[racket] Looking for feedback on code style
The following measurement shows O(n).
But O(n) = O(C+n) where C may be a big number.
Jos
#lang racket
#|
(select k lor (randomize? #f)) -> r
k : exact integer number.
lor : non empty list of real numbers.
randomize? : if false lor is supposed to be in random order.
r : real number, specifically an element of [lor].
condition : (<= 0 k (sub1 (length lor))).
purpose : r = (list-ref (sort lor <) k).
method : [lor] is partially sorted by partitioning as in quicksort,
but recurring on one of the patitions only.
|#
(define (select k lor (randomize? #f))
(unless (and (list? lor) (andmap real? lor) (pair? lor))
(raise-type-error 'select "non empty list of reals" 1 k lor))
(let ((n (length lor)))
(unless (and (exact-integer? k) (<= 0 k (sub1 n)))
(raise-type-error 'select "exact integer (<= 0 k (length lor)" 0 k
lor))
(select-aux k lor n randomize?)))
(define (select-aux k lor n (randomize? #f))
(let*-values
(((r) (list-ref lor (if randomize? (random n) 0)))
((nlt neq ngt lt gt) (partition lor r)))
(cond
((< k nlt) (select-aux k lt nlt randomize?))
((< k (+ nlt neq)) r)
(else (select-aux (- k nlt neq) gt ngt randomize?)))))
#|
(partition r lor (randomize? #f)) -> nlt neq ngt lt gt
lor : non empty list of real
r : one of the elements of [lor].
randomize? : if false [lor] is supposed to be in random order.
nlt : number of elements of lor less than [r].
neq : number of elements of lor equal to [r].
ngt : number of elements of lor greater than [r].
lt : list of elements of lor less than [r].
gt : list of elements of lor greater than [r].
|#
(define (partition lor r)
(partition-aux lor r 0 0 0 '() `()))
(define (partition-aux lor r nlt neq ngt lt gt)
(if (null? lor) (values nlt neq ngt lt gt)
(let ((e (car lor)))
(cond
((< e r)
(partition-aux (cdr lor) r
(add1 nlt) neq ngt
(cons e lt) gt))
((> e r)
(partition-aux (cdr lor) r
nlt neq (add1 ngt)
lt (cons e gt)))
(else
(partition-aux (cdr lor) r
nlt (add1 neq) ngt
lt gt))))))
; Timing O(n), where n is the length of lor.
; Measure times for [n] (inrange start fin step).
; For each [n] take a mean of [repeaqt] measurements.
(define (timer start step fin repeat)
(print-header)
(random 1)
(for ((n (in-range start fin step)))
(let loop ((cpu-time 0) (cpu-gc-time 0) (i repeat))
(if (zero? i) (print-results n cpu-time cpu-gc-time repeat)
(let*-values
(((k) (random n))
((lor) (build-list n (lambda (ignore) (random n))))
((cpu cpu-gc) (times (select k lor))))
(loop (+ cpu-time cpu) (+ cpu-gc cpu-gc-time) (sub1 i)))))))
(define (print-header)
(printf
"lenth of lor, cpu time, cpu-gc~n~
times are in nanoseconds.~n~
they show mean time of one select call divided by the length of
lor.~n"))
(define (print-results n cpu cpu-gc repeat)
(printf "~s ~a ~a~n" n
(real->decimal-string (/ (* 1000 cpu ) (* n repeat)) 6)
(real->decimal-string (/ (* 1000 cpu-gc) (* n repeat)) 6)))
(define-syntax times
(syntax-rules ()
((timer expr)
(let ((port (open-output-string)))
(parameterize ((current-output-port port))
(time expr))
;(display (get-output-string port))
(let ((port (open-input-string (get-output-string port))))
(parameterize ((current-input-port port))
(let ((cpu (begin (read) (read) (read)))
(real (begin (read) (read) (read)))
(gc (begin (read) (read) (read))))
(values cpu (- cpu gc)))))))))
(timer 100000 100000 1000000 100)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at racket-lang.org
> [mailto:users-bounces at racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Bloch
> Sent: 13 September 2010 21:44
> To: users at racket-lang.org
> Subject: Re: [racket] Looking for feedback on code style
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2010, at 3:07 PM, David Van Horn wrote:
>
> >> In fact, ANY method to do this (even with a vector) takes
> Omega(n log
> >> n) time. It needs to be able to produce any of n!
> different answers,
> >> so it needs to make at least log(n!) decisions, which is
> Theta(n log n).
> >> Otherwise there wouldn't be enough leaves on the decision tree.
> >
> > Doesn't it make n decisions? 1 decision for each element
> (the decision being, where does the element go in the shuffled list)?
>
> Each of these is an n-way decision, which takes log(n) bits
> to specify. Any algorithm that solves this problem MUST
> generate at least n log(n) random bits of information, and
> therefore MUST take at least n log(n) time (ignoring parallelism).
>
> Ryan Culpeper points out:
> > I think the discrepancy comes from the fact that each of
> those decisions takes O(log n) bits, but we customarily
> pretend that "indexes" are O(1).
>
> Exactly. As long as your n fits into a machine word, and you
> have at least n cells of truly-random-access memory, you can
> treat array indexing and random-number-generation as taking O(1) time.
>
> > Is this right? Does complexity analysis have a notation for
> distinguishing "true" complexity from "for up to k bits" complexity?
>
> Not exactly a "notation" AFAIK, but people do routinely talk
> about whether the computational model allows bit operations
> in O(1) time, or integer operations in O(1) time, or whatever.
>
>
> Stephen Bloch
> sbloch at adelphi.edu
>
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users