Good Morning everyone,
I must do an exercise of Programming, but i'm stuck!
Well, the exercise requires a function that given a list not empty of integers, return the first number with maximum number of occurrences.
For example:
mode [1;2;5;1;2;3;4;5;5;4:5;5] ==> 5
mode [2;1;2;1;1;2] ==> 2
mode [-1;2;1;2;5;-1;5;5;2] ==> 2
mode [7] ==> 7
Important: the exercise must be in functional programming
My idea is:
let rec occurences_counter xs i = match xs with
|[] -> failwith "Error"
|x :: xs when x = i -> 1 + occurences_counter xs i
|x :: xs -> occurences_counter xs i;;
In this function i'm stuck:
let rec mode (l : int list) : int = match l with
|[] -> failwith "Error"
|[x] -> x
|x::y::l when occurences_counter l x >= occurences_counter l y -> x :: mode l
|x::y::l when occurences_counter l y > occurences_counter l x -> y :: mode l;;
Thanks in advance, i'm newbie in programming and in stackoverflow
Sorry for my english
one solution : calculate first a list of couples (number , occurences).
hint : use List.assoc.
Then, loop over that list of couple to find the max occurrence and then return the number.
One suggestion:
your algorithm could be simplified if you sort the list before. This has O(N log(N)) complexity. Then measure the longest sequence of identical numbers.
This is a good strategy because you delegate the hard part of the work to a well known algorithm.
It is probably not the most beautiful code, but here is with what i came up (F#). At first i transform every element to an intermediate format. This format contains the element itself, the position of it occurrence and the amount it occurred.
type T<'a> = {
Element: 'a
Position: int
Occurred: int
}
The idea is that those Records can be added. So you can first transform every element, and then add them together. So a list like
[1;3]
will be first transformed to
[{Element=1;Position=0;Occurred=1}; {Element=3;Position=1;Occurred=1}]
By adding two together you only can add those with the same "Element". The Position with the lower number from both is taken, and Occurred is just added together. So if you for example have
{Element=3;Position=1;Occurred=2} {Element=3;Position=3;Occurred=2}
the result will be
{Element=3;Position=1;Occurred=4}
The idea that i had in mind was a Monoid. But in a real Monoid you had to come up that you also could add different Elements together. By trying some stuff out i feel that the restriction of just adding the same Element where way more easier. I created a small Module with the type. Including some helper functions for creating, adding and comparing.
module Occurred =
type T<'a> = {
Element: 'a
Position: int
Occurred: int
}
let create x pos occ = {Element=x; Position=pos; Occurred=occ}
let sameElements x y = x.Element = y.Element
let add x y =
if not <| sameElements x y then failwith "Cannot add two different Occurred"
create x.Element (min x.Position y.Position) (x.Occurred + y.Occurred)
let compareOccurredPosition x y =
let occ = compare x.Occurred y.Occurred
let pos = compare x.Position y.Position
match occ,pos with
| 0,x -> x * -1
| x,_ -> x
With this setup i now wrote two additional function. One aggregate function that first turns every element into a Occurred.T, group them by x.Element (the result is a list of list). And then it uses List.reduce on the inner list to add the Occurred with the same Element together. The result is a List that Contains only a single Occurred.T for every Element with the first Position and the amount of Occurred items.
let aggregate =
List.mapi (fun i x -> Occurred.create x i 1)
>> List.groupBy (fun occ -> occ.Element)
>> List.map (fun (x,occ) -> List.reduce Occurred.add occ)
You could use that aggregate function to now implement different aggregation logic. In your case you only wanted the one with the highest Occurrences and the lowest position. I wrote another function that did that.
let firstMostOccurred =
List.sortWith (fun x y -> (Occurred.compareOccurredPosition x y) * -1) >> List.head >> (fun x -> x.Element)
One note. Occurred.compareOccurredPosition is written that it sorts everything in ascending order. I think people expecting it in this order to go to the smallest to the biggest element by default. So by default the first element would be the element with the lowest occurrence and the biggest Position. By multiplying the result of it with -1 you turn that function into a descending sorting function. The reason why i did that is that i could use List.head. I also could use List.last to get the last element, but i felt that it would be better not to go through the whole list again just to get the last element. On top of it, you didn't wanted an Occurred.T you wanted the element itself, so i unwrap the Element to get the number.
Here is everything in action
let ll = [
[1;2;5;1;2;3;4;5;5;4;5;5]
[2;1;2;1;1;2]
[-1;2;1;2;5;-1;5;5;2]
[7]
]
ll
|> List.map aggregate
|> List.map firstMostOccurred
|> List.iter (printfn "%d")
This code will now print
5
2
2
7
It has still some rough edges like
Occurred.add throws an exception if you try to add Occurred with different Elements
List.head throws an exception for empty lists
And in both cases no code is written to handle those cases or making sure an exception will not raise.
You need to process you input list while maintaining a state, that stores the number of occurrences of each number. Basically, the state can be a map, where keys are in the domain of list elements, and values are in domain of natural numbers. If you will use Map the algorithm would be of O(NlogN) complexity. You can also use associative list (i.e., a list of type ('key,'value) list) to implement map. This will lead to quadratic complexity. Another approach is to use hash table or an array of the length equal to the size of the input domain. Both will give you a linear complexity.
After you collected the statistics, (i.e., a mapping from element to the number of its occurrences) you need to go through the set of winners, and choose the one, that was first on the list.
In OCaml the solution would look like this:
open Core_kernel.Std
let mode xs : int =
List.fold xs ~init:Int.Map.empty ~f:(fun stat x ->
Map.change stat x (function
| None -> Some 1
| Some n -> Some (n+1))) |>
Map.fold ~init:Int.Map.empty ~f:(fun ~key:x ~data:n modes ->
Map.add_multi modes ~key:n ~data:x) |>
Map.max_elt |> function
| None -> invalid_arg "mode: empty list"
| Some (_,ms) -> List.find_exn xs ~f:(List.mem ms)
The algorithm is the following:
Run through input and compute frequency of each element
Run through statistics and compute spectrum (i.e., a mapping from frequency to elements).
Get the set of elements that has the highest frequency, and find an element in the input list, that is in this set.
For example, if we take sample [1;2;5;1;2;3;4;5;5;4;5;5],
stats = {1 => 2; 2 => 2; 3 => 1; 4 => 2; 5 => 5}
mods = {1 => [3]; 2 => [1;2]; 5 => [5]}
You need to install core library to play with it. Use coretop to play with this function in the toplevel. Or corebuild to compile it, like this:
corebuild test.byte --
if the source code is stored in test.ml
Related
I need some help to do this exercise about generators in f#.
The functions
List.zip : ('a list -> 'b list -> ('a * 'b) list)
and
List.unzip : (('a * 'b) list -> 'a list * 'b list)
are inverse of each other, under the condition that they operate on lists
of the same length.
Formulate an Arbitrary for pair of lists of ints of the same length
I tried to write some code:
let length xs ys =
List.length xs = List.length ys
let samelength =
Arb.filter length Arb.from<int list>
It doesn't work, I get a type mismatch at length in samelength:
Error: type mismatch. Expecting a 'a list -> bool but given a 'a list -> 'b list -> bool. The type bool does not match the type 'a list -> bool.
Edit:
As suggested I tried to follow the outline of steps but I'm stuck.
let sizegen =
Arb.filter (fun x -> x > 0) Arb.from<int>
let listgen =
let size = sizegen
let xs = Gen.listOfLength size
let ys = Gen.listOfLength size
xs, ys
And of course I have the error type mismatch:
Error: type mistmatch. Expected to have type int but here has type Arbitrary<int>
Edit
I solved the exercise but it seems that my generator is not working when I do the test, it looks another one is invoked.
let samelength (xs, ys) =
List.length xs = List.length ys
let arbMyGen2 = Arb.filter samelength Arb.from<int list * int list>
type MyGeneratorZ =
static member arbMyGen2() =
{
new Arbitrary<int list * int list>() with
override x.Generator = arbMyGen2 |> Arb.toGen
override x.Shrinker t = Seq.empty
}
let _ = Arb.register<MyGeneratorZ>()
let pro_zip (xs: int list, ys: int list) =
(xs, ys) = List.unzip(List.zip xs ys)
do Check.Quick pro_zip
I get the error:
Error: System.ArgumentException: list1 is 1 element shorter than list2
But why? My generator should only generate two lists of the same length.
If we look at the API reference for the Arb module, and hover over the definition of filter, you'll see that the type of Arb.filter is:
pred:('a -> bool) -> a:Arbitrary<'a> -> a:Arbitrary<'a>
This means that the predicate should be a function of one parameter that returns a bool. But your length function is a function of two parameters. You want to turn it into a function of just one parameter.
Think of it this way. When you write Arb.filter length Arb.from<int list>, what you're saying is "I want to generate an arbitrary int list (just one at a time), and filter it according to the length rule." But the length rule you've written takes two lists and compares their length. If FsCheck generates just a single list of ints, what will it compare its length to? There's no second list to compare to, so the compiler can't actually turn your code into something that makes sense.
What you probably wanted to do (though there's a problem with this, which I'll get to in a minute) was generate a pair of lists, then pass it to your length predicate. I.e., you probably wanted Arb.from<int list * int list>. That will generate a pair of integer lists, completely independent from each other. Then you'll still get a type mismatch in your length function, but you just have to turn its signature from let length xs ys = to let length (xs,ys) =, e.g. have it receive a single argument that contains a pair of lists, instead of having each list as a separate argument. After those tweaks, your code looks like:
let length (xs,ys) =
List.length xs = List.length ys
let samelength =
Arb.filter length Arb.from<int list * int list>
But there are still problems with this. Specifically, if we look at the FsCheck documentation, we find this warning:
When using Gen.filter, be sure to provide a predicate with a high chance of returning true. If the predicate discards 'too many' candidates, it may cause tests to run slower, or to not terminate at all.
This applies to Arb.filter just as much as to Gen.filter, by the way. The way your code currently stands, this is a problem, because your filter will discard most pairs of lists. Since the lists are generated independently of each other, it will most often happen that they have different lengths, so your filter will return false most of the time. I'd suggest a different approach. Since you've said that this is an exercise, I won't write the code for you since you'll learn more by doing it yourself; I'll just give you an outline of the steps you'll want to take.
Generate a non-negative int n that will be the size of both lists in the pair. (For bonus points, use Gen.sized to get the "current size" of the data you should generate, and generate n as a value between 0 and size, so that your list-pair generator, like FsCheck's default list generator, will create lists that start small and slowly grow larger).
Use Gen.listOfLength n to generate both lists. (You could even do Gen.two (Gen.listOfLength n) to easily generate a pair of lists of the same size).
Don't forget to write an appropriate shrinker for a pair of lists, because the exercise wants you to generate a proper Arbitrary, and an Arbitrary that doesn't have a shrinker is not very useful in practice. You can probably do something with Arb.mapFilter here, where the mapper is id because you're already generating lists of matching length, but the filter is your length predicate. Then use Arb.fromGenShrink to turn your generator and shrinker functions into a proper Arbitrary instance.
If that outline isn't enough for you to get it working, ask another question about wherever you're stuck and I'll be glad to help out however I can.
Edit:
In your edit where you're trying to write a list generator using sizegen, you have the following code that doesn't work:
let listgen =
let size = sizegen
let xs = Gen.listOfLength size
let ys = Gen.listOfLength size
xs, ys
Here sizegen is a Gen<int> and you're wanting to extract the int parameter from it. There are several ways to do this, but the simplest is the gen { ... } computation expression that FsCheck has provided for us.
BTW, if you don't know what computation expressions are, they're some of F#'s most powerful features: they are highly complex under the hood, but they allow you to write very simple-looking code. You should bookmark https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/computation-expressions.html and https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/series/map-and-bind-and-apply-oh-my.html and plan to read them later. Don't worry if you don't understand them on your first, or second, or even fifth reading: that's fine. Just keep coming back to these two series of articles, and using computation expressions like gen or seq in practice, and eventually the concepts will become clear. And every time you read these series, you'll learn more, and get closer to that moment of enlightenment when it all "clicks" in your brain.
But back to your code. As I said, you want to use the gen { ... } computation expression. Inside a gen { ... } expression, the let! assignment will "unwrap" a Gen<Foo> object into the generated Foo, which you can then use in further code. Which is what you want to do with your size int. So we'll just wrap a gen { ... } expression around your code, and get the following:
let listgen =
gen {
let! size = sizegen
let xs = Gen.listOfLength size
let ys = Gen.listOfLength size
return (xs, ys)
}
Note that I also added a return keyword on the last line. Inside a computation expression, return has the opposite effect of let!. The let! keyword unwraps a value (the type goes from Gen<Foo> to Foo), while the return keyword wraps a value (the type goes from Foo to Gen<Foo>). So that return line takes an int list * int list and turns it into a Gen<int list * int list>. There's some very complex code going on under the hood, but at the surface level of the computation expression, you just need to think in terms of "unwrapping" and "wrapping" types to decide whether to use let! or return.
Trying to conceptualize how I would compare several values in a list to find the largest value, without using mutable variables.
For example in an imperative language I could simply store a max variable that gets updated every time the iteration finds a larger value in the list. Like such:
max = 0;
for i in list
if i > max
max = i
Now, in functional programming if i had a list, for example [1; 2; 3]
How would I get around the issue of using a max variable?
The easy answer would be to use let maxValue = List.max theList.
If you were wanting to 'roll your own' without using an explicitly mutable variable, the obvious way is to use a recursive function. Personally, I would define it like so:
let listMax theList =
let rec maxHelper remainingList maxSoFar =
match remainingList with
| [] -> maxSoFar
| h :: t ->
if h > maxSoFar then
maxHelper t h
else
maxHelper t maxSoFar
maxHelper theList (List.head theList)
Note that this implementation as presented would throw an exception with an empty input list (also, I haven't actually tested this, so there might be a slight error in there). The reason I have done it this way is that it uses tail recursion, which should mean it's roughly as efficient as a mutable solution, but keeps the complexity of the exposed function signature to the bare minimum.
Alternatively, this could also be done fairly easily with a List.fold call. E.g.
List.fold (fun (nextElem, maxSoFar) ->
if nextElem > maxSoFar then nextElem else maxSoFar) (List.head theList) theList
Same proviso about not having tested it applies to this too.
In both of the presented cases, this could be made more generic to apply to any binary operation that returns a boolean, by using another parameter that is a function which carries out said operation. E.g.
List.fold (fun (nextElem, maxSoFar) ->
if comparatorFunction nextElem maxSoFar then nextElem else maxSoFar)
(List.head theList) theList
Im trying to prepare myself for an upcoming re-exam on functional programming. One of the questions I received completelty stumped me.
We are to write a function that takes a sorted list and returns the median value. We can assume the length of the list is not 0 and that it is odd. Ok now this is pretty easy, except we are not allowed to make an explicit second pass over the list to determine its length. No problem I can just use the .length function, except we are also not allowed to use any built-in functions.
This was what I did although I did use the .length function:
let median list =
let rec helper list count =
match list with
|(x::_) when count=0 -> x
|(x::xs) -> helper xs (count-1)
helper list (list.Length/2)
How would I go about getting the length in the required way in order to work out the median?
One way would be to create a function for finding the second half of a list:
let secondHalf l =
let rec aux xs ctr =
match ctr with
| _::_::ctr' ->
match xs with
| _::xs' -> aux xs' ctr'
| [] -> failwith "should never happen!"
| _ -> xs
aux l l
you can then use this to find the median:
let sortedMedian xs = let (m::_) = secondHalf xs in m
I have a simple program (it was the second question on CCC 2012) that takes a list of numbers and determines if there is any strictly increasing/decreasing/constant sequence going on. For example:
1 2 3 4 7 8 => Increasing
5 1 -2 -100 => Decreasing
9 9 9 9 9 9 => Constant
1 2 3 4 5 0 => Nothing
I was completely blown away by how smart Haskell was when I coded this. For some reason, when I typed in the numbers interactively into stdin, in was giving me the answer before I had even finished! I thought it was a bug, but then I foolishly realized that Haskell's laziness (I think?) was taking it upon itself to decide that, after I entered 1, 2, 3, 0, no matter what came after, the result would be Nothing, and so it happily outputted that.
Unfortunately, when I changed
let readings = map (read :: (Read a, Num a) => String -> a) $ lines input
to
let readings = parse $ lines input
with parse being a safer method of reading numerical input, implemented as
maybeRead :: (Read a) => String -> Maybe a
maybeRead = fmap fst . listToMaybe . filter (null . dropWhile isSpace . snd) . reads
parse :: (Read a) => [String] -> [a]
parse xs =
let entries = map maybeRead xs
in if all isJust entries
then map fromJust entries
else []
it no longer does this.
Why?
EDIT: More code
-- | Zip together adjacent list elements as pairs in a new list.
zipPairs :: [a] -> [(a, a)]
zipPairs xs = zip (init xs) (tail xs)
-- | Return True if all elements of a given list are equal.
constant :: (Eq a) => [a] -> Bool
constant xs = all (== head xs) (tail xs)
-- | Return the order that the elements of a list are sorted in, if they form
-- a strictly increasing (Just LT), decreasing (Just GT) or constant (Just EQ)
-- sequence. If there is no pattern, return Nothing.
order :: (Ord a) => [a] -> Maybe Ordering
order xs =
let orders = map (\(x, y) -> x `compare` y) (zipPairs xs)
in if constant orders then Just (head orders) else Nothing
and then in mainI have
let readings = parse $ lines input
putStrLn $ if null readings
then "bad input"
else case order readings of
Just EQ -> "Constant"
Just LT -> "Diving"
Just GT -> "Rising"
Nothing -> "Nothing"
If all entries are justs, all isJust entries checks the entire list of entries, which means that the entire list of entries needs to be read in before parse can return.
Okay, longer explanation of why orders is lazy -- all returns False as soon as it reaches a value for which the predicate returns False. Therefore, constant returns false as soon as it hits a value in the tail that isn't equal to the head. order returns as soon as constant returns, so order is lazy.
My first suggestion is stylistic -- look at the zipWith function when calculating orders. let orders = zipWith compare xs $ tail xs should work equally well.
As far as solving your actual problem is concerned, try
order xs = let orders = zipWith (liftM2 compare) xs $ tail xs
in if isJust (head orders) && constant orders
then head orders
else Nothing
Note that you need to import Data.Monad
liftM2 compare will return Just (compare x y) when passed Just x and Just y and Nothing if either or both of its arguments are Nothing.
orders is now a [Maybe Ordering]. If orders is constant (note: (==) works on Maybes) and the first element is a Just, return the first element (which is already a Maybe Ordering). Otherwise, just return Nothing. You could do without the isJust (head orders) call, but adding it should make it return as soon as it sees a Nothing (otherwise, if you give it a list of all Nothings, it will check if every one is Nothing).
You can probably use mapMaybe from Data.Maybe. That is, swap map read with mapMaybe maybeRead. What mapMaybe does is map the function over the list, filter out the Nothings and extract all the remaining values.
The :: operator in F# always prepends elements to the list. Is there an operator that appends to the list? I'm guessing that using # operator
[1; 2; 3] # [4]
would be less efficient, than appending one element.
As others said, there is no such operator, because it wouldn't make much sense. I actually think that this is a good thing, because it makes it easier to realize that the operation will not be efficient. In practice, you shouldn't need the operator - there is usually a better way to write the same thing.
Typical scenario: I think that the typical scenario where you could think that you need to append elements to the end is so common that it may be useful to describe it.
Adding elements to the end seems necessary when you're writing a tail-recursive version of a function using the accumulator parameter. For example a (inefficient) implementation of filter function for lists would look like this:
let filter f l =
let rec filterUtil acc l =
match l with
| [] -> acc
| x::xs when f x -> filterUtil (acc # [x]) xs
| x::xs -> filterUtil acc xs
filterUtil [] l
In each step, we need to append one element to the accumulator (which stores elements to be returned as the result). This code can be easily modified to use the :: operator instead of appending elements to the end of the acc list:
let filter f l =
let rec filterUtil acc l =
match l with
| [] -> List.rev acc // (1)
| x::xs when f x -> filterUtil (x::acc) xs // (2)
| x::xs -> filterUtil acc xs
filterUtil [] l
In (2), we're now adding elements to the front of the accumulator and when the function is about to return the result, we reverse the list (1), which is a lot more efficient than appending elements one by one.
Lists in F# are singly-linked and immutable. This means consing onto the front is O(1) (create an element and have it point to an existing list), whereas snocing onto the back is O(N) (as the entire list must be replicated; you can't change the existing final pointer, you must create a whole new list).
If you do need to "append one element to the back", then e.g.
l # [42]
is the way to do it, but this is a code smell.
The cost of appending two standard lists is proportional to the length of the list on the left. In particular, the cost of
xs # [x]
is proportional to the length of xs—it is not a constant cost.
If you want a list-like abstraction with a constant-time append, you can use John Hughes's function representation, which I'll call hlist. I'll try to use OCaml syntax, which I hope is close enough to F#:
type 'a hlist = 'a list -> 'a list (* a John Hughes list *)
let empty : 'a hlist = let id xs = xs in id
let append xs ys = fun tail -> xs (ys tail)
let singleton x = fun tail -> x :: tail
let cons x xs = append (singleton x) xs
let snoc xs x = append xs (singleton x)
let to_list : 'a hlist -> 'a list = fun xs -> xs []
The idea is that you represent a list functionally as a function from "the rest of the elements" to "the final list". This works great if you are going to build up the whole list before you look at any of the elements. Otherwise you'll have to deal with the linear cost of append or use another data structure entirely.
I'm guessing that using # operator [...] would be less efficient, than appending one element.
If it is, it will be a negligible difference. Both appending a single item and concatenating a list to the end are O(n) operations. As a matter of fact I can't think of a single thing that # has to do, which a single-item append function wouldn't.
Maybe you want to use another data structure. We have double-ended queues (or short "Deques") in fsharpx. You can read more about them at http://jackfoxy.com/double-ended-queues-for-fsharp
The efficiency (or lack of) comes from iterating through the list to find the final element. So declaring a new list with [4] is going to be negligible for all but the most trivial scenarios.
Try using a double-ended queue instead of list. I recently added 4 versions of deques (Okasaki's spelling) to FSharpx.Core (Available through NuGet. Source code at FSharpx.Core.Datastructures). See my article about using dequeus Double-ended queues for F#
I've suggested to the F# team the cons operator, ::, and the active pattern discriminator be made available for other data structures with a head/tail signature.3