In my code I need to create a lambda to realize ax1+~~~~~~zx100, in which a,~~z, are known parameters. I need to put a for loop inside a lambda expression, to realize such function:
x = lambda x: 5*x[0]+20*x[1]+~~~~~~21*x[99]
I wonder, if number of my variables are 1 million, how to realize it? I do not know how to make it happen. Please help, thank you so much!
If you need to pass both the parameters, you could make a lambda to accept both lists, like so:
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
x = [6,7,8,9,0]
sum_of_products = lambda _a,_x: sum(y*z for y, z in zip(_a, _x))
print(sum_of_products(a,x))
80
Alternatively, and preferably you can also just define a normal function for this as well, and achieve the same results.:
def sum_of_products(a, x):
return sum(y*z for y, z in zip(a, x))
Once you've written the function, you can also pass it around just like a lambda, so if you were going to assign it to a variable to begin with, it might be easier to read if you just def your function in the normal way.
a = [1,2,3,4,5]
x = [6,7,8,9,0]
def sum_of_products(_a, _x):
return sum(y*z for y, z in zip(_a, _x))
my_function = sum_of_products
print(my_function(a, x))
80
Try something like this:
lambda x: sum(a * b for a, b in zip(x, [5, 20, ..., 21]))
Related
What's the pythonic way to combine a list of lambdas in a single function? For example:
lambdas = [lambda x, k=k: x+k for k in range(3)]
I would like to get this all in a single lambda similar to this but without having to type it out:
f = lambda x: lambdas[2](lambdas[1](lambdas[0](x)))
You can do this with functools.reduce like below:
from functools import reduce
lambdas = [lambda x, k=k: x+k for k in range(3)]
# x = 0
reduce(lambda x, l: l(x), lambdas, x)
# -> l[2](l[1](l[0](x)))
# step_1 : x = x , l = lambda[0] -> lambda[0](x)
# step_2 : x = lambda[0](x), l = lambda[1] -> lambda[1](lambda[0](x))
# step_3 : x = lambda[1](lambda[0](x)), l = lambda[2] -> lambda[2](lambda[1](lambda[0](x)))
The reduce function is defined to be exactly what you want. An alternative is to use a simple for loop.
def f(x):
for func in lambdas:
x = func(x)
return x
to do this with a lambda seems kind of weird.
Is there any specific reason why we cannot:
def function_chainer(lambdas):
def chained(x):
for function in lambdas:
x = function(x)
return chained
This solution is not a one-liner, but it is pythonic I believe.
If you really need a one-liner, you can use functools.reduce:
lambda x: functools.reduce(lambda a, f: f(a), lambdas, x)
The first argument to reduce governs the way of applying each subsequent element, the second is the iterable (here - our iterable of lambdas) and the last one is the initializer - the first value we want to pass to those lambda functions.
Say I have the following code
def myfunc(x):
return monsterMathExpressionOf(x)
and I would like to find numerically the solution of myfunc(x) == y for diverse values of y. If y == 0 then there are a lot of root finding procedures available, e.g. from scipy. However, if I'd like to find the solution for e.g. y==1 it seems I have to define a new function
def myfunc1(x):
return myfunc(x) - 1
and then find it's root using available procedures. This way does not work for me as I will need to find a lot of solution by running a loop, and I don't want to redefine the function in each step of the loop. Is there a neater solution?
You don't have to redefine a function for every value of y: just define a single function of y that returns a function of x, and use that function inside your loop:
def wrapper(y):
def myfunc(x):
return monsterMathExpressionOf(x) - y
return myfunc
for y in y_values:
f = wrapper(y)
find_root(f, starting_point, ...)
You can also use functools.partial, which may be more to your liking:
def f(x, y):
return monsterMathExpressionOf(x) - y
for y in y_values:
g = partial(f, y=y)
find_root(g, starting_point, ...)
Read the documentation to see how partial is roughly implemented behind the scenes; you'll see it may not be too different compared to the first wrapper implementation.
#Evert's answer shows how you can do this by using either a closure or by using functools.partial, which are both fine solutions.
Another alternative is provided by many numerical solvers. Consider, for example, scipy.optimize.fsolve. That function provides the args argument, which allows you to pass additional fixed arguments to the function to be solved.
For example, suppose myfunc is x**3 + x
def myfunc(x):
return x**3 + x
Define one additional function that includes the parameter y as an argument:
def myfunc2(x, y):
return myfunc(x) - y
To solve, say, myfunc(x) = 3, you can do this:
from scipy.optimize import fsolve
x0 = 1.0 # Initial guess
sol = fsolve(myfunc2, x0, args=(3,))
Instead of defining myfunc2, you could use an anonymous function as the first argument of fsolve:
sol = fsolve(lambda x, y: myfunc(x) - y, x0, args=(3,))
But then you could accomplish the same thing using
sol = fsolve(lambda x: myfunc(x) - 3, x0)
I want to have some sort of reference to a function but I do not know if I need to use a def f(x) or a lambda of some kind.
For instance I'd like to print f(3) and have it output 9a, or is this not how python works?
Second question: Assuming I have a working function, how do I return the degree of it?
To create a function, you define it. Functions can do anything, but their primary use pattern is taking parameters and returning values. You have to decide how exactly it transforms parameters into the return value.
For instance, if you want f(x) to return a number, then a should also be a numeric variable defined globally or inside the function:
In [1]: def f(x):
...: a = 2.5
...: return a * x**2
...:
In [2]: f(3)
Out[2]: 22.5
Or maybe you want it to return a string like this:
In [3]: def f(x):
...: return str(x**2) + 'a'
...:
In [4]: f(3)
Out[4]: '9a'
You have to specify your needs if you need more help.
EDIT: As it turns out, you want to work with polynomials or algebraic functions as objects and do some algebraic stuff with them. Python will allow doing that, but not using standard data types. You can define a class for a polynomial and then define any methods or functions to get the highest power or anything else. But Polynomial is not a built-in data type. There may be some good libraries defining such classes, though.
Python (and most other computer languages) don't do algebra, which is what you'll need if you want symbolic output like this. But you could have a function f(a,x) which returns the result for particular (numerical) values of a:
def f(a, x):
return a*x*x
But if you want a program or language which actually does algebra for you, check out sympy or commercial programs like Mathematica.
If you are just working with polynomials, and you just need a data structure which deals well with them, check out numpy and its polynomial class.
I normally use lambda for short and simple functions:
f = lambda a, x: a * x**2
here a and x are parameters of my function. You need to enter a and x
f(2,4)
If you want a as a constant parameter eg. a=2:
f = lambda x: 2 * x**2
f(5)
if you have a list of input values of x, you can combine map with lambda.
it is straighforward and easily readable.
(*map(lambda x: 3 * x**2, [1,2,3,4]),)
or
list(map(lambda x: 3 * x**2, [1,2,3,4])
cheers!
def func():
print "F(x) = 2x + 3"
x = int(raw_input('Enter an integer value for x: '))
Fx = 2 * x + 3
return Fx
print func()
have fun :)
Cheese,
you can use the def function in Python to create a math function, you could type this:
def f(x):
return(2x + (3 + 3) * 11 + 88) # <- you could make your own function.
print(f(3))
Log:
220
Like THAT
or in this:
def f(a, x):
return((a + x) ** (a * x))
then...
print(f(1, 2))
Log...
6
I'm having trouble with a question which follows: Write a recursive function repeatedlyApply that takes as arguments a function
f of one argument and a positive integer n. The result of repeatedlyApply is a function of one argument that applies f to that argument n times.
So, for example, we would have
repeatedlyApply(lambda x: x+1,10)(100) ==> 110
You may assume that the following function has been defined. You don't have to use it, but it can contribute to a pretty solution.
def compose(f,g):
return lambda x: f(g(x))
So far i've written this
def compose(f,g):
return lambda x: f(g(x))
def recApply(f,n):
for i in range(n):
return recApply(compose(f,f), n-1)
return f
I'm going wrong somewhere because using the above example recApply(lambda x: x+1,10)(100) i get 1124.
Help much appreciated
Correct answer is:
def recApply(func, n):
if n > 1:
rec_func = recApply(func, n - 1)
return lambda x: func(rec_func(x))
return func
And the output:
>>>> print recApply(lambda x: x+1,10)(100)
110
Your function needs some work:
You have a return inside your for loop, so you return immediately instead of running the loop.
You have a recursive call inside your for loop, so you are doing a bit too much iteration. Choose one or the other.
Be careful when you stack function compositions on top of each other, you are doing power composition rather than linear composition.
Can you tell us what precisely you are trying to do?
EDIT: Since everybody else is posting an answer:
recApply = lambda f, n: lambda x: x if n == 0 else recApply(f, n-1)(f(x))
I have a solution based on lambdas:
>>> f = lambda x: x + 10
>>> iterate = lambda f, n, x : reduce(lambda x, y: f(x), range(n), x)
>>> iterate(f, 10, 3)
103
>>> iterate(f, 4, 4)
44
>>> f10 = lambda x: iterate(f, 10, x)
>>> f10(5)
105
I assume this is an exercise of some sort. There are a few ways you could do it, here's a short one:
>>> repeatedlyApply = lambda f, n: reduce(lambda f1, f2: compose(f1, f2), [f]*n)
>>> repeatedlyApply(lambda x: x+1,10)(100)
110
Very rarely I'll come across some code in python that uses an anonymous function which returns an anonymous function...?
Unfortunately I can't find an example on hand, but it usually takes the form like this:
g = lambda x,c: x**c lambda c: c+1
Why would someone do this? Maybe you can give an example that makes sense (I'm not sure the one I made makes any sense).
Edit: Here's an example:
swap = lambda a,x,y:(lambda f=a.__setitem__:(f(x,(a[x],a[y])),
f(y,a[x][0]),f(x,a[x][1])))()
You could use such a construct to do currying:
curry = lambda f, a: lambda x: f(a, x)
You might use it like:
>>> add = lambda x, y: x + y
>>> add5 = curry(add, 5)
>>> add5(3)
8
swap = lambda a,x,y:(lambda f=a.__setitem__:(f(x,(a[x],a[y])),
f(y,a[x][0]),f(x,a[x][1])))()
See the () at the end? The inner lambda isn't returned, its called.
The function does the equivalent of
def swap(a, x, y):
a[x] = (a[x], a[y])
a[y] = a[x][0]
a[x] = a[x][1]
But let's suppose that we want to do this in a lambda. We cannot use assignments in a lambda. However, we can call __setitem__ for the same effect.
def swap(a, x, y):
a.__setitem__(x, (a[x], a[y]))
a.__setitem__(y, a[x][0])
a.__setitem__(x, a[x][1])
But for a lambda, we can only have one expression. But since these are function calls we can wrap them up in a tuple
def swap(a, x, y):
(a.__setitem__(x, (a[x], a[y])),
a.__setitem__(y, a[x][0]),
a.__setitem__(x, a[x][1]))
However, all those __setitem__'s are getting me down, so let's factor them out:
def swap(a, x, y):
f = a.__setitem__
(f(x, (a[x], a[y])),
f(y, a[x][0]),
f(x, a[x][1]))
Dagnamit, I can't get away with adding another assignment! I know let's abuse default parameters.
def swap(a, x, y):
def inner(f = a.__setitem__):
(f(x, (a[x], a[y])),
f(y, a[x][0]),
f(x, a[x][1]))
inner()
Ok let's switch over to lambdas:
swap = lambda a, x, y: lambda f = a.__setitem__: (f(x, (a[x], a[y])), f(y, a[x][0]), f(x, a[x][1]))()
Which brings us back to the original expression (plus/minus typos)
All of this leads back to the question: Why?
The function should have been implemented as
def swap(a, x, y):
a[x],a[y] = a[y],a[x]
The original author went way out of his way to use a lambda rather then a function. It could be that he doesn't like nested function for some reason. I don't know. All I'll say is its bad code. (unless there is a mysterious justification for it.)
It can be useful for temporary placeholders. Suppose you have a decorator factory:
#call_logger(log_arguments=True, log_return=False)
def f(a, b):
pass
You can temporarily replace it with
call_logger = lambda *a, **kw: lambda f: f
It can also be useful if it indirectly returns a lambda:
import collections
collections.defaultdict(lambda: collections.defaultdict(lambda: collections.defaultdict(int)))
It's also useful for creating callable factories in the Python console.
And just because something is possible doesn't mean that you have to use it.
I did something like this just the other day to disable a test method in a unittest suite.
disable = lambda fn : lambda *args, **kwargs: None
#disable
test_method(self):
... test code that I wanted to disable ...
Easy to re-enable it later.
This can be used to pull out some common repetitive code (there are of course other ways to achieve this in python).
Maybe you're writing a a logger, and you need to prepend the level to the log string. You might write something like:
import sys
prefixer = lambda prefix: lambda message: sys.stderr.write(prefix + ":" + message + "\n")
log_error = prefixer("ERROR")
log_warning = prefixer("WARNING")
log_info = prefixer("INFO")
log_debug = prefixer("DEBUG")
log_info("An informative message")
log_error("Oh no, a fatal problem")
This program prints out
INFO:An informative message
ERROR:Oh no, a fatal problem
It is most oftenly - at least in code I come accross and that I myself write - used to "freeze" a variable with the value it has at the point the lambda function is created. Otherwise, nonlocals variable reference a variable in the scope they exist, which can lead to undesied results sometimes.
For example, if I want to create a list of ten functions, each one being a multiplier for a scalar from 0 to 9. One might be tempted to write it like this:
>>> a = [(lambda j: i * j) for i in range(10)]
>>> a[9](10)
90
Whoever, if you want to use any of the other factoried functions you get the same result:
>>> a[1](10)
90
That is because the "i" variable inside the lambda is not resolved when the lambda is created. Rather, Python keeps a reference to the "i" in the "for" statement - on the scope it was created (this reference is kept in the lambda function closure). When the lambda is executed, the variable is evaluated, and its value is the final one it had in that scope.
When one uses two nested lambdas like this:
>>> a = [(lambda k: (lambda j: k * j))(i) for i in range(10)]
The "i" variable is evaluated durint the execution of the "for" loop. Itś value is passed to "k" - and "k" is used as the non-local variable in the multiplier function we are factoring out. For each value of i, there will be a different instance of the enclosing lambda function, and a different value for the "k" variable.
So, it is possible to achieve the original intent :
>>> a = [(lambda k: (lambda j: k * j))(i) for i in range(10)]
>>> a[1](10)
10
>>> a[9](10)
90
>>>
It can be used to achieve a more continuation/trampolining style of programming,
See Continuation-passing style
Basically, with this you can modify functions instead of values
One example I stumbled with recently: To compute approximate derivatives (as functions) and use it as an input function in another place.
dx = 1/10**6
ddx = lambda f: lambda x: (f(x + dx) - f(x))/dx
f = lambda x: foo(x)
newton_method(func=ddx(f), x0=1, n=10)