.tail
val incremented = before ++ incrementedAtAndAfter
(f(incremeted) - f(xs)) / 0.0001
}

Is scala disregading type in function signatures?

I am going through lectures from excellent Martin Odersky's FP course and one of the lectures demonstrates higher-order functions through Newton's method for finding fixed points of certain functions. There is a cruicial step in the lecture where I think type signature is being violated so I would ask for an explanation. (Apologies for the long intro that's inbound - it felt it was needed.)
One way of implementing such an algorithm is given like this:
val tolerance = 0.0001
def isCloseEnough(x: Double, y: Double) = abs((x - y) / x) / x < tolerance
def fixedPoint(f: Double => Double)(firstGuess: Double) = {
def iterate(guess: Double): Double = {
val next = f(guess)
if (isCloseEnough(guess, next)) next
else iterate(next)
}
iterate(firstGuess)
}
Next, we try to compute the square root via fixedPoint function, but the naive attempt through
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(y => x / y)(1)
is foiled because such an approach oscillates (so, for sqrt(2), the result would alternate indefinitely between 1.0 and 2.0).
To deal with that, we introduce average damping, so that essentially we compute the mean of two nearest calculated values and converge to solution, therefore
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(y => (y + x / y) / 2)(1)
Finally, we introduce averageDamp function and the task is to write sqrt with fixedPoint and averageDamp. The averageDamp is defined as follows:
def averageDamp(f: Double => Double)(x: Double) = (x + f(x)) / 2
Here comes the part I don't understand - my initial solution was this:
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(z => averageDamp(y => x / y)(z))(1)
but prof. Odersky's solution was more concise:
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(averageDamp(y => x / y))(1)
My question is - why does it work? According to function signature, the fixedPoint function is supposed to take a function (Double => Double) but it doesn't mind being passed an ordinary Double (which is what averageDamp returns - in fact, if you try to explicitly specify the return type of Double to averageDamp, the compiler won't throw an error).
I think that my approach follows types correctly - so what am I missing here? Where is it specified or implied(?) that averageDamp returns a function, especially given the right-hand side is clearly returning a scalar? How can you pass a scalar to a function that clearly expects functions only? How do you reason about code that seems to not honour type signatures?
Your solution is correct, but it can be more concise.
Let's scrutinize the averageDamp function more closely.
def averageDamp(f: Double => Double)(x: Double): Double = (x + f(x)) / 2
The return type annotation is added to make it more clearly. I think what you are missing is here:
but it doesn't mind being passed an ordinary Double (which is what averageDamp returns - in fact, if you try to explicitly specify the
return type of Double to averageDamp, the compiler won't throw an
error).
But averageDamp(y => y/x) does return a Double => Double function! averageDamp requires to be passed TWO argument lists to return a Double.
If the function receive just one argument, it still wants the other one to be completed. So rather than returning the result immediately, it returns a function, saying that "I still need an argument here, feed me that so I will return what you want".
Prof MO did pass ONE function argument to it, not two, so averageDamp is partially applied, in the sense that it returns a Double => Double function.
The course will also tell you functions with multiple argument lists are syntactical sugar form of this:
def f(arg1)(arg2)(arg3)...(argN-1)(argN) = (argN) => f(arg1)(arg2)(arg3)...(argN-1)
If you give one less argument than f needs, it just return the right side of equation, that is, a function. So, heeding that averageDamp(y => x / y), the argument passed to fixPoint, is actually a function should help you understand the question.
Notice: There is some difference between partially applied function(or function currying) and multiple argument list function
For example you cannot declare like this
val a = averageDamp(y => y/2)
The compiler will complain about this as 'method is not a partially applied function'.
The difference is explained here: What's the difference between multiple parameters lists and multiple parameters per list in Scala?.
Multiple parameter lists are syntactic sugar for a function that returns another function. You can see this in the scala shell:
scala> :t averageDamp _
(Double => Double) => (Double => Double)
We can write the same function without the syntactic sugar - this is the way we'd do it in e.g. Python:
def averageDamp(f: Double => Double): (Double => Double) = {
def g(x: Double): Double = (x + f(x)) / 2
g
}
Returning a function can look a bit weird to start with, but it's complementary to passing a function as an argument and enables some very powerful programming techniques. Functions are just another type of value, like Int or String.
In your original solution you were reusing the variable name y, which I think makes it slightly confusing; we can translate what you've written into:
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(z => averageDamp(y => x / y)(z))(1)
With this form, you can hopefully see the pattern:
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(z => something(z))(1)
And hopefully it's now obvious that this is the same as:
def sqrt(x: Double) = fixedPoint(something)(1)
which is Odersky's version.

Curried update method

I'm trying to have curried apply and update methods like this:
def apply(i: Int)(j: Int) = matrix(i)(j)
def update(i: Int, j: Int, value: Int) =
new Matrix(n, m, (x, y) => if ((i,j) == (x,y)) value else matrix(x)(y))
Apply method works correctly, but update method complains:
scala> matrix(2)(1) = 1
<console>:16: error: missing arguments for method apply in class Matrix;
follow this method with `_' if you want to treat it as a partially applied function
matrix(2)(1) = 1
Calling directly update(2)(1)(1) works, so it is a conversion to update method that doesn't work properly. Where is my mistake?
The desugaring of assignment syntax into invocations of update maps the concatenation of a single argument list on the LHS of the assignment with the value on the RHS of the assignment to the first parameter block of the update method definition, irrespective of how many other parameter blocks the update method definition has. Whilst this transformation in a sense splits a single parameter block into two (one on the LHS, one on the RHS of the assignment), it will not further split the left parameter block in the way that you want.
I also think you're mistaken about the example of the explicit invocation of update that you show. This doesn't compile with the definition of update that you've given,
scala> class Matrix { def update(i: Int, j: Int, value: Int) = (i, j, value) }
defined class Matrix
scala> val m = new Matrix
m: Matrix = Matrix#37176bc4
scala> m.update(1)(2)(3)
<console>:10: error: not enough arguments for method update: (i: Int, j: Int, value: Int)(Int, Int, Int).
Unspecified value parameters j, value.
m.update(1)(2)(3)
^
I suspect that during your experimentation you actually defined update like so,
scala> class Matrix { def update(i: Int)(j: Int)(value: Int) = (i, j, value) }
defined class Matrix
The update desugaring does apply to this definition, but probably not in the way that you expect: as described above, it only applies to the first argument list, which leads to constructs like,
scala> val m = new Matrix
m: Matrix = Matrix#39741f43
scala> (m() = 1)(2)(3)
res0: (Int, Int, Int) = (1,2,3)
Here the initial one-place parameter block is split to an empty parameter block on the LHS of the assignment (ie. the ()) and a one argument parameter block on the RHS (ie. the 1). The remainder of the parameter blocks from the original definition then follow.
If you're surprised by this behaviour you won't be the first.
The syntax you're after is achievable via a slightly different route,
scala> class Matrix {
| class MatrixAux(i : Int) {
| def apply(j : Int) = 23
| def update(j: Int, value: Int) = (i, j, value)
| }
|
| def apply(i: Int) = new MatrixAux(i)
| }
defined class Matrix
scala> val m = new Matrix
m: Matrix = Matrix#3af30087
scala> m(1)(2) // invokes MatrixAux.apply
res0: Int = 23
scala> m(1)(2) = 3 // invokes MatrixAux.update
res1: (Int, Int, Int) = (1,2,3)
My guess is, that it is simply not supported. Probably not due to an explicit design decision, because I don't see why it shouldn't work in principle.
The translation concerned with apply, i.e., the one performed when converting m(i)(j) into m.apply(i, j) seems to be able to cope with currying. Run scala -print on your program to see the code resulting from the translation.
The translation concerned with update, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be able to cope with currying. Since the error message is missing arguments for method apply, it even looks as if the currying confuses the translator such that it tries to translate m(i)(j) = v into m.apply, but then screws up the number of required arguments. scala -print unfortunately won't help here, because the type checker terminates the translation too early.
Here is what the language specs (Scala 2.9, "6.15 Assignments") say about assignments. Since currying is not mentioned, I assume that it is not explicitly supported. I couldn't find the corresponding paragraph for apply, but I guess it is purely coincidental that currying works there.
An assignment f(args) = e with a function application to the left of
the ‘=’ operator is interpreted as f.update(args, e), i.e. the
invocation of an update function defined by f.