Say I have these two functions:
def s(x,y,z):
if x <= 0:
return y
return z
def f(a,b):
return s(b, a+1, f(a,b-1)+1)
If I were to try and find f(5,2) in my head, it would go like this:
f(5,2) = s(2,6,f(5,1)+1)
f(5,1) = s(1,6,f(5,0)+1)
f(5,0) = s(0,6,f(5,-1)+1) = 6
f(5,1) = 7
f(5,2) = 8
I never evaluate f(5,-1) because it is not needed. The s function is going to return 6, since argument x is zero, thus evaluation of argument z is unnecessary.
If I were however to try and run this in python, it would keep recursing forever or or until I get a maximum recursion depth error, presumably because python wants to evaluate all the arguments before executing the s function.
My question is, how would I go about implementing these functions, or any similar scenario, in such a way that the recursion stops when it is no longer needed? Would it be possible to delay the evaluation of each argument until it is used in the function?
Your mind is working with 'insider knowledge' of how s() works. Python can't, so it can only follow the strict rules that all argument expressions to a call will have to be evaluated before the call can be made.
Python is a highly dynamic language, and at every step of execution, both s and f can be rebound to point to a different object. This means Python can't optimise recursion or inline function logic. It can't hoist the if x <= 0 test out of s() to avoid evaluating the value for z first.
If you as a programmer know the third expression needs to be avoided in certain circumstances, you need to make this optimisation yourself. Either merge the logic in s into f manually:
def f(a, b):
if b <= 0:
return a + 1
return f(a, b - 1) + 1
or postpone evaluating of the third expression until s() has determined if it needs to be calculated at all, by passing in a callable and make s responsible for evaluating it:
def s(x, y, z):
if x <= 0:
return y
return z() # evaluate the value for z late
def f(a, b):
# make the third argument a function so it is not evaluated until called
return s(b, a+1, lambda: f(a, b - 1) + 1)
When a function is called, all arguments are fully evaluated before they're passed to the function. In other words, f(5,-1) is being executed before s is even started.
Fortunately there's an easy way to evaluate expressions on demand: functions. Instead of passing the result of f(a,b-1) to z, pass it a function that computes that result:
def s(x,y,z):
if x <= 0:
return y
return z() # z is a function now
def f(a,b):
return s(b, a+1, lambda:f(a,b-1)+1)
print(f(5,2)) # output: 8
Related
I have a problem where I need to produce something which is naturally computed recursively, but where I also need to be able to interrogate the intermediate steps in the recursion if needed.
I know I can do this by passing and mutating a list or similar structure. However, this looks ugly to me and I'm sure there must be a neater way, e.g. using generators. What I would ideally love to be able to do is something like:
intermediate_results = [f(x) for x in range(T)]
final_result = intermediate_results[T-1]
in an efficient way. While my solution is not performance critical, I can't justify the massive amount of redundant effort in that first line. It looks to me like a generator would be perfect for this except for the fact that f is fundamentally much more suited to recursion in my case (which at least in my mind is the complete opposite of a generator, but maybe I'm just not thinking far enough outside of the box).
Is there a neat Pythonic way of doing something like this that I just don't know about, or do I just need to just capitulate and pollute my function f by passing it an intermediate_results list which I then mutate as a side-effect?
I have a generic solution for you using a decorator. We create a Memoize class which stores the results of previous times the function is executed (including in recursive calls). If the arguments given have already been seen, the cached versions are used to quickly lookup the result.
The custom class has the benefit over an lru_cache in that you can see the results.
from functools import wraps
class Memoize:
def __init__(self):
self.store = {}
def save(self, fun):
#wraps(fun)
def wrapper(*args):
if args not in self.store:
self.store[args] = fun(*args)
return self.store[args]
return wrapper
m = Memoize()
#m.save
def fibo(n):
if n <= 0: return 0
elif n == 1: return 1
else: return fibo(n-1) + fibo(n-2)
Then after running different things you can see what the cache contains. When you run future function calls, m.store will be used as a lookup so calculation doesn't need to be redone.
>>> f(8)
21
>>> m.store
{(1,): 1,
(0,): 0,
(2,): 1,
(3,): 2,
(4,): 3,
(5,): 5,
(6,): 8,
(7,): 13,
(8,): 21}
You could modify the save function to use the name of the function and the args as the key, so that multiple function results can be stored in the same Memoize class.
You can use your existing solution that makes many "redundant" calls to f, but employ the use of function caching to save the results to previous calls to f.
In other words, when f(x1) is called, it's input arguments and corresponding return values are saved, and the next time it is called, the result is simply pulled from the cache
see functools.lru_cache for the standard library solution to this
ie:
from functools import lru_cache
#lru_cache
intermediate_results = [f(x) for x in range(T)]
final_result = intermediate_results[T-1]
Note, however, f must be a pure function (no side-effects, 1-to-1 mapping) for this to work properly
Having considered your comments, I'll now try to give another perspective on the problem.
So, let's consider a concrete example:
def f(x):
a = 2
return g(x) + a if x != 0 else 0
def g(x):
b = 1
return h(x) - b
def h(x):
c = 1/2
return f(x-1)*(1+c)
I
First of all, it should be mentioned that (in our particular case) the algorithm has form of: f(x) = p(f(x - 1)) for some p. It follows that f(x) = p^x(f(0)) = p^x(0). That means we should just apply p to 0 x times to get the desired result, which can be done in an iterative process, so this can be written without recursion. Though I believe that your real case is much harder. Moreover, it would be too boring and uninformative to stop here)
II
Generally speaking, we can divide all possible solutions into two groups: the ones that require refactoring (i.e. rewriting functions f, g, h) and the ones that do not. I have little to offer from the latter one (and I don't think anyone can). Consider the following, however:
def fk(x, k):
a = 2
return k(gk(x, k) + a if x != 0 else 0)
def gk(x, k):
b = 1
return k(hk(x, k) - b)
def hk(x, k):
c = 1/2
return k(fk(x-1, k)*(1+c))
def printret(x):
print(x)
return x
f(4, printret) # see what happens
Inspired by continuation-passing style, but that's totally not it.
What's the point? It's something between your idea of passing a list to write down all the computations and memoizing. This k carries additional behavior with it, such as printing or writing to list (you can make a function that writes to some list, why not?). But if you look carefully you'll see that it lefts inner code of these functions practically untouched (only input and output to function are affected), so one can produce a decorator associated with a function like printret that does essentially the same thing for f, g, h.
Pros: no need to modify code, much more flexible than passing a list, no additional work (like in memoizing).
Cons: Impure (printing or modifying sth), not so flexible as we would like.
III
Now let's see how modifying function bodies can help. Don't be afraid of what's written below, take your time and play with that thing a little.
class Logger:
def __init__(self, lst, cur_val):
self.lst = lst
self.cur_val = cur_val
def bind(self, f):
res = f(self.cur_val)
return Logger([self.cur_val] + res.lst + self.lst, res.cur_val)
def __repr__(self):
return "Logger( " + repr({'value' : self.cur_val,'lst' : self.lst}) + " )"
def unit(x):
return Logger([], x)
# you can also play with lala
def lala(x):
if x <= 0:
return unit(1)
else:
return lala(x - 1).bind(lambda y: unit(2*y))
def f(x):
a = 2
if x == 0:
return unit(0)
else:
return g(x).bind(lambda y: unit(y + a))
def g(x):
b = 1
return h(x).bind(lambda y: unit(y - b))
def h(x):
c = 1/2
return f(x-1).bind(lambda y: unit(y*(1+c)))
f(4) # see for yourself
Logger is called a monad. I'm not very familiar with this concept myself, but I guess I'm doing everything right) f, g, h are functions that take a number and return a Logger instance. Logger's bind takes in a function (like f) and returns Logger with new value (computed by f) and updated 'logs'. The key point - as I see it - is the ability to do whatever we want with collected functions in the order the resulting value was calculated.
Afterword
I'm not at all some kind of 'guru' of functional programming, I believe I'm missing a lot of things here. But what I've understood is that functional programming is about inversing the flow of the program. That's why, for instance, I totally agree with your opinion about generators being opposed to functional programming. When we use generator gen in, say, function func, we yield values one by one to func and func does sth with them in e.g. a loop. The functional approach would be to make gen a function taking func as a parameter and make func perform computations on 'yielded' values. It's like gen and func exchanged their places. So the flow is inversed! And there are plenty of other ways of inversing the flow. Monads are one of them.
itertools islice gets a generator, start value and stop value. it will give you the elements between the start value and stop value as a generator. if islice is not clear you can check the docs here https://docs.python.org/3/library/itertools.html
intermediate_result = map(f, range(T))
final_result = next(itertools.islice(intermediate_result, start=T-1, stop=T))
Premise:
Suppose I have a variable x and two function f(x) and g(x)
such that when f(x) has the ability to change the value of x (maybe it wants to keep track on how many times f(x) has been called) and g(x) doesn't want to change the value of x at any cost.
Now if i was choose x as an integer, I can accomplish g(x) and if x is a list, I can accomplish f(x).
Question:
But what if I want to accomplish both of them in the same program?
What should I do then?.
If its not possible, then doesn't this severely handicap python wrt other languages.
Note:
Basically my question is motivated by finding the drawbacks of not having pointers in python as in other language like C++, the above task can easily be implemented by choosing the *x instead of x.
If all you need to do is change the value of a variable that you pass to f, you can simply return the new value:
def f(x):
return x + 1
x = 30
x = f(x)
# x is now 31
If there is already another value you need to return from f, you can return a tuple and unpack the return value to multiple variables:
def f(x):
return 46, x + 1
x = 30
y, x = f(x)
# x is now 31
In C++, the use of pointers that you bring up compensates for the fact that it's relatively difficult to return multiple values from a function. In Python, while we're still technically returning one value, it's much easier to create tuples and unpack them.
You could make your own class:
`class some_class():
self._value = 0
self._access_counter = 0
def update_value(self):
<your code here>
def get_value_by_ref(self):
self._access_counter += 1
return self._value
`
So I'm making a simple program that gets 2 functions(a and k) and one integer value(b), then it gets the formal parameter in the two functions(a and k) which is "x" and applies a condition x < b then based on the condition makes a function call, either a or b. But when I run the program it gives an error that x is not defined in the global frame. I want it to get "x" from the formal parameter assigned to the functions a and b and then get the condition based on that.
Here's my code
def square(x):
return x * x
def increment(x):
return x + 1
def piecewise(a, k, b):
if x<b:
return a
else:
return k
mak = piecewise(increment,square ,3 )
print(mak(1))
I guess you want to do something like this:
def piecewise(a, k, b):
def f(x):
if x < b:
return a(x)
else:
return k(x)
return f
However, I am not sure if it is a good practice. So, I leave my answer here to see the comments and learn if there is any problem with it.
i would like to perform a calculation using python, where the current value (i) of the equation is based on the previous value of the equation (i-1), which is really easy to do in a spreadsheet but i would rather learn to code it
i have noticed that there is loads of information on finding the previous value from a list, but i don't have a list i need to create it! my equation is shown below.
h=(2*b)-h[i-1]
can anyone give me tell me a method to do this ?
i tried this sort of thing, but that will not work as when i try to do the equation i'm calling a value i haven't created yet, if i set h=0 then i get an error that i am out of index range
i = 1
for i in range(1, len(b)):
h=[]
h=(2*b)-h[i-1]
x+=1
h = [b[0]]
for val in b[1:]:
h.append(2 * val - h[-1]) # As you add to h, you keep up with its tail
for large b list (brr, one-letter identifier), to avoid creating large slice
from itertools import islice # For big list it will keep code less wasteful
for val in islice(b, 1, None):
....
As pointed out by #pad, you simply need to handle the base case of receiving the first sample.
However, your equation makes no use of i other than to retrieve the previous result. It's looking more like a running filter than something which needs to maintain a list of past values (with an array which might never stop growing).
If that is the case, and you only ever want the most recent value,then you might want to go with a generator instead.
def gen():
def eqn(b):
eqn.h = 2*b - eqn.h
return eqn.h
eqn.h = 0
return eqn
And then use thus
>>> f = gen()
>>> f(2)
4
>>> f(3)
2
>>> f(2)
0
>>>
The same effect could be acheived with a true generator using yield and send.
First of, do you need all the intermediate values? That is, do you want a list h from 0 to i? Or do you just want h[i]?
If you just need the i-th value you could us recursion:
def get_h(i):
if i>0:
return (2*b) - get_h(i-1)
else:
return h_0
But be aware that this will not work for large i, as it will exceed the maximum recursion depth. (Thanks for pointing this out kdopen) In that case a simple for-loop or a generator is better.
Even better is to use a (mathematically) closed form of the equation (for your example that is possible, it might not be in other cases):
def get_h(i):
if i%2 == 0:
return h_0
else:
return (2*b)-h_0
In both cases h_0 is the initial value that you start out with.
h = []
for i in range(len(b)):
if i>0:
h.append(2*b - h[i-1])
else:
# handle i=0 case here
You are successively applying a function (equation) to the result of a previous application of that function - the process needs a seed to start it. Your result looks like this [seed, f(seed), f(f(seed)), f(f(f(seed)), ...]. This concept is function composition. You can create a generalized function that will do this for any sequence of functions, in Python functions are first class objects and can be passed around just like any other object. If you need to preserve the intermediate results use a generator.
def composition(functions, x):
""" yields f(x), f(f(x)), f(f(f(x)) ....
for each f in functions
functions is an iterable of callables taking one argument
"""
for f in functions:
x = f(x)
yield x
Your specs require a seed and a constant,
seed = 0
b = 10
The equation/function,
def f(x, b = b):
return 2*b - x
f is applied b times.
functions = [f]*b
Usage
print list(composition(functions, seed))
If the intermediate results are not needed composition can be redefined as
def composition(functions, x):
""" Returns f(x), g(f(x)), h(g(f(x)) ....
for each function in functions
functions is an iterable of callables taking one argument
"""
for f in functions:
x = f(x)
return x
print composition(functions, seed)
Or more generally, with no limitations on call signature:
def compose(funcs):
'''Return a callable composed of successive application of functions
funcs is an iterable producing callables
for [f, g, h] returns f(g(h(*args, **kwargs)))
'''
def outer(f, g):
def inner(*args, **kwargs):
return f(g(*args, **kwargs))
return inner
return reduce(outer, funcs)
def plus2(x):
return x + 2
def times2(x):
return x * 2
def mod16(x):
return x % 16
funcs = (mod16, plus2, times2)
eq = compose(funcs) # mod16(plus2(times2(x)))
print eq(15)
While the process definition appears to be recursive, I resisted the temptation so I could stay out of maximum recursion depth hades.
I got curious, searched SO for function composition and, of course, there are numerous relavent Q&A's.
...while still leaving it executable within the function.
The idea behind this is I want to create a summation function. Here's what I have so far:
def summation(n, bound, operation):
if operation is None and upper != 'inf':
g = 0
for num in range(n, limit + 1):
g += num
return g
else:
pass
But summations are most often about infinite convergent series (for which I use 'inf'), with operations applied to each term. Ideally, I'd like to be able to write print summation(0, 'inf', 1 / factorial(n)) and get the mathematical constant e, or def W(x): return summation(1, 'inf', ((-n) ** (n - 1)) / factorial(n)) to get the Lambert W function.
All that comes to my mind is passing the appropriate arithmetic as a string and then using the exec statement to execute it. But I don't think that would accomplish the whole thing, and it's obviously dangerous to use exec with possibly user-entered code.
In Python, functions are first-class, which is to say they can be used and passed around like any other values, so you can take a function:
def example(f):
return f(1) + f(2)
To run it, you could define a function like this:
def square(n):
return n * n
And then pass it to your other function:
example(square) # = square(1) + square(2) = 1 + 4 = 5
You can also use lambda to avoid having to define a new function if it's a simple expression:
example(lambda n: n * n)