Combinatorics can provide some useful functions when working with sequences. In Factor, these are mostly defined in the math.combinatorics vocabulary.
USE: math.combinatorics
Inspired by some functions from clojure.contrib, I recently contributed two additional combinatoric words to the Factor project (although not with the same lazy semantics that the Clojure version has).
all-subsets:
The first word, all-subsets, returns all subsets of a given sequence. This can be calculated by iteratively taking n combinations of items from the sequence, where n goes from 0 (the empty set) to length (the sequence itself).
First, we observe how this works by experimenting with the all-combinations word:
( scratchpad ) { 1 2 } 0 all-combinations .
{ { } }
( scratchpad ) { 1 2 } 1 all-combinations .
{ { 1 } { 2 } }
( scratchpad ) { 1 2 } 2 all-combinations .
{ { 1 2 } }By running it with various n, we have produced all of the subsets of the { 1 2 } sequence. Using a [0,b] range (from 0 to the length of the sequence), we make a sequence of subsets:
: all-subsets ( seq -- subsets )
dup length [0,b] [
[ dupd all-combinations [ , ] each ] each
] { } make nip ;The all-subsets word can then be demonstrated by:
( scratchpad ) { 1 2 3 } all-subsets .
{ { } { 1 } { 2 } { 3 } { 1 2 } { 1 3 } { 2 3 } { 1 2 3 } }selections:
Another useful function, selections, returns all the ways of taking n (possibly the same) elements from a sequence.
First, we observe that there are two base cases:
- If we want all ways of taking
0elements from the sequence, we have only{ }(the empty sequence). - If we want all ways of taking
1element from the sequence, we essentially have a sequence for each element in the input sequence.
If we take more elements from the sequence, we need to apply the cartesian-product word (which returns all possible pairs of elements from two sequences) n-1 times. For example, if we wanted to see all possible selections of 2 elements from a sequence, run the cartesian-product once:
( scratchpad ) { 1 2 3 } dup cartesian-product concat .
{
{ 1 1 }
{ 1 2 }
{ 1 3 }
{ 2 1 }
{ 2 2 }
{ 2 3 }
{ 3 1 }
{ 3 2 }
{ 3 3 }
}Using these observations, we can build the selections word:
: (selections) ( seq n -- selections )
dupd [ dup 1 > ] [
swap pick cartesian-product [
[ [ dup length 1 > [ flatten ] when , ] each ] each
] { } make swap 1 -
] while drop nip ;
: selections ( seq n -- selections )
{
{ 0 [ drop { } ] }
{ 1 [ 1array ] }
[ (selections) ]
} case ;This can be demonstrated by:
( scratchpad ) { 1 2 } 2 selections .
{ { 1 1 } { 1 2 } { 2 1 } { 2 2 } }Note: we have defined this to take element order into account, so { 1 2 } and { 2 1 } are different possible results. Also, it could be argued that the result for { 1 2 3 } 1 selections should be { 1 2 3 } [ 1array ] map -- perhaps it should change to that in the future.
This was committed to the main repository recently.
Update: A comment by Jon Harper showed me a way to improve all-subsets. Based on that, I also made some changes to selections (perhaps it could be improved even more):
: all-subsets ( seq -- subsets )
dup length [0,b] [ all-combinations ] with map concat ;
: (selections) ( seq n -- selections )
[ [ 1array ] map dup ] [ 1 - ] bi* [
cartesian-product concat [ { } concat-as ] map
] with times ;
: selections ( seq n -- selections )
dup 0 > [ (selections) ] [ 2drop { } ] if ;
7 comments:
Hi, what do you think of the following definition of all-subsets? It seems to be a bit faster and shorter than the one you committed.
: subsets ( set -- subsets )
dup length [0,b] [ all-combinations ] with map concat ;
Jon
(sry for posting 3 times, I'm not a morning person)
I like it. I took some of your idea and improved selections too - think we can do better still?
John, I just wanted to say I really appreciate your blog posts about Factor.
Actually, "selections" is almost already in the library, in the sequences.product vocabulary :
See here : http://paste.factorcode.org/paste?id=1803
I wonder if this is useful though, because if you use "each" or "map" on the result, you might as well use product-map (or product-each) directly..
Interesting, I didn't know about the "sequences.product" vocab. When using selections with each and map, you're probably right that its better. I wonder if it is worth changing the implementation to one of the ones you suggest, or dropping it?
Post a Comment