SICP Exercise 3.66 infinite streams of pairs

Exercise 3.66.  Examine the stream (pairs integers integers). Can you make any general comments about the order in which the pairs are placed into the stream? For example, about how many pairs precede the pair (1,100)? the pair (99,100)? the pair (100,100)? (If you can make precise mathematical statements here, all the better. But feel free to give more qualitative answers if you find yourself getting bogged down.)

 SOLUTION

 The pairs produced by (pairs integers integers) will look like this:

 (1, 1) (1, 2) (1, 3) (1, 4) (1, 5) (1, 6) (1, 7) (1, 8) (1, 9)  (1, 10)  (1, 11) (1, 12) ...
         (2, 2) (2, 3) (2, 4) (2, 5) (2, 6) (2, 7) (2, 8) (2, 9)  (2, 10)  (2, 11) (2, 12) ...
                  (3, 3) (3, 4) (3, 5) (3, 6) (3, 7) (3, 8) (3, 9)  (3, 10)  (3, 11) (3, 12) ...
                           (4, 4) (4, 5) (4, 6) (4, 7) (4, 8) (4, 9)  (4, 10)  (4, 11) (4, 12) ...
                                    (5, 5) (5, 6) (5, 7) (5, 8) (5, 9)  (5, 10)  (5, 11) (5, 12) ...
                                             (6, 6) (6, 7) (6, 8) (6, 9)  (6, 10)  (6, 11) (6, 12) ...
                                                      (7, 7) (7, 8) (7, 9)  (7, 10)  (7, 11) (7, 12) ...
                                                               (8, 8) (8, 9)  (8, 10)  (8, 11) (8, 12) ...
                                                                        (9, 9)  (9, 10)  (9, 11) (9, 12) ...
                                                                                  (10, 10) (10, 11) (10, 12) ...
                                                                                               (11, 11) (11, 12) ...
                                                                                                            (12, 12) ...

 The recursive calls to 'pairs' and 'interleave' will generate pairs as follows:
(pairs indented for readability)

 1 (1, 1)
2 (1, 2)
3 (2, 2)
4 (1, 3)
5 (2, 3)
6 (1, 4)
7 (3, 3)
8 (1, 5)
9 (2, 4)
10 (1, 6)
11 (3, 4)
12 (1, 7)
13 (2, 5)
14 (1, 8)
15 (4, 4)
16 (1, 9)
17 (2, 6)
18 (1, 10)
19 (3, 5)
20 (1, 11)
21 (2, 7)
22 (1, 12)
23 (4, 5)
24 (1, 13)
25 (2, 8)
26 (1, 14)
27 (3, 6)
28 (1, 15)
29 (2, 9)
30 (1, 16)
31 (5, 5)
32 (1, 17)
33 (2, 10)
34 (1, 18)
35 (3, 7)
36 (1, 19)
37 (2, 11)
38 (1, 20)
39 (4, 6)
40 (1, 21)
41 (2, 12)
42 (1, 22)
43 (3, 8)
44
... and so on

 Note that for all (m, n), m <= n

 Position of (m, m)
(1, 1) —> 1
(2, 2) —> 1 + 2^1 = 3
(3, 3) —> 3 + 2^2 = 7
(4, 4) —> 7 + 2^3 = 15
(5, 5) —> 15 + 2^4 = 31
(m, m) —> (2^m) - 1

 Gap between pairs (m, n) and (m, n+1) is:
2^m for n > m
2^(m - 1) for n = m

 So the position of (m, n) would be:

 (2^m) - 1 when m = n
{(2^m) - 1}  + 2^(m - 1) when n = m + 1
{(2^m) - 1}  + 2^(m - 1) + (2^m) * (n - m -1) when n > m + 1

 Using the formula above, the position of (1, 100) would be:
{(2^1) - 1}  + 2^(1 - 1) + (2^1) * (100 - 1 - 1)
= 1 + 1 + 2 * 98
= 198

 The position of (99, 100) would be:
{(2^99) - 1}  + 2^(99 - 1)
= 2^99 + 2^98 - 1

 The position of (100, 100) would be:
(2^100) - 1

The code and tests are here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SICP Exercise 2.56 differentiation rule

Image
Exercise 2.56.    Show how to extend the basic differentiator to handle more kinds of expressions. For instance, implement the differentiation rule by adding a new clause to the  deriv  program and defining appropriate procedures  exponentiation? ,  base ,  exponent , and  make-exponentiation . (You may use the symbol  **  to denote exponentiation.) Build in the rules that anything raised to the power 0 is 1 and anything raised to the power 1 is the thing itself. SOLUTION The code and tests are here .
Read more

SICP Exercise 1.28 (Miller-Rabin Test)

Exercise 1.28.    One variant of the Fermat test that cannot be fooled is called the  Miller-Rabin test  (Miller 1976; Rabin 1980). This starts from  an alternate form of Fermat's Little Theorem, which states that if  n  is a prime number and  a  is any positive integer less than  n , then  a  raised to the ( n  - 1)st power is congruent to 1 modulo  n . To test the primality of a number  n  by the Miller-Rabin test, we pick a random number  a < n  and raise  a  to the ( n  - 1)st power modulo  n  using the  expmod  procedure. However, whenever we perform the squaring step in  expmod , we check to see if we have discovered a ``nontrivial square root of 1 modulo  n ,'' that is, a number not equal to 1 or  n  - 1 whose square is equal to 1 modulo  n . It is possible to prove that if such a nontrivial square root of 1 exists, then  n  is not prime. It is also possible to prove that if  n  is an odd number that is not prime, then, for at least half the numbers a < n , co
Read more

SICP Exercise 4.18 a alternative strategy for interpreting internal definitions

Exercise 4.18.   Consider an alternative strategy for scanning out definitions that translates the example in the text to (lambda < vars >   (let ((u '*unassigned*)         (v '*unassigned*))     (let ((a < e1 >)           (b < e2 >))       (set! u a)       (set! v b))     < e3 >)) Here  a  and  b  are meant to represent new variable names, created by the interpreter, that do not appear in the user's program. Consider the  solve  procedure from section  3.5.4 : (define (solve f y0 dt)   (define y (integral (delay dy) y0 dt))   (define dy (stream-map f y))   y) Will this procedure work if internal definitions are scanned out as shown in this exercise? What if they are scanned out as shown in the text? Explain. SOLUTION & DISCUSSION The streams based procedure 'solve' in this exercise exposed several issues in my metacircular evaluator implementation. I discovered that streams are not at all handled properly by my evaluator. Moreover, the &
Read more