Category Archives: Haskell

Exercise 6.2

Posted on by

You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)

f :: a -> b
f' :: a -> m a
unit :: a -> m a

f' * g' = (bind f') . (bind g')

bind f xs = concat (map f xs)

bind unit xs = concat (map unit xs)

unit x = [x]

bind unit xs
= concat (map unit xs)
= concat (map unit [x1, x2, ...])
= concat [unit x1, unit x2, ...]
= concat [[x1], [x2], ...]
= [x1, x2, ...]
= xs

f' = lift f

lift f = unit . f

unit (or return) can directly act on an ordinary value only, but not on a monadic value. To act on a monadic value, you need to bind it.

How come we do not need to lift return?

f :: a -> b

liftM :: Monad m => (a -> b) -> m a -> m b

return :: a -> m a

(liftM f) :: m a -> m b

(>>=) :: Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b

lifeM cannot be applied to return at all.

unit (or return) is neither a pure function nor a monadic function. Instead, it is an half-monadic function, meaning that while its input is an ordinary value, its output is a monadic value.

(bind return xs) -> ys

(bind return) applies to xs.

return applies to x.

liftM is merely fmap implemented with (>>=) and return …

— Wikibooks on Haskell/Understanding monads
 

— Me@2016-01-26 03:05:50 PM

2016.01.30 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Exercise 6a (Corrected version)

Posted on by

You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)

Show that f' * unit = unit * f' = bind f'

——————————

f :: a -> b
f' :: a -> m a
unit :: a -> m a

lift f = unit . f
f' = lift f

The lift function in this tutorial is not the same as the liftM in Haskell. So you should use lift (but not liftM) with bind.

— Me@2015-10-13 11:59:53 AM

(f' * g') xs
= ((bind f') . (bind g')) xs

bind f' xs = concat (map f' xs)
unit x = [x]

bind unit xs
= concat (map unit xs)
= concat (map unit [x1, x2, ...])
= concat [unit x1, unit x2, ...]
= concat [[x1], [x2], ...]
= [x1, x2, ...]
= xs

(f' * unit) (x:xs)
= bind f' (bind unit (x:xs))
= bind f' (concat (map unit (x:xs)))
= bind f' (concat (map unit [x1, x2, ...]))
= bind f' (concat [[x1], [x2], ...])
= bind f' [x1, x2, ...]
= concat (map f' [x1, x2, ...])
= concat [f' x1, f' x2, ...]
= concat [(unit . f) x1, (unit . f) x2, ...]
= concat [(unit (f x1)), (unit (f x2)), ...]
= concat [[f x1], [f x2], ...]
= [f x1, f x2, ...]

(unit * f') (x:xs)
= ((bind unit) . (bind f')) (x:xs)
= bind unit (bind f' (x:xs))
= bind unit (concat (map f' (x:xs)))
= bind unit (concat (map f' [x1, x2, ...]))
= bind unit (concat [f' x1, f' x2, ...])
= bind unit (concat [(unit . f)  x1, (unit . f) x2, ...])
= bind unit (concat [(unit (f x1)), (unit (f x2)), ...])
= bind unit (concat [[f x1], [f x2], ...])
= bind unit [f x1, f x2, ...]
= concat (map unit [f x1, f x2, ...])
= concat [[f x1], [f x2], ...]
= [f x1, f x2, ...]

— Me@2015-10-15 07:19:18 AM

If we use the identity bind unit xs = xs, the proof will be much shorter.

(f' * unit) (x:xs)
= ((bind f') . (bind unit)) (x:xs)
= bind f' (bind unit (x:xs))
= bind f' (x:xs)

(unit * f') (x:xs)
= ((bind unit) . (bind f')) (x:xs)
= bind unit (bind f' (x:xs))
= bind f' (x:xs)

— Me@2015-10-15 11:45:44 AM

2015.10.15 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Exercise 6a

Posted on by

You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)

Show that f * unit = unit * f

——————————

(f * g) (x, xs)
= ((bind f) . (bind g)) (x, xs)

bind f x = concat (map f x)

(f * unit) (x:xs)
= bind f (bind unit (x:xs))
= bind f (concat (map unit (x:xs)))
= bind f (concat (map unit [x1, x2, x3, ...]))
= bind f (concat ([[x1], [x2], [x3], ...]))
= bind f [x1, x2, x3, ...]
= concat (map f [x1, x2, x3, ...])
= concat [f x1, f x2, f x3, ...]
= [f x1, f x2, f x3, ...]

(unit * f) (x:xs)
= ((bind unit) . (bind f)) (x:xs)
= bind unit (bind f (x:xs))
= bind unit (concat (map f (x:xs)))
= bind unit (concat (map f [x1, x2, ...]))
= bind unit (concat [f x1, f x2, ...])
= bind unit [f x1, f x2, ...]
= concat (map unit [f x1, f x2, ...])
= concat [[f x1], [f x2], ...]
= [f x1, f x2, ...]

— Me@2015.07.20 09:00 PM

2015.10.06 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Exercise 3.2

Posted on by

You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)

Show that lift f * lift g = lift (f.g)

——————————

The meaning of f' * g' should be (bind f') . (bind g') instead.

f' * g' = (bind f') . (bind g')
lift f = unit . f
f' = lift f

(lift f * lift g) (x, xs)
= (bind (lift f)) . (bind (lift g)) (x, xs)
= bind (lift f) (bind (lift g) (x, xs))
= bind (lift f) (gx, xs++gs)
  where
    (gx, gs) = (lift g) x

= bind (lift f) (gx, xs++gs)
  where
    (gx, gs) = (g x, "")

= bind (lift f) (g x, xs)

= (fx, xs++fs)
  where
    (fx, fs) = (lift f) gx
 
= (fx, xs++fs)
  where
    (fx, fs) = (f gx, "")

= (fx, xs)
  where
    (fx, fs) = (f (g x), "")

= (f (g x), xs)

bind f' (gx,gs) = (fx, gs++fs)
                  where
                    (fx,fs) = f' gx

bind (lift (f.g)) (x, xs)
= (hx, xs++hs)
  where
    (hx, hs) = (lift (f.g)) x

= (hx, xs++hs)
  where
    (hx, hs) = ((f.g) x, "")

= ((f (g x)), xs)

— Me@2015.07.19 11:04 PM

2015.10.02 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Exercise Three

Posted on by

You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)

Show that lift f * lift g = lift (f.g)

——————————

f' * g' = bind f' . g'
lift f = unit . f
f' = lift f

(lift f * lift g) (x, xs)
= bind (lift f . lift g) (x, xs)
= (hx, xs++hs)
  where
    (hx, hs) = lh x
    lh x = (f' . g') x
    f' = lift f
    g' = lift g

This line does not work, since f' cannot be applied to (g' x), for the data types are not compatible:

f' :: Float -> (Float, String)

g' :: Float -> (Float, String)

(g' x) :: (Float, String)

The meaning of f' * g' should be bind f' . (bind g') instead.

— Me@2015-09-27 10:24:54 PM

2015.09.27 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

flatMap()

Posted on by

Functors, Applicatives, and Monads

skybrian 70 days ago

If functional languages had called them the Mappable, Applicable, and FlatMappable interfaces, and used map(), apply(), and flatMap() instead of operators, it would have avoided a lot of confusion.

— Hacker News

bind ~ flatMap

— Me@2015-07-22 06:30:25 PM

2015.09.23 Wednesday ACHK

Monad

Posted on by

Monads in Haskell can be thought of as composable computation descriptions. The essence of monad is thus separation of composition timeline from the composed computation’s execution timeline, as well as the ability of computation to implicitly carry extra data, as pertaining to the computation itself, in addition to its one (hence the name) output, that it will produce when run (or queried, or called upon). This lends monads to supplementing pure calculations with features like I/O, common environment or state, etc.

— Haskell Official Wiki

2015.09.21 Monday ACHK

Folding an infinite list

Posted on by

One big difference is that right folds work on infinite lists, whereas left ones don’t! To put it plainly, if you take an infinite list at some point and you fold it up from the right, you’ll eventually reach the beginning of the list. However, if you take an infinite list at a point and you try to fold it up from the left, you’ll never reach an end!

— Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!

Note that the key difference between a left and a right fold is not the order in which the list is traversed, which is always from left to right, but rather how the resulting function applications are nested.

  • With foldr, they are nested on “the inside”

    foldr f y (x:xs) = f x (foldr f y xs)

    Here, the first iteration will result in the outermost application of f. Thus, f has the opportunity to be lazy so that the second argument is either not always evaluated, or it can produce some part of a data structure without forcing its second argument.

  • With foldl, they are nested on “the outside”

    foldl f y (x:xs) = foldl f (f x y) xs

    Here, we can’t evaluate anything until we have reached the outermost application of f, which we will never reach in the case of an infinite list, regardless of whether f is strict or not.

— edited Oct 24 ’11 at 12:21, answered Sep 13 ’11 at 5:17, hammar

— Stack Overflow

2015.08.23 Sunday by ACHK

Exercise One

Posted on by

You Could Have Invented Monads! (And Maybe You Already Have.)

Write the function bind.

——————————

bind f' (gx,gs) = (fx, gs++fs)
                  where
                    (fx,fs) = f' gx

The meaning of bind here:

1. apply f' to the last result data gx, generating the new data fx; and

2. concat the last debug string, gs, to the string generating by f', fs.

— Me@2015.07.19 10:25 PM

2015.07.27 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Haskell/Understanding monads/IO, Exercises 2

Posted on by

Haskell

Generalize the bunny invasion example in the list monad chapter for an arbitrary number of generations.

— Wikibooks

——————————

import Control.Monad

generation = replicate 3
gen n = foldr (<=<) return (replicate n generation)

---

["bunny"] >>= gen n

Additional notes:

m >>= g ≡ join (fmap g m)
xs >>= f = concat (map f xs) -- for the List Monad

---

f >=> g
= (\x -> f x) >>= g
= concat (map g (\x -> f x))

---

xs >>= f >=> g
xs >>= (f >=> g)
xs >>= ((\x -> f x) >>= g)
(xs >>= f) >>= g

xs >>= (return >=> g >=> h)
((xs >>= return) >>= g) >>= h

---

xs >>= return
= concat (map f xs)
= concat (map return xs)
= concat (map return ["bunny"])
= concat ([return "bunny"])
= concat ([["bunny"]])
= ["bunny"]

---

-- foldr f acc []     = acc
-- foldr f acc (x:xs) = f x (foldr f acc xs)

-- foldr (<=<) return (replicate n generation)

foldr (<=<) return [h,g]
= (<=<) h (foldr (<=<) return [g])
= (<=<) h ((<=<) g (foldr return []))
= (<=<) h ((<=<) g return)
= h <=< g <=< return

--- 

compose :: [b -> [b]] -> b -> [b]
compose = foldr (<=<) return

foldr (<=<) return (replicate n generation)
= compose (replicate n generation)

— Me@2015-07-08 11:29:40 PM

2015.07.15 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Euler problem 30

Posted on by

Haskell

Surprisingly there are only three numbers that can be written as the sum of fourth powers of their digits:

1634 = 1^4 + 6^4 + 3^4 + 4^4
8208 = 8^4 + 2^4 + 0^4 + 8^4
9474 = 9^4 + 4^4 + 7^4 + 4^4

As 1 = 1^4 is not a sum it is not included.

The sum of these numbers is 1634 + 8208 + 9474 = 19316.

Find the sum of all the numbers that can be written as the sum of fifth powers of their digits. 

——————————

sum_5th_powers n = sum $ map ((^5) . digitToInt) (show n)

-- sum_5th_powers 999999 == 354294
-- sum_5th_powers 9999999 == 413343

For a number having more than 6 digits, the fifth powers of its digits cannot be the number itself. So we should consider only numbers with less than 7 digits.

-- sum_5th_powers ______ <= 354294

For the numbers not greater than 354294, the number whose sum_5th_powers can represent the largest number is …

When 2 –> 1, in exchange for 4 –> 9, we earn — we get 354199;
When 4 –> 3, in exchange for 1 –> 9, we earn — we get 353999;
When 5 –> 4, in exchange for 3 –> 9, we earn — we get 349999;
When 3 –> 2, in exchange for 4 –> 9, we earn — we get 299999.

So the maximum number sum_5th_powers can represent is …

-- sum_5th_powers 299999 == 295277

-- 295277
-- 199999

-- sum_5th_powers 199999 == 295246

p30 = [n | n <- [10..m], n == sum_5th_powers n]
    where m = 295246

——————————

— Me@2015-07-06 08:42:07 PM

2015.07.07 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Euler problem 27.2

Posted on by

Haskell

——————————

problem_27 = -(2*a-1)*(a^2-a+41)
    where n = 1000
          m = head $ filter (\x -> x^2 - x + 41 > n) [1..]
          a = m - 1 

This is the “official” Haskell solution to Euler problem 27.

This solution is incomprehensible. The following hints are as far as I can get.

Prerequisite considerations:

b must be a prime number, since x^2 + a*x + b must be a prime number when n=0.

a = m - 1 is a choice of the prime number b (in x^2 + a*x + b) just(?) smaller than 1000.


a == 32

(\x -> x^2 – x + 41) 31 == 971

Why not the prime number 997?

— Me@2015.06.14 08:53 AM

It is because 997 is not a prime number generated by the formula x^2 - x + 41.

— Me@2015-06-30 11:07:53 AM

map (\x -> x^2 - x + 41) [0..40]

is for generating 41 primes with the greatest Euler’s lucky number 41.

— Me@2015.06.14 08:34 AM

2015.07.01 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Euler problem 27

Posted on by

Haskell

------------------------------

primes = 2 : filter (null . tail . primeFactors) [3,5..]

primeFactors n = factor n primes
                 where
                   factor n (p:ps)
                       | p*p > n = [n]
                       | n `mod` p == 0 = p : factor (n `div` p) (p:ps)
                       | otherwise = factor n ps

list_max (x:xs) = lmf x xs
    where
      lmf x []                    = x
      lmf x xs | (x >= (head xs)) = lmf x (tail xs)
               | otherwise        = lmf (head xs) (tail xs)

elemInd y [] = -1
elemInd y (x:xs) = ei 0 y (x:xs)
                    where
                      ei n y (x:xs)
                          | (x == y)  = n
                          | (null xs) = -1
                          | otherwise = ei (n+1) y xs
                                   

b_list = takeWhile (<= 1000) primes

isPrime x | x <= 1    = False
          | otherwise = null $ tail (primeFactors x)

cPrimeLen [a, b] = [m, a, b]
    where m = length $ takeWhile (== True) $ map (isPrime . (\n -> n^2 + a*n + b)) [0..]

p27_list = [cPrimeLen [a, b] | a <- [-n..n], b <- b_list]    where n = 1000

p27_n = map head p27_list

p27 = p27_list !! (elemInd (list_max p27_n) p27_n)

-- 71, a == -61, b == 971

------------------------------

— Me@2015-06-19 10:01:22 PM

2015.06.20 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Euler problem 26

Posted on by

Haskell

——————————

rems n d xs
    | (r == 0)    = xs ++ [0]
    | (elem r xs) = xs ++ [r] ++ [-1]
    | otherwise   = (rems (10*r) d (xs ++ [r]))
    where r = n `rem` d

remainders n d = rems n d []

recur_cyc (x:xs)
    | (elem 0 ys)          = 0
    | (not (elem (-1) ys)) = -2       
    | (not (elem x xs))    = recur_cyc xs                         
    | otherwise            = (length ys) - 2
    where ys = (x:xs)

elemInd y [] = -1
elemInd y (x:xs) = ei 0 y (x:xs)
                    where
                      ei n y (x:xs)
                          | (x == y)  = n
                          | (null xs) = -1
                          | otherwise = ei (n+1) y xs                                    

list_max [x] = x
list_max (x:xs) = max x $ list_max xs

recur_list = map (\x -> (recur_cyc (remainders 1 x))) [1..1000]

p26 = 1 + (elemInd (list_max recur_list) recur_list)

-- 983

——————————

— Me@2015-06-05 03:25:44 PM

2015.06.05 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Euler problem 24

Posted on by

Haskell

------------------------------

deleteNth n xs | n>0 = take (n-1) xs ++ drop n xs

removeItem x xs = filter (/= x) xs

sub_lexico x [] = [[]]

sub_lexico x xs = map (x:) (lexico (removeItem x xs))

merge_sub_lexico [] = []

merge_sub_lexico (x:xs) = x ++ (merge_sub_lexico xs)

lexico [] = [[]]

lexico xs = (merge_sub_lexico (map (\x -> (sub_lexico x xs)) xs))

p24 = (lexico [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]) !! (1000000 - 1)

------------------------------

— Me@2015-05-27 12:09:33 PM

2015.05.27 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Learn Physics by Programming in Haskell

Posted on by

Learning functional programming and partially applying functions to other functions and such helped me understand tensors a lot better, since that’s basically what contraction is doing. It’s nice to see that the approach can be taken further.

— Snuggly_Person

I also think Haskell and some similar languages (especially Idris) have a great conceptual synergy with physics.

In physics too we strive to express things in ways that strip out extraneous details as much as possible. Haskell really embraces this concept in the sense that you write functions essentially by writing equations. You don’t describe all the mechanical steps to produce an output, you just write down the ‘invariant content’ of the function.

— BlackBrane

2015.03.29 Sunday ACHK

Functional programming 6.3

Posted on by

Just because a functional language is functional ([maybe] even completely pure like Haskell!), it doesn’t mean that programs written in that language must be pure when [run].

Haskell’s approach, for example, when dealing with side-effects, can be explained rather simply: Let the whole program itself be pure (meaning that functions always return the same values for the same arguments and don’t have any side effect), but let the return value of the main function be an action that can be [run].

— answered Dec 6 ’11 at 21:32, dflemstr

— Stack Overflow

2013.09.03 Tuesday ACHK