I'm trying to concatenate a string with a certain amount of times, but I feel like I've cheated a bit (or at least not actually understood how it's supposed to be done) by using a higher-order function:
let repeat s n =
String.replicate n s |> printfn "%s"
repeat "a" 10
Obviously gives me "aaaaaaaaaa", but how could I do this without a higher-order function? I feel like it's a very simple problem but I can't seem to wrap my head around it, the F# syntax, or way of thinking, is still troublesome for me.
If you just want a recursive solution, how about this?
let rec repeat s n =
match n with
| _ when n <= 0 -> ""
| _ -> s + (repeat s (n-1))
repeat "a" 10
or in a more "classic" style with an if-expression:
let rec repeat s n =
if n <= 0 then
""
else
s + (repeat s (n-1))
repeat "a" 10
And here's one way using list comprehension and fold, which is the go to function for recursion:
[for i in 1..10 -> "a"] |> List.fold (+) ""
Tail Recursive version
let repeat2 s n =
let rec loop acc n =
match n with
| _ when n > 0 -> loop (acc + s) (n - 1)
| _ -> acc
loop "" n
repeat "oijdfsaoijdoyasjd" 100000 // Process is terminated due to StackOverflowException.
[for i in 1..100000 -> "oijdfsaoijdoyasjd"] |> List.fold (+) "" // no stack overflow
repeat2 "oijdfsaoijdoyasjd" 100000 // no stack overflow
But prepared for massive amounts of gen2 GC and a few min. of runtime.
Related
I'm trying to create an infinite Stream in F# that contains armstrong numbers. An armstrong number is one whose cubes of its digits add up to the number. For example, 153 is an armstrong number because 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3 = 153. so far, I have created several functions to help me do so. They are:
type 'a stream = Cons of 'a * (unit -> 'a stream);;
let rec upfrom n = Cons (n, fun() -> upfrom (n+1));;
let rec toIntArray = function
| 0 -> []
| n -> n % 10 :: toIntArray (n / 10);;
let rec makearmstrong = function
| [] -> 0
| y::ys -> (y * y * y) + makearmstrong ys;;
let checkarmstrong n = n = makearmstrong(toIntArray n);;
let rec take n (Cons(x,xsf)) =
match n with
| 0 -> []
| _ -> x :: take (n-1)(xsf());;
let rec filter p (Cons (x, xsf)) =
if p x then Cons (x, fun() -> filter p (xsf()))
else filter p (xsf());;
And finally:
let armstrongs = filter (fun n -> checkarmstrong n)(upfrom 1);;
Now, when I do take 4 armstrongs;;, (or any number less than 4) this works perfectly and gives me [1;153;370;371] but if I do take 5 armstrongs;;nothing happens, it seems like the program freezes.
I believe the issue is that there are no numbers after 407 that are the sums of their cubes (see http://oeis.org/A046197), but when your code evaluates the equivalent of take 1 (Cons(407, filter checkarmstrong (upfrom 408))) it's going to force the evaluation of the tail and filter will recurse forever, never finding a matching next element. Also note that your definition of Armstrong numbers differs from, say, Wikipedia's, which states that the power the digits are raised to should be the number of digits in the number.
I have this code written for a Project Euler problem in c++:
int sum = 0;
for(int i =0; i < 1000; i++)
{
//Check if multiple of 3 but not multiple of 5 to prevent duplicate
sum += i % 3 == 0 && i % 5 != 0 ? i: 0;
//check for all multiple of 5, including those of 3
sum += i % 5 == 0 ? i: 0;
}
cout << sum;
I'm trying to learn f# and rewriting this in f#. This is what I have so far:
open System
//function to calculate the multiples
let multiple3v5 num =
num
//function to calculate sum of list items
let rec SumList xs =
match xs with
| [] -> 0
| y::ys -> y + SumList ys
let sum = Array.map multiple3v5 [|1 .. 1000|]
What I have may be complete nonsense...so help please?
Your sumList function is a good start. It already iterates (recursively) over the entire list, so you don't need to wrap it in an additional Array.map. You just need to extend your sumList so that it adds the number only when it matches the specified condition.
Here is a solution to a simplified problem - add all numbers that are divisible by 3:
open System
let rec sumList xs =
match xs with
| [] -> 0 // If the list is empty, the sum is zero
| y::ys when y % 3 = 0 ->
// If the list starts with y that is divisible by 3, then we add 'y' to the
// sum that we get by recursively processing the rest of the list
y + sumList ys
| y::ys ->
// This will only execute when y is not divisible by 3, so we just
// recursively process the rest of the list and return
/// that (without adding current value)
sumList ys
// For testing, let's sum all numbers divisble by 3 between 1 and 10.
let sum = sumList [ 1 .. 10 ]
This is the basic way of writing the function using explicit recursion. In practice, the solution by jpalmer is how I'd solve it too, but it is useful to write a few recursive functions yourself if you're learning F#.
The accumulator parameter mentioned by sashang is a more advanced way to write this. You'll need to do that if you want to run the function on large inputs (which is likely the case in Euler problem). When using accumulator parameter, the function can be written using tail recursion, so it avoids stack overflow even when processing long lists.
The idea of a accumulator-based version is that the function takes additional parameter, which represents the sum calculated so far.
let rec sumList xs sumSoFar = ...
When you call it initially, you write sumList [ ... ] 0. The recursive calls will not call y + sumList xs, but will instead add y to the accumulator and then make the recursive call sumList xs (y + sumSoFar). This way, the F# compiler can do tail-call optimization and it will translate code to a loop (similar to the C++ version).
I'm not sure if translating from an imperative language solution is a good approach to developing a functional mindset as instrument (C++ in your case) had already defined an (imperative) approach to solution, so it's better sticking to original problem outlay.
Overall tasks from Project Euler are excellent for mastering many F# facilities. For example, you may use list comprehensions like in the snippet below
// multipleOf3Or5 function definition is left for your exercise
let sumOfMultiples n =
[ for x in 1 .. n do if multipleOf3Or5 x then yield x] |> List.sum
sumOfMultiples 999
or you can a bit generalize the solution suggested by #jpalmer by exploiting laziness:
Seq.initInfinite id
|> Seq.filter multipleOf3Or5
|> Seq.takeWhile ((>) 1000)
|> Seq.sum
or you may even use this opportunity to master active patterns:
let (|DivisibleBy|_) divisior num = if num % divisor = 0 the Some(num) else None
{1..999}
|> Seq.map (fun i ->
match i with | DivisibleBy 3 i -> i | DivisibleBy 5 i -> i | _ -> 0)
|> Seq.sum
All three variations above implement a common pattern of making a sequence of members with sought property and then folding it by calculating sum.
F# has many more functions than just map - this problem suggests using filter and sum, my approach would be something like
let valid n = Left as an exercise
let r =
[1..1000]
|> List.filter valid
|> List.sum
printfn "%i" r
I didn't want to do the whole problem, but filling in the missing function shouldn't be too hard
This is how you turn a loop with a counter into a recursive function. You do this by passing an accumulator parameter to the loop function that holds the current loop count.
For example:
let rec loop acc =
if acc = 10 then
printfn "endloop"
else
printfn "%d" acc
loop (acc + 1)
loop 0
This will stop when acc is 10.
I recently started solving Project Euler problems in Scala, however when I got to problem 14, I got the StackOverflowError, so I rewrote my solution in F#, since (I am told) the F# compiler, unlike Scala's (which produces Java bytecode), translates recursive calls into loops.
My question to you therefore is, how is it possible that the code below throws the StackOverflowException after reaching some number above 113000? I think that the recursion doesn't have to be a tail recursion in order to be translated/optimized, does it?
I tried several rewrites of my code, but without success. I really don't want to have to write the code in imperative style using loops, and I don't think I could turn the len function to be tail-recursive, even if that was the problem preventing it from being optimized.
module Problem14 =
let lenMap = Dictionary<'int,'int>()
let next n =
if n % 2 = 0 then n/2
else 3*n+1
let memoize(num:int, lng:int):int =
lenMap.[num]<-lng
lng
let rec len(num:int):int =
match num with
| 1 -> 1
| _ when lenMap.ContainsKey(num) -> lenMap.[num]
| _ -> memoize(num, 1+(len (next num)))
let cand = seq{ for i in 999999 .. -1 .. 1 -> i}
let tuples = cand |> Seq.map(fun n -> (n, len(n)))
let Result = tuples |> Seq.maxBy(fun n -> snd n) |> fst
NOTE: I am aware that the code below is very far from optimal and several lines could be a lot simpler, but I am not very proficient in F# and did not bother looking up ways to simplify it and make it more elegant (yet).
Thank you.
Your current code runs without error and gets the correct result if I change all the int to int64 and append an L after every numeric literal (e.g. -1L). If the actual problem is that you're overflowing a 32-bit integer, I'm not sure why you get a StackOverflowException.
module Problem14 =
let lenMap = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<_,_>()
let next n =
if n % 2L = 0L then n/2L
else 3L*n+1L
let memoize(num, lng) =
lenMap.[num]<-lng
lng
let rec len num =
match num with
| 1L -> 1L
| _ when lenMap.ContainsKey(num) -> lenMap.[num]
| _ -> memoize(num, 1L+(len (next num)))
let cand = seq{ for i in 999999L .. -1L .. 1L -> i}
let tuples = cand |> Seq.map(fun n -> (n, len(n)))
let Result = tuples |> Seq.maxBy(fun n -> snd n) |> fst
I am new to F# and was reading about tail recursive functions and was hoping someone could give me two different implementations of a function foo - one that is tail recursive and one that isn't so that I can better understand the principle.
Start with a simple task, like mapping items from 'a to 'b in a list. We want to write a function which has the signature
val map: ('a -> 'b) -> 'a list -> 'b list
Where
map (fun x -> x * 2) [1;2;3;4;5] == [2;4;6;8;10]
Start with non-tail recursive version:
let rec map f = function
| [] -> []
| x::xs -> f x::map f xs
This isn't tail recursive because function still has work to do after making the recursive call. :: is syntactic sugar for List.Cons(f x, map f xs).
The function's non-recursive nature might be a little more obvious if I re-wrote the last line as | x::xs -> let temp = map f xs; f x::temp -- obviously its doing work after the recursive call.
Use an accumulator variable to make it tail recursive:
let map f l =
let rec loop acc = function
| [] -> List.rev acc
| x::xs -> loop (f x::acc) xs
loop [] l
Here's we're building up a new list in a variable acc. Since the list gets built up in reverse, we need to reverse the output list before giving it back to the user.
If you're in for a little mind warp, you can use continuation passing to write the code more succinctly:
let map f l =
let rec loop cont = function
| [] -> cont []
| x::xs -> loop ( fun acc -> cont (f x::acc) ) xs
loop id l
Since the call to loop and cont are the last functions called with no additional work, they're tail-recursive.
This works because the continuation cont is captured by a new continuation, which in turn is captured by another, resulting in a sort of tree-like data structure as follows:
(fun acc -> (f 1)::acc)
((fun acc -> (f 2)::acc)
((fun acc -> (f 3)::acc)
((fun acc -> (f 4)::acc)
((fun acc -> (f 5)::acc)
(id [])))))
which builds up a list in-order without requiring you to reverse it.
For what its worth, start writing functions in non-tail recursive way, they're easier to read and work with.
If you have a big list to go through, use an accumulator variable.
If you can't find a way to use an accumulator in a convenient way and you don't have any other options at your disposal, use continuations. I personally consider non-trivial, heavy use of continuations hard to read.
An attempt at a shorter explanation than in the other examples:
let rec foo n =
match n with
| 0 -> 0
| _ -> 2 + foo (n-1)
let rec bar acc n =
match n with
| 0 -> acc
| _ -> bar (acc+2) (n-1)
Here, foo is not tail-recursive, because foo has to call foo recursively in order to evaluate 2+foo(n-1) and return it.
However, bar ís tail-recursive, because bar doesn't have to use the return value of the recursive call in order to return a value. It can just let the recursively called bar return its value immediately (without returning all the way up though the calling stack). The compiler sees this and optimized this by rewriting the recursion into a loop.
Changing the last line in bar into something like | _ -> 2 + (bar (acc+2) (n-1)) would again destroy the function being tail-recursive, since 2 + leads to an action that needs to be done after the recursive call is finished.
Here is a more obvious example, compare it to what you would normally do for a factorial.
let factorial n =
let rec fact n acc =
match n with
| 0 -> acc
| _ -> fact (n-1) (acc*n)
fact n 1
This one is a bit complex, but the idea is that you have an accumulator that keeps a running tally, rather than modifying the return value.
Additionally, this style of wrapping is usually a good idea, that way your caller doesn't need to worry about seeding the accumulator (note that fact is local to the function)
I'm learning F# too.
The following are non-tail recursive and tail recursive function to calculate the fibonacci numbers.
Non-tail recursive version
let rec fib = function
| n when n < 2 -> 1
| n -> fib(n-1) + fib(n-2);;
Tail recursive version
let fib n =
let rec tfib n1 n2 = function
| 0 -> n1
| n -> tfib n2 (n2 + n1) (n - 1)
tfib 0 1 n;;
Note: since the fibanacci number could grow really fast you could replace last line tfib 0 1 n to
tfib 0I 1I n to take advantage of Numerics.BigInteger Structure in F#
Also, when testing, don't forget that indirect tail recursion (tailcall) is turned off by default when compiling in Debug mode. This can cause tailcall recursion to overflow the stack in Debug mode but not in Release mode.
I write some code to learning F#.
Here is a example:
let nextPrime list=
let rec loop n=
match n with
| _ when (list |> List.filter (fun x -> x <= ( n |> double |> sqrt |> int)) |> List.forall (fun x -> n % x <> 0)) -> n
| _ -> loop (n+1)
loop (List.max list + 1)
let rec findPrimes num=
match num with
| 1 -> [2]
| n ->
let temp = findPrimes <| n-1
(nextPrime temp ) :: temp
//find 10 primes
findPrimes 10 |> printfn "%A"
I'm very happy that it just works!
I'm totally beginner to recursion
Recursion is a wonderful thing.
I think findPrimes is not efficient.
Someone help me to refactor findPrimes to tail recursion if possible?
BTW, is there some more efficient way to find first n primes?
Regarding the first part of your question, if you want to write a recursive list building function tail-recursively you should pass the list of intermediate results as an extra parameter to the function. In your case this would be something like
let findPrimesTailRecursive num =
let rec aux acc num =
match num with
| 1 -> acc
| n -> aux ((nextPrime acc)::acc) (n-1)
aux [2] num
The recursive function aux gathers its results in an extra parameter conveniently called acc (as in acc-umulator). When you reach your ending condition, just spit out the accumulated result. I've wrapped the tail-recursive helper function in another function, so the function signature remains the same.
As you can see, the call to aux is the only, and therefore last, call to happen in the n <> 1 case. It's now tail-recursive and will compile into a while loop.
I've timed your version and mine, generating 2000 primes. My version is 16% faster, but still rather slow. For generating primes, I like to use an imperative array sieve. Not very functional, but very (very) fast.
An alternative is to use an extra continuation argument to make findPrimes tail recursive. This technique always works. It will avoid stack overflows, but probably won't make your code faster.
Also, I put your nextPrime function a little closer to the style I'd use.
let nextPrime list=
let rec loop n = if list |> List.filter (fun x -> x*x <= n)
|> List.forall (fun x -> n % x <> 0)
then n
else loop (n+1)
loop (1 + List.head list)
let rec findPrimesC num cont =
match num with
| 1 -> cont [2]
| n -> findPrimesC (n-1) (fun temp -> nextPrime temp :: temp |> cont)
let findPrimes num = findPrimesC num (fun res -> res)
findPrimes 10
As others have said, there's faster ways to generate primes.
Why not simply write:
let isPrime n =
if n<=1 then false
else
let m = int(sqrt (float(n)))
{2..m} |> Seq.forall (fun i->n%i<>0)
let findPrimes n =
{2..n} |> Seq.filter isPrime |> Seq.toList
or sieve (very fast):
let generatePrimes max=
let p = Array.create (max+1) true
let rec filter i step =
if i <= max then
p.[i] <- false
filter (i+step) step
{2..int (sqrt (float max))} |> Seq.iter (fun i->filter (i+i) i)
{2..max} |> Seq.filter (fun i->p.[i]) |> Seq.toArray
BTW, is there some more efficient way to find first n primes?
I described a fast arbitrary-size Sieve of Eratosthenes in F# here that accumulated its results into an ever-growing ResizeArray:
> let primes =
let a = ResizeArray[2]
let grow() =
let p0 = a.[a.Count-1]+1
let b = Array.create p0 true
for di in a do
let rec loop i =
if i<b.Length then
b.[i] <- false
loop(i+di)
let i0 = p0/di*di
loop(if i0<p0 then i0+di-p0 else i0-p0)
for i=0 to b.Length-1 do
if b.[i] then a.Add(p0+i)
fun n ->
while n >= a.Count do
grow()
a.[n];;
val primes : (int -> int)
I know that this is a bit late, and an answer was already accepted. However, I believe that a good step by step guide to making something tail recursive may be of interest to the OP or anyone else for that matter. Here are some tips that have certainly helped me out. I'm going to use a strait-forward example other than prime generation because, as others have stated, there are better ways to generate primes.
Consider a naive implementation of a count function that will create a list of integers counting down from some n. This version is not tail recursive so for long lists you will encounter a stack overflow exception:
let rec countDown = function
| 0 -> []
| n -> n :: countDown (n - 1)
(* ^
|... the cons operator is in the tail position
as such it is evaluated last. this drags
stack frames through subsequent recursive
calls *)
One way to fix this is to apply continuation passing style with a parameterized function:
let countDown' n =
let rec countDown n k =
match n with
| 0 -> k [] (* v--- this is continuation passing style *)
| n -> countDown (n - 1) (fun ns -> n :: k ns)
(* ^
|... the recursive call is now in tail position *)
countDown n (fun ns -> ns)
(* ^
|... and we initialize k with the identity function *)
Then, refactor this parameterized function into a specialized representation. Notice that the function countDown' is not actually counting down. This is an artifact of the way the continuation is built up when n > 0 and then evaluated when n = 0. If you have something like the first example and you can't figure out how to make it tail recursive, what I'm suggesting is that you write the second one and then try to optimize it to eliminate the function parameter k. That will certainly improve the readability. This is an optimization of the second example:
let countDown'' n =
let rec countDown n ns =
match n with
| 0 -> List.rev ns (* reverse so we are actually counting down again *)
| n -> countDown (n - 1) (n :: ns)
countDown n []