I want to generate the sequence of
1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... *
using functional programming approach in raku, in my head it's should be look like:
(1,{1/$_} ...*)[0..5]
but the the output is: 1,1,1,1,1
The idea is simple, but seems enough powerful for me to using to generate for other complex list and work with it.
Others things that i tried are using a lazy list to call inside other lazy list, it doesn't work either, because the output is a repetitive sequence: 1, 0.5, 1, 0.5 ...
my list = 0 ... *;
(1, {1/#list[$_]} ...*)[0..5]
See #wamba's wonderful answer for solutions to the question in your title. They showcase a wide range of applicable Raku constructs.
This answer focuses on Raku's sequence operator (...), and the details in the body of your question, explaining what went wrong in your attempts, and explaining some working sequences.
TL;DR
The value of the Nth term is 1 / N.
# Generator ignoring prior terms, incrementing an N stored in the generator:
{ 1 / ++$ } ... * # idiomatic
{ state $N; $N++; 1 / $N } ... * # longhand
# Generator extracting denominator from prior term and adding 1 to get N:
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/(*.denominator+1) ... * # idiomatic (#jjmerelo++)
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, {1/(.denominator+1)} ... * # longhand (#user0721090601++)
What's wrong with {1/$_}?
1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... *
What is the value of the Nth term? It's 1/N.
1, {1/$_} ...*
What is the value of the Nth term? It's 1/$_.
$_ is a generic parameter/argument/operand analogous to the English pronoun "it".
Is it set to N?
No.
So your generator (lambda/function) doesn't encode the sequence you're trying to reproduce.
What is $_ set to?
Within a function, $_ is bound either to (Any), or to an argument passed to the function.
If a function explicitly specifies its parameters (a "parameter" specifies an argument that a function expects to receive; this is distinct from the argument that a function actually ends up getting for any given call), then $_ is bound, or not bound, per that specification.
If a function does not explicitly specify its parameters -- and yours doesn't -- then $_ is bound to the argument, if any, that is passed as part of the call of the function.
For a generator function, any value(s) passed as arguments are values of preceding terms in the sequence.
Given that your generator doesn't explicitly specify its parameters, the immediately prior term, if any, is passed and bound to $_.
In the first call of your generator, when 1/$_ gets evaluated, the $_ is bound to the 1 from the first term. So the second term is 1/1, i.e. 1.
Thus the second call, producing the third term, has the same result. So you get an infinite sequence of 1s.
What's wrong with {1/#list[$_+1]}?
For your last example you presumably meant:
my #list = 0 ... *;
(1, {1/#list[$_+1]} ...*)[0..5]
In this case the first call of the generator returns 1/#list[1+1] which is 1/2 (0.5).
So the second call is 1/#list[0.5+1]. This specifies a fractional index into #list, asking for the 1.5th element. Indexes into standard Positionals are rounded down to the nearest integer. So 1.5 is rounded down to 1. And #list[1] evaluates to 1. So the value returned by the second call of the generator is back to 1.
Thus the sequence alternates between 1 and 0.5.
What arguments are passed to a generator?
Raku passes the value of zero or more prior terms in the sequence as the arguments to the generator.
How many? Well, a generator is an ordinary Raku lambda/function. Raku uses the implicit or explicit declaration of parameters to determine how many arguments to pass.
For example, in:
{42} ... * # 42 42 42 ...
the lambda doesn't declare what parameters it has. For such functions Raku presumes a signature including $_?, and thus passes the prior term, if any. (The above lambda ignores it.)
Which arguments do you need/want your generator to be passed?
One could argue that, for the sequence you're aiming to generate, you don't need/want to pass any of the prior terms. Because, arguably, none of them really matter.
From this perspective all that matters is that the Nth term computes 1/N. That is, its value is independent of the values of prior terms and just dependent on counting the number of calls.
State solutions such as {1/++$}
One way to compute this is something like:
{ state $N; $N++; 1/$N } ... *
The lambda ignores the previous term. The net result is just the desired 1 1/2 1/3 ....
(Except that you'll have to fiddle with the stringification because by default it'll use gist which will turn the 1/3 into 0.333333 or similar.)
Or, more succinctly/idiomatically:
{ 1 / ++$ } ... *
(An anonymous $ in a statement/expression is a simultaneous declaration and use of an anonymous state scalar variable.)
Solutions using the prior term
As #user0721090601++ notes in a comment below, one can write a generator that makes use of the prior value:
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, {1/(.denominator+1)} ... *
For a generator that doesn't explicitly specify its parameters, Raku passes the value of the prior term in the sequence as the argument, binding it to the "it" argument $_.
And given that there's no explicit invocant for .denominator, Raku presumes you mean to call the method on $_.
As #jjmerelo++ notes, an idiomatic way to express many lambdas is to use the explicit pronoun "whatever" instead of "it" (implicit or explicit) to form a WhateverCode lambda:
1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/(*.denominator+1) ... *
You drop the braces for this form, which is one of its advantages. (You can also use multiple "whatevers" in a single expression rather than just one "it", another part of this construct's charm.)
This construct typically takes some getting used to; perhaps the biggest hurdle is that a * must be combined with a "WhateverCodeable" operator/function for it to form a WhateverCode lambda.
TIMTOWTDI
routine map
(1..*).map: 1/*
List repetition operator xx
1/++$ xx *
The cross metaoperator, X or the zip metaoperator Z
1 X/ 1..*
1 xx * Z/ 1..*
(Control flow) control flow gather take
gather for 1..* { take 1/$_ }
(Seq) method from-loop
Seq.from-loop: { 1/++$ }
(Operators) infix ...
1, 1/(1+1/*) ... *
{1/++$} ... *
Related
I have written an optimization problem in pyomo and need a constraint, which contains a summation that has a variable length:
u_i_t[i, t]*T_min_run - sum (tnewnew in (t-T_min_run+1)..t-1) u_i_t[i,tnewnew] <= sum (tnew in t..(t+T_min_run-1)) u_i_t[i,tnew]
T is my actual timeline and N my machines
usually I iterate over t, but I need to guarantee the machines are turned on for certain amount of time.
def HP_on_rule(model, i, t):
return model.u_i_t[i, t]*T_min_run - sum(model.u_i_t[i, tnewnew] for tnewnew in range((t-T_min_run+1), (t-1))) <= sum(model.u_i_t[i, tnew] for tnew in range(t, (t+T_min_run-1)))
model.HP_on_rule = Constraint(N, rule=HP_on_rule)
I hope you can provide me with the correct formulation in pyomo/python.
The problem is that t is a running variable and I do not know how to implement this in Python. tnew is only a help variable. E.g. t=6 (variable), T_min_run=3 (constant) and u_i_t is binary [00001111100000...] then I get:
1*3 - 1 <= 3
As I said, I do not know how to implement this in my code and the current version is not running.
TypeError: HP_on_rule() missing 1 required positional argument: 't'
It seems like you didn't provide all your arguments to the function rule.
Since t is a parameter of your function, I assume that it corresponds to an element of set T (your timeline).
Then, your last line of your code example should include not only the set N, but also the set T. Try this:
model.HP_on_rule = Constraint(N, T, rule=HP_on_rule)
Please note: Building a Constraint with a "for each" part, you must provide the Pyomo Sets that you want to iterate over at the begining of the call for Constraint construction. As a rule of thumb, your constraint rule function should have 1 more argument than the number of Pyomo Sets specified in the Constraint initilization line.
There are both placeholder variables and topic variables in Perl 6. For example, the following two statements are the same
say ( $_ * 2 for 3, 9 ); # use topic variables
say ( { $^i * 2 } for 3, 9 ); # use placeholder variables
It seems to me, the only benefit one gets from topic variables is saving some keyboard strokes.
My question is: Is there a use case, where a topic variable can be much more convenient than placeholder variables?
The topic can have method calls on it:
say ( .rand for 3,9);
Compared to a placeholder:
say ( {$^i.rand} for 3,9);
Saves on typing a variable name and the curly braces for the block.
Also the topic variable is the whole point of the given block to my understanding:
my #anArrayWithALongName=[1,2,3];
#anArrayWithALongName[1].say;
#anArrayWithALongName[1].sqrt;
#OR
given #anArrayWithALongName[1] {
.say;
.sqrt;
}
That's a lot less typing when there are a lot of operations on the same variable.
There are several topic variables, one for each sigil: $, #, %_ and even &_ (yep, routines are first-class citizens in Perl6). To a certain point, you can also use Whatever (*) and create a WhateverCode in a expression, saving even more typing (look, ma! No curly braces!).
You can use the array form for several variables:
my &block = { sum #_ }; say block( 2,3 )
But the main problem they have is that they are single variables, unable to reflect the complexity of block calls. The code above can be rewritten using placeholder variables like this:
my &block = { $^a + $^b }; say block( 2,3 )
But imagine you've got some non-commutative thing in your hands. Like here:
my &block = { #_[1] %% #_[0] }; say block( 3, 9 )
That becomes clumsy and less expressive than
my &block = { $^divi %% $^divd }; say block( 3, 9 ); # OUTPUT: «True»
The trick being here that the placeholder variables get assigned in alphabetical order, with divd being before divi, and divi being short for divisible and divd for divided (which you chould have used if you wanted).
At the end of the day, there are many ways to do it. You can use whichever you want.
I had a task where I wanted to find the closest string to a target (so, edit distance) without generating them all at the same time. I figured I'd use the high water mark technique (low, I guess) while initializing the closest edit distance to Inf so that any edit distance is closer:
use Text::Levenshtein;
my #strings = < Amelia Fred Barney Gilligan >;
for #strings {
put "$_ is closest so far: { longest( 'Camelia', $_ ) }";
}
sub longest ( Str:D $target, Str:D $string ) {
state Int $closest-so-far = Inf;
state Str:D $closest-string = '';
if distance( $target, $string ) < $closest-so-far {
$closest-so-far = $string.chars;
$closest-string = $string;
return True;
}
return False;
}
However, Inf is a Num so I can't do that:
Type check failed in assignment to $closest-so-far; expected Int but got Num (Inf)
I could make the constraint a Num and coerce to that:
state Num $closest-so-far = Inf;
...
$closest-so-far = $string.chars.Num;
However, this seems quite unnatural. And, since Num and Int aren't related, I can't have a constraint like Int(Num). I only really care about this for the first value. It's easy to set that to something sufficiently high (such as the length of the longest string), but I wanted something more pure.
Is there something I'm missing? I would have thought that any numbery thing could have a special value that was greater (or less than) all the other values. Polymorphism and all that.
{new intro that's hopefully better than the unhelpful/misleading original one}
#CarlMäsak, in a comment he wrote below this answer after my first version of it:
Last time I talked to Larry about this {in 2014}, his rationale seemed to be that ... Inf should work for all of Int, Num and Str
(The first version of my answer began with a "recollection" that I've concluded was at least unhelpful and plausibly an entirely false memory.)
In my research in response to Carl's comment, I did find one related gem in #perl6-dev in 2016 when Larry wrote:
then our policy could be, if you want an Int that supports ±Inf and NaN, use Rat instead
in other words, don't make Rat consistent with Int, make it consistent with Num
Larry wrote this post 6.c. I don't recall seeing anything like it discussed for 6.d.
{and now back to the rest of my first answer}
Num in P6 implements the IEEE 754 floating point number type. Per the IEEE spec this type must support several concrete values that are reserved to stand in for abstract concepts, including the concept of positive infinity. P6 binds the corresponding concrete value to the term Inf.
Given that this concrete value denoting infinity already existed, it became a language wide general purpose concrete value denoting infinity for cases that don't involve floating point numbers such as conveying infinity in string and list functions.
The solution to your problem that I propose below is to use a where clause via a subset.
A where clause allows one to specify run-time assignment/binding "typechecks". I quote "typecheck" because it's the most powerful form of check possible -- it's computationally universal and literally checks the actual run-time value (rather than a statically typed view of what that value can be). This means they're slower and run-time, not compile-time, but it also makes them way more powerful (not to mention way easier to express) than even dependent types which are a relatively cutting edge feature that those who are into advanced statically type-checked languages tend to claim as only available in their own world1 and which are intended to "prevent bugs by allowing extremely expressive types" (but good luck with figuring out how to express them... ;)).
A subset declaration can include a where clause. This allows you to name the check and use it as a named type constraint.
So, you can use these two features to get what you want:
subset Int-or-Inf where Int:D | Inf;
Now just use that subset as a type:
my Int-or-Inf $foo; # ($foo contains `Int-or-Inf` type object)
$foo = 99999999999; # works
$foo = Inf; # works
$foo = Int-or-Inf; # works
$foo = Int; # typecheck failure
$foo = 'a'; # typecheck failure
1. See Does Perl 6 support dependent types? and it seems the rough consensus is no.
I am new to Z notation,
Lets say I have a function f defined as X |--> Y ,
where X is string and Y is number.
How can I get highest Y value in this function? Does 'loop' exist in formal method so I can solve it using loop?
I know there is recursion in Z notation, but based on the material provided, I only found it apply in multiset or bag, can it apply in function?
Any extra reference application of 'loop' or recursion application will be appreciated. Sorry for my English.
You can just use the predefined function max that takes a set of integers as input and returns the maximum number. The input values here are the range (the set of all values) of the function:
max(ran(f))
Please note that the maximum is not defined for empty sets.
Regarding your question about recursion or loops: You can actually define a function recursively but I think your question aims more at a way to compute something. This is not easily expressed in Z and this is IMO a good thing because it is used for specifications and it is not a programming language. Even if there wouldn't be a max or ran function, you could still specify the number m you are looking for by:
\exists s:String # (s,m):f /\
\forall s2:String, i2:Z # (s2,i2):f ==> i2 <= m
("m is a value of f, belonging to an s and all other values i2 of f are smaller or equal")
After getting used to the style it is usually far better to understand than any programming language (except your are trying to describe an algorithm itself and not its expected outcome).#
Just for reference: An example of a recursive definition (let's call it rmax) for the maximum would consist of a base case:
\forall e:Z # rmax({e}) = e
and a recursive case:
\forall e:Z; S:\pow(Z) #
S \noteq {} \land
rmax({e} \cup S) = \IF e > rmax(S) \THEN e \ELSE rmax(S)
But note that this is still not a "computation rule" of rmax because e in the second rule can be an arbitrary element of S. In more complex scenarios it might even be not obvious that the defined relation is a function at all because depending on the chosen elements different results could be computed.
There are a few implementations of a hash or dictionary class in the Mathworks File Exchange repository. All that I have looked at use parentheses overloading for key referencing, e.g.
d = Dict;
d('foo') = 'bar';
y = d('foo');
which seems a reasonable interface. It would be preferable, though, if you want to easily have dictionaries which contain other dictionaries, to use braces {} instead of parentheses, as this allows you to get around MATLAB's (arbitrary, it seems) syntax limitation that multiple parentheses are not allowed but multiple braces are allowed, i.e.
t{1}{2}{3} % is legal MATLAB
t(1)(2)(3) % is not legal MATLAB
So if you want to easily be able to nest dictionaries within dictionaries,
dict{'key1'}{'key2'}{'key3'}
as is a common idiom in Perl and is possible and frequently useful in other languages including Python, then unless you want to use n-1 intermediate variables to extract a dictionary entry n layers deep, this seems a good choice. And it would seem easy to rewrite the class's subsref and subsasgn operations to do the same thing for {} as they previously did for (), and everything should work.
Except it doesn't when I try it.
Here's my code. (I've reduced it to a minimal case. No actual dictionary is implemented here, each object has one key and one value, but this is enough to demonstrate the problem.)
classdef TestBraces < handle
properties
% not a full hash table implementation, obviously
key
value
end
methods(Access = public)
function val = subsref(obj, ref)
% Re-implement dot referencing for methods.
if strcmp(ref(1).type, '.')
% User trying to access a method
% Methods access
if ismember(ref(1).subs, methods(obj))
if length(ref) > 1
% Call with args
val = obj.(ref(1).subs)(ref(2).subs{:});
else
% No args
val = obj.(ref.subs);
end
return;
end
% User trying to access something else.
error(['Reference to non-existant property or method ''' ref.subs '''']);
end
switch ref.type
case '()'
error('() indexing not supported.');
case '{}'
theKey = ref.subs{1};
if isequal(obj.key, theKey)
val = obj.value;
else
error('key %s not found', theKey);
end
otherwise
error('Should never happen')
end
end
function obj = subsasgn(obj, ref, value)
%Dict/SUBSASGN Subscript assignment for Dict objects.
%
% See also: Dict
%
if ~strcmp(ref.type,'{}')
error('() and dot indexing for assignment not supported.');
end
% Vectorized calls not supported
if length(ref.subs) > 1
error('Dict only supports storing key/value pairs one at a time.');
end
theKey = ref.subs{1};
obj.key = theKey;
obj.value = value;
end % subsasgn
end
end
Using this code, I can assign as expected:
t = TestBraces;
t{'foo'} = 'bar'
(And it is clear that the assignment work from the default display output for t.) So subsasgn appears to work correctly.
But I can't retrieve the value (subsref doesn't work):
t{'foo'}
??? Error using ==> subsref
Too many output arguments.
The error message makes no sense to me, and a breakpoint at the first executable line of my subsref handler is never hit, so at least superficially this looks like a MATLAB issue, not a bug in my code.
Clearly string arguments to () parenthesis subscripts are allowed, since this works fine if you change the code to work with () instead of {}. (Except then you can't nest subscript operations, which is the object of the exercise.)
Either insight into what I'm doing wrong in my code, any limitations that make what I'm doing unfeasible, or alternative implementations of nested dictionaries would be appreciated.
Short answer, add this method to your class:
function n = numel(obj, varargin)
n = 1;
end
EDIT: The long answer.
Despite the way that subsref's function signature appears in the documentation, it's actually a varargout function - it can produce a variable number of output arguments. Both brace and dot indexing can produce multiple outputs, as shown here:
>> c = {1,2,3,4,5};
>> [a,b,c] = c{[1 3 5]}
a =
1
b =
3
c =
5
The number of outputs expected from subsref is determined based on the size of the indexing array. In this case, the indexing array is size 3, so there's three outputs.
Now, look again at:
t{'foo'}
What's the size of the indexing array? Also 3. MATLAB doesn't care that you intend to interpret this as a string instead of an array. It just sees that the input is size 3 and your subsref can only output 1 thing at a time. So, the arguments mismatch. Fortunately, we can correct things by changing the way that MATLAB determines how many outputs are expected by overloading numel. Quoted from the doc link:
It is important to note the significance of numel with regards to the
overloaded subsref and subsasgn functions. In the case of the
overloaded subsref function for brace and dot indexing (as described
in the last paragraph), numel is used to compute the number of
expected outputs (nargout) returned from subsref. For the overloaded
subsasgn function, numel is used to compute the number of expected
inputs (nargin) to be assigned using subsasgn. The nargin value for
the overloaded subsasgn function is the value returned by numel plus 2
(one for the variable being assigned to, and one for the structure
array of subscripts).
As a class designer, you must ensure that the value of n returned by
the built-in numel function is consistent with the class design for
that object. If n is different from either the nargout for the
overloaded subsref function or the nargin for the overloaded subsasgn
function, then you need to overload numel to return a value of n that
is consistent with the class' subsref and subsasgn functions.
Otherwise, MATLAB produces errors when calling these functions.
And there you have it.