Applications

analyzing the stringification of a tree data structure

Submitted by metaperl on Tue, 04/11/2006 - 11:24am.

In section 8.3 of the discussion on stringifying tree structures Hudak says:

Because (++) has time complexity linear in the length of its left argument, showTree is potentially quadratic in the size of the tree.

in response to this code:


showTree (Leaf x) = show x
showTree (Branch l r) = "<" ++ showTree l ++ "|" ++ showTree r ++ ">"

So this brings up two questions:

  1. Why does (++) have time complexity linear in the length of its left argument?
  2. Why is showTree potentially quadratic in the size of the tree?

Novice Questions

Submitted by metaperl on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 4:19pm.
For a function fn (x:xs) ... what happens if it is called like this fn []?
An error
A convenient way to alias a type is how?
type String = [Char]

Todo List

Submitted by metaperl on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 9:33am.
  1. A Haskell paste page which syntax highlights Haskell code. Using paste.lisp.org is not a good idea because people don't respond to paste questions listed there

First Post: Cellular Automata Simulator

Submitted by Revision17 on Sun, 04/02/2006 - 7:16pm.

Alright, I'm new to haskell, and I just wrote a cellular automata simlator that a few people have expressed interest in seeing, so here it is:


module Main where
import Data.Bits
import Text.Printf (printf)

newtype State = State ([Bool],Int)

stateLineToString (x:xs) | x == True = 'X':(stateLineToString xs)
			 | otherwise = ' ':(stateLineToString xs)
stateLineToString [] = "|"
instance Show (State) where
	show (State (x,y)) =  printf "%04.0d:%s|" y  (stateLineToString x)


{-
hood = 3 cell neighborhood; this determines which bit of the ruleNumber we look at for the result; it's three least significant bits determine which neighborhood it is
-}
applyRule :: Int -> (Bool,Bool,Bool) -> Bool
applyRule ruleNum hood = testBit ruleNum (tripleToInt hood)

tripleToInt :: (Bool,Bool,Bool) -> Int
tripleToInt (x,y,z) = (x `trueNum` 4) + (y `trueNum` 2) + (z `trueNum` 1)
	where
	trueNum x y | x == True = y
		      | otherwise = 0



applyRuleToState :: ((Bool,Bool,Bool) -> Bool) -> State -> State --  [Bool] -> [Bool]
applyRuleToState  f (State (x,y)) = State (False:(applyRuleToList f x),(y+1))


applyRuleToList :: ((Bool,Bool,Bool) -> Bool) -> [Bool] -> [Bool]
applyRuleToList rule (a:b:c:rest) = (rule (a,b,c)):(applyRuleToList rule (b:c:rest))
applyRuleToList _ [x,y] = [x]



testState = State ((take 100 (repeat False)) ++ [True] ++ (take 100 (repeat False)),0)
test =  applyRuleToState rule30 testState


rule30 = applyRule 30
rule30All = iterate (applyRuleToState rule30) testState

rule90 = applyRule 90
rule90All = iterate (applyRuleToState rule90) testState

rulesToString :: [State] -> String
rulesToString (x:xs) = ((show x) ++ ['\n'])++(rulesToString xs)
rulesToSTring [] = ['\n']


main :: IO ()
main = putStrLn (rulesToString (take 100 rule90All))


As I'm still new there are some sloppy things with it, but it'll output a rule 90 cellular automata. With slight modification, it'll output any that use 3 cell neighborhoods.

Haskell Links

Submitted by metaperl on Sun, 04/02/2006 - 8:34am.
The body of my personal blog entry is too short. I need at least 10 words. So here they are :)
  1. Haskell type class figure

If haskellers built a web browser...

Submitted by metaperl on Sat, 04/01/2006 - 10:19pm.

It would be very much like Opera... when I use Opera, I feel like I am using something orthogonal to the internet and opposed to right down in it.

Opera goes to great pains to be elegant and correct and will not let down its hair in the name of practicality or speed. It is very beautiful and it would be nice if the internet raised its standards to opera. But that isn't going to happen.

Life is unfortunately more of a slugfest than a ballet dance. More of a play-it-by-the-ear than force-a-conclusion-by-mathematical-induction.

understanding the Haskell implementation of the least divisor function

Submitted by metaperl on Sat, 04/01/2006 - 5:55pm.

Ok, first LD(n) is the least divisor of n. It is a number, p, such
that p*a = n and a > p and p > 1.

So now to express LD(n) as a Haskell function:


ld n = ldf 2 n

Where ldf 2 n means the least divisor of n that is >= 2.

Hopefully it is understood that the Haskell expression of ld(n) is
equivalent to our initial mathematical definition.

Now, something else that is asserted and then proved:

n > 1 and n not prime IMPLIES (LD(n))^2 less than or equal to n

So then the following definition of ldf k n is offered

ld n = ldf 2 n

ldf k n | divides n k = k
        | k^2 > n     = n
        | otherwise   = ldf (k+1) n

But I do not understand why the second guard is true. Clearly it has
to do with "n > 1 and n not prime IMPLIES (LD(n))^2 <= n" but I do not
see how they relate.

HR - proof - state things [ 'tractably' , 'comprehensively']

Submitted by metaperl on Sat, 04/01/2006 - 11:33am.
I am reading p.4 of The Haskell Road and for a long time struggled with one part of a proof on that page. It was his comment about c, a divisor of n. ... there are natural numbers a and b with c = a * b, and also 1 < a and a < c. but then a divides n..." and that is what confused me. He did not directly show how it was true that a divides n just because c was the least divisor of n.

Stating things tractably:

Let's forget about my problem for a second and look at how to state things tractably. It may be true that if n is prime then that means that n is only divisible by 1 and itself. But is that the most algebraic way of stating it? Can you go from that statement you just made to anything useful? Maybe, but let's take a look at this way of stating it: n prime means that only 1 * n = n and nothing else

One other thing. Let's try this same technique for what it means for a to be divisible by b? It means that b * x = a, where x is integral.

Now what have we bought ourselves? Instead of primeness and divisibility being two concepts with no apparent relation, we see them both in terms of what it means for products involving things which are prime and things which are divisible. Both concepts are now expressed as

 E * F 
where E and F vary based on which concept we are talking about.

Why is this useful? Because at one point in my following the proof, I hit this statement: assume c = LD(n) is not prime. In other words "Assume that the least divisor of n is c and it is not prime." Now we reach the second thing:

State all implications

So let's take our statement and explore each isolated fact: First, c is the least divisor of n tell us all of this:
  • c * q = n
  • 1 * n = n
  • c > 1

    And c not prime tells us all of this:

  • 1 * c = c
  • a * b = c, where a != 1

    Now what threw me is when the author of the text said: "Then there are natural numbers a and b with c = a * b, and also 1 < a and a < c. but then a divides n..." and that is what confused me. He did not directly show how it was true that a divides n. But if you look above, we have

     c * q = n
    but also
    a * b = c
    . By substituing
    a * b
    for c, we have
     a * b * q = n
    which means that a divide n.
  • Does Java lack recursion?

    Submitted by metaperl on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 8:34pm.

    In the same article Joel Spolsky seems to imply that it is impossible to do recursion in Java.

    I find that hard to believe...

    Google outstrips the competition via Functional Programming

    Submitted by metaperl on Mon, 01/23/2006 - 8:32pm.

    In the Perils of Java Schools, Joel Spoelsky states:

    Without understanding functional programming, you can't invent MapReduce, the algorithm that makes Google so massively scalable. The terms Map and Reduce come from Lisp and functional programming. MapReduce is, in retrospect, obvious to anyone who remembers from their 6.001-equivalent programming class that purely functional programs have no side effects and are thus trivially parallelizable. The very fact that Google invented MapReduce, and Microsoft didn't, says something about why Microsoft is still playing catch up trying to get basic search features to work, while Google has moved on to the next problem: building Skynet^H^H^H^H^H^H the world's largest massively parallel supercomputer. I don't think Microsoft completely understands just how far behind they are on that wave