I would like to create (in Julia) a 2 dimensional array Y storing the spherical harmonics Y_lm(x) evaluated at some fixed x, indexed by an integer l>=0 and -l<=m<=l.
How can I create the array Y such that I may access elements via tuples, e.g, to access Y_20(x) I would call Y[(2,0)]?
More generally does Julia allow arrays indexed by tuples (x1,...xn) if we don't know anything about the possible range of the xi (like a dictionary, but indexed by tuples of integers instead of strings)?
Short answer, that isn't what arrays are "for" in Julia, this is what Dict is for. In Julia (and many languages) what is generally meant by an array is something that is indexed by a series of contiguous integer values. (That said, you can implement your own object implementing the Array interface that might work differently...).
A Dict allows for any arbitrary set of indices, that can be any type you want, not just strings. For example:
Y = Dict()
Y[(2,0)] = "Hello, World"
println(Y[(2,0)])
For your particular problem there may be a more efficient solution, but I don't know enough about spherical harmonics to know what it would be. It would be worth looking at the package mentioned in the comments. It probably has a more idiomatic approach.
Related
I am learning Julia following the Wikibook, but I don't understand why the following two commands give different results:
julia> [1:2]
1-element Array{UnitRange{Int64},1}:
1:2
julia> Array[1:2]
1-element Array{Array,1}:
[1,2]
Apologies if there is an explanation I haven't seen in the Wikibook, I have looked briefly but didn't find one.
Type[a] runs convert on the elements, and there is a simple conversion between a Range to an Array (collect). So Array[1:2] converts 1:2 to an array, and then makes an array of objects like that. This is the same thing as why Float64[1;2;3] is an array of Float64.
These previous parts answer answered the wrong thing. Oops...
a:b is not an array, it's a UnitRange. Why would you create an array for A = a:b? It only takes two numbers to store it, and you can calculate A[i] basically for free for any i. Using an array would take an amount of memory which is proportional to the b-a, and thus for larger arrays would take a lot of time to allocate, whereas allocation for UnitRange is essentially free.
These kinds of types in Julia are known as lazy iterators. LinSpace is another. Another interesting set of types are the special matrix types: why use more than an array to store a Diagonal? The UniformScaling operator acts as the identity matrix while only storing one value (it's scale) to make A-kI efficient.
Since Julia has a robust type system, there is no reason to make all of these things arrays. Instead, you can make them a specialized type which will act (*, +, etc.) and index like an array, but actually aren't. This will make them take less memory and be faster. If you ever need the array, just call collect(A) or full(A).
I realized that you posted something a little more specific. The reason here is that Array[1:2] calls the getindex function for an array. This getindex function has a special dispatch on a Range so that way it "acts like it's indexed by an array" (see the discussion from earlier). So that's "special-cased", but in actuality it just has dispatches to act like an array just like it does with every other function. [A] gives an array of typeof(A) no matter what A is, so there's no magic here.
I'm working to convert some of my ObjC code that uses primitive c arrays to Swift arrays. However, using a playground, I've found some strange behaviors.
For instance, the following is perfectly valid in Swift
var largearray : [[Float]] = []
largearray.append([0,1,2]) //3 elements
largearray.append([3,4,5]) //3 elements
largearray.append([6,7,8,9]) //-4- elements
largearray.append([10,11,12]) //3 elements
//pull those back out
largearray[1][0] //gives 3
largearray[1][2] //gives 5
//largearray[1][3] //error
largearray[2][0] //gives 6
largearray[2][2] //gives 8
largearray[2][3] //gives 9
largearray[3][0] //gives 10
I don't understand how it's possible to have a mixed row lengths is Swift. Can someone explain what's going on here, because the documentation doesn't go into that kind of detail. I'm curious if it is even storing a contiguous Float array behind the scenes or not.
Then another question I have is about accessing rows or columns. In Swift I see that I can access an entire row using largearray[0] gives [0,1,2], just as largearray[2] gives [6,7,8,9]. Which isn't how c arrays are indexed. (If I just specified one index for a 2D c-array, it would act as a sequential index row by column. So, is there some way to access an entire column in swift? In c, and Swift, largearray[][2] is invalid. But I'm curious if there is some technique not mentioned in the docs, since it seems obvious that Swift is keeping track of extra information.
I should add that I will be making use of the Accelerate framework. So if any of the above "strange" ways of using a Swift array will cause performance issues on massive arrays, let me know.
How are Swift arrays different than c arrays
In C, an array is always a contiguous list of elements. In Swift, an array is a much more abstract data structure. You can make assumptions about how data is organized in memory with a C array, and you can even calculate the addresses of an element given the base address, element size, and an index. In Swift, not so much. Think of Swift's Array type the same way you think of NSArray in Objective-C. It's an ordered sequence of elements that provides array-like operations, but you shouldn't worry about how it stores the actual data.
I don't understand how it's possible to have a mixed row lengths is Swift.
Well, for one thing, you're really looking at an array of arrays. If an array is an object, then an array of arrays is probably implemented as an list of object pointers rather than a contiguous series of same-sized lists. You can do the same thing with NSArray, for example, because each item in an NSArray can be an object of any type.
So, is there some way to access an entire column in swift?
You'd need to iterate over the items in the array, which are themselves arrays, and examine the element at the "column" position you're interested in. I don't think there's a faster way to do it than that.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I had a discussion with a buddy about whether C++ and C multi-dimensional arrays are special cases of ragged arrays. One point of view was
A multi-dimensional array is not a ragged array, because each element of the multi-dimensional array has the same size. In a ragged array, at least one element has a different size than another element of the same array. ("If it doesn't have the possibility to be ragged, it's not a ragged array.").
The other point of view was
A multi-dimensional array is a special case of a ragged array, where each element has the same size. A ragged array may have rows of different sizes, but doesn't have to. ("A circle is an ellipsis.").
I'm interested in getting a definite answer as to what the common definition of a "ragged array" is in computer science and whether C and C++ multidimensional arrays are ragged arrays or not.
I don't know what the "exact definition" of a ragged array should be but I believe C/C++ multidimensional arrays are definitely not ragged. The reasons for this are the following:
A ragged array is a term referring the a certain way of "storage in memory" of the arrays such that there is/are at least one pair of rows/cells with different sizes.
Arrays in C/C++ are pretty straight-forward. The arrays are just a "contiguous block" of memory that is reserved for the structure (array).
Other high-level languages might have different implementations to save memory etc. but C/C++ arrays don't.
So I believe we cannot call C/C++ arrays ragged.
(Opinion).
EDIT:
And this also heavily depends on the "definition" of ragged. So this is not a well-defined term and so it will be difficult to reach a conclusion. (Should avoid unproductive debates).
A C multidimensional array, if declared as a multidimensional array, cannot be ragged. A 2D array, for example, is an "array of arrays" and each row is the same length, even if you don't use every entry in the array.
int a1[2][3]; // two rows, three columns
int a2[5][8]; // five rows, eight columns
The thing about C, though, is that you can use a pointer-to-a-pointer as if it were a 2D array:
int **a3 = malloc(4);
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++)
a3[i] = malloc(i);
Now a3 can be used in a lot of cases like a 2D array, but is definitely ragged.
IMHO, real arrays cannot be called ragged, but you can certainly fake it out if you have to... the terminology you use doesn't really seem that important from that standpoint.
I'd say the difference is a conceptual one. A multidimensional array
T x[d_1][d_2]...[d_N];
denotes a contiguous area of memory of size $\prod_i d_i$, if you pardon the TeX, and it's addressed in strides: x[i_1]...[i_N] is the element at position $i_N + i_{N-1} d_N + i_{n-2} d_{N-1} d_N + ... + i_1 d_2 ... d_N$. Intermediate indexes can be taken as pointers to the respective subarrays.
A ragged array on the other hand decouples the inner "dimension" from the outer one in memory:
T * r[M];
for (size_t i = 0; i != M; ++i)
r[M] = new T[get_size_at_row(i)];
Whether the sizes actually vary or not is immaterial here, but the conceptual difference is that a ragged array is an array of arrays, whereas a multidimensional array is a far more rigid and coherent object.
When discussing mathematical objects, I think that "ragged" is probably used as a modifier to "array" specifically to mean one that has mismatched secondary dimensions. So that's the first meaning rather than the second. Consider where the word is taken from - we don't say that a brand new handkerchief "is ragged, because it has the potential to fray around the edges, but it hasn't frayed yet". It's not ragged at all. So if we were to call a specific array "ragged", I would expect that to mean "not straight".
However, there will be some contexts in which it's worth defining "ragged array" to mean a "potentially-ragged array" rather than one that actually does have mismatches. For example, if you were going to write a "RaggedArray" class, you would not design in a class invariant that there is guaranteed to be a mismatched size somewhere, and be sure to throw an exception if someone tries to create one with all sizes equal. That would be absurd, despite that fact that you're going to call instances of this class "ragged arrays". So in that context, an array with equal sizes in all elements is a special case of a "ragged array". That's the second meaning rather than the first.
Of course, a C or C++ multi-dimensional array still would not be an instance of this class, but it might satisfy at least the read-only part of some generic interface referred to as "RaggedArray". It's basically a shortcut, that even though we know "ragged" means "having a size mismatch", for most purposes you simply can't be bothered to call that class or generic interface "PotentiallyRaggedArray" just to make clear that you won't enforce the constraint that there must be one.
There's a difference between whether a particular instance of a type has a specific property, and whether the type allows instances of it to have that property, and we frequently ignore that difference when we say that an instance of type X "is an X". Instances of type X potentially have the property, this instance doesn't have it, so this instance in fact does not potentially have the property either. Your two meanings of "ragged array" can be seen as an example of that difference. See the E-Prime crowd, and also the philosophy of Wittgenstein, for the kinds of confusion we create when we say that one thing "is" another, different thing. An instance "is not" a type, and a concrete example does not have the same potential properties as whatever it's an example of.
To specifically answer your question, I doubt that there is a universally-accepted preference for one meaning over the other in the CS literature. It's one of those terms that you just have to define for your own purposes when you introduce it to a given work (an academic paper, the documentation of a particular library, etc). If I could find two papers, one using each, then I'd have proved it, but I can't be bothered with that ;-)
My position would be that ragged array is distinguishable from a multi-dimensional array because it has (must have!) a index that tells you where each of the sub-arrays start. (A ragged array also needs some mechanism for keeping track of the size of each sub-array and while knowing that the sub-arrays are of uniform size will do it is not very general)
You could in principle build a index that connects to the sub-arrays of a standard multi-dimensional array
int arr[6][10]; // <=== Multi-dimensional array
int **ragged = calloc(6,sizeof(int*)); // <=== Ragged array (initially empty)
for (int i=0; i<6 ++i) {
ragged[i] = arr[i]; // <=== make the ragged array alias arr
}
Now I have an two-dimensional array and a two-dimensional ragged array using the same data.
So no, a language multi-dimensional array is not a special case of a ragged array.
I am manipulating 2-dimensional arrays in OCaml. I have some questions:
How to declare an array whose length is of type int64, instead of int? For instance, Array.make : int -> 'a -> 'a array, what if I need a bigger array whose index is of type int64?
May I write something like the following:
let array = Array.make_matrix 10 10 0 in
array.(1).(2) <- 5; array.(3).(4) <- 20; (* where I modify a part of values in array)
f array ...
...
The code above seems to me unnatural, because we modify the value of array inside the let, do I have to this, or is there a more natural way to do this?
Could anyone help? thank you very much!
On 64-bit systems, the size of OCaml arrays from the Array module is limited to 2^54 - 1 and on 32-bit systems the limit is 4,194,303. For arrays of float, the limit is 2 times smaller. In both cases the index is easily represented as an int, so there's no advantage in using int64 as an index.
The value for 32-bit systems is way too small for some problems, so there is another module named Bigarray that can represent larger arrays. It supports much larger arrays, but the indices are still int. If you really need to have large indices, you are possibly on a 64-bit system where this isn't such a limitation. If not, you're going to run out of address space anyway, I would think. Maybe what you really want is a hash table?
I'm not sure what you're saying about "let". The purpose of let is to give something a name. It's not unreasonable to give the array a name before you start storing values into it. If you want to define the values at the time you create the array you can use Array.init and write an arbitrary function for setting the array values.
Array code in OCaml is inherently imperative, so you will usually end up with code that has that look to it. I often use begin and end and just embrace the Algolic quality of it.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Arrays, What’s the point?
I tried to ask this question before in What is the difference between an array and a list? but my question was closed before reaching a conclusive answer (more about that).
I'm trying to understand what is really meant by the word "array" in computer science. I am trying to reach an answer not have a discussion as per the spirit of this website. What I'm asking is language agnostic but you may draw on your knowledge of what arrays are/do in various languages that you've used.
Ways of thinking about this question:
Imagine you're designing a new programming language and you decide to implement arrays in it; what does that mean they do? What will the properties and capabilities of those things be. If it depends on the type of language, how so?
What makes an array an array?
When is an array not an array? When it is, for example, a list, vector, table, map, or collection?
It's possible there isn't one precise definition of what an array is, if that is the case then are there any standard or near-standard assumptions or what an array is? Are there any common areas at least? Maybe there are several definitions, if that is the case I'm looking for the most precision in each of them.
Language examples:
(Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these).
C arrays are contiguous blocks of memory of a single type that can be traversed using pointer arithmetic or accessed at a specific offset point. They have a fixed size.
Arrays in JavaScript, Ruby, and PHP, have a variable size and can store an object/scalar of any type they can also grow or have elements removed from them.
PHP arrays come in two types: numeric and associative. Associative arrays have elements that are stored and retrieved with string keys. Numeric arrays have elements that are stored and retrieved with integers. Interestingly if you have: $eg = array('a', 'b', 'c') and you unset($eg[1]) you still retrieve 'c' with $eg[2], only now $eg[1] is undefined. (You can call array_values() to re-index the array). You can also mix string and integer keys.
At this stage of sort of suspecting that C arrays are the only true array here and that strictly-speaking for an array to be an array it has to have all the characteristics I mention in that first bullet point. If that's the case then — again these are suspicions that I'm looking to have confirmed or rejected — arrays in JS and Ruby are actually vectors, and PHP arrays are probably tables of some kind.
Final note: I've made this community wiki so if answers need to be edited a few times in lieu of comments, go ahead and do that. Consensus is in order here.
It is, or should be, all about abstraction
There is actually a good question hidden in there, a really good one, and it brings up a language pet peeve I have had for a long time.
And it's getting worse, not better.
OK: there is something lowly and widely disrespected Fortran got right that my favorite languages like Ruby still get wrong: they use different syntax for function calls, arrays, and attributes. Exactly how abstract is that? In fortran function(1) has the same syntax as array(1), so you can change one to the other without altering the program. (I know, not for assignments, and in the case of Fortran it was probably an accident of goofy punch card character sets and not anything deliberate.)
The point is, I'm really not sure that x.y, x[y], and x(y) should have different syntax. What is the benefit of attaching a particular abstraction to a specific syntax? To make more jobs for IDE programmers working on refactoring transformations?
Having said all that, it's easy to define array. In its first normal form, it's a contiguous sequence of elements in memory accessed via a numeric offset and using a language-specific syntax. In higher normal forms it is an attribute of an object that responds to a typically-numeric message.
array |əˈrā|
noun
1 an impressive display or range of a particular type of thing : there is a vast array of literature on the topic | a bewildering array of choices.
2 an ordered arrangement, in particular
an arrangement of troops.
Mathematics: an arrangement of quantities or symbols in rows and columns; a matrix.
Computing: an ordered set of related elements.
Law: a list of jurors empaneled.
3 poetic/literary elaborate or beautiful clothing : he was clothed in fine array.
verb
[ trans. ] (usu. be arrayed) display or arrange (things) in a particular way : arrayed across the table was a buffet | the forces arrayed against him.
[ trans. ] (usu. be arrayed in) dress someone in (the clothes specified) : they were arrayed in Hungarian national dress.
[ trans. ] Law empanel (a jury).
ORIGIN Middle English (in the senses [preparedness] and [place in readiness] ): from Old French arei (noun), areer (verb), based on Latin ad- ‘toward’ + a Germanic base meaning ‘prepare.’
From FOLDOC:
array
1. <programming> A collection of identically typed data items
distinguished by their indices (or "subscripts"). The number
of dimensions an array can have depends on the language but is
usually unlimited.
An array is a kind of aggregate data type. A single
ordinary variable (a "scalar") could be considered as a
zero-dimensional array. A one-dimensional array is also known
as a "vector".
A reference to an array element is written something like
A[i,j,k] where A is the array name and i, j and k are the
indices. The C language is peculiar in that each index is
written in separate brackets, e.g. A[i][j][k]. This expresses
the fact that, in C, an N-dimensional array is actually a
vector, each of whose elements is an N-1 dimensional array.
Elements of an array are usually stored contiguously.
Languages differ as to whether the leftmost or rightmost index
varies most rapidly, i.e. whether each row is stored
contiguously or each column (for a 2D array).
Arrays are appropriate for storing data which must be accessed
in an unpredictable order, in contrast to lists which are
best when accessed sequentially. Array indices are
integers, usually natural numbers, whereas the elements of
an associative array are identified by strings.
2. <architecture> A processor array, not to be confused with
an array processor.
Also note that in some languages, when they say "array" they actually mean "associative array":
associative array
<programming> (Or "hash", "map", "dictionary") An array
where the indices are not just integers but may be
arbitrary strings.
awk and its descendants (e.g. Perl) have associative
arrays which are implemented using hash coding for faster
look-up.
If you ignore how programming languages model arrays and lists, and ignore the implementation details (and consequent performance characteristics) of the abstractions, then the concepts of array and list are indistinguishable.
If you introduce implementation details (still independent of programming language) you can compare data structures like linked lists, array lists, regular arrays, sparse arrays and so on. But then you are not longer comparing arrays and lists per se.
The way I see it, you can only talk about a distinction between arrays and lists in the context of a programming language. And of course you are then talking about arrays and lists as supported by that language. You cannot generalize to any other language.
In short, I think this question is based on a false premise, and has no useful answer.
EDIT: in response to Ollie's comments:
I'm not saying that it is not useful to use the words "array" and "list". What I'm saying is the words do not and cannot have precise and distinct definitions ... except in the context of a specific programming language. While you would like the two words to have distinct meaning, it is a fact that they don't. Just take a look at the way the words are actually used. Furthermore, trying to impose a new set of definitions on the world is doomed to fail.
My point about implementation is that when we compare and contrast the different implementations of arrays and lists, we are doing just that. I'm not saying that it is not a useful thing to do. What I am saying is that when we compare and contrast the various implementations we should not get all hung up about whether we call them arrays or lists or whatever. Rather we should use terms that we can agree on ... or not use terms at all.
To me, "array" means "ordered collection of things that is probably efficiently indexable" and "list" means "ordered collection of things that may be efficiently indexable". But there are examples of both arrays and lists that go against the trend; e.g. PHP arrays on the one hand, and Java ArrayLists on the other hand. So if I want to be precise ... in a language-agnostic context, I have to talk about "C-like arrays" or "linked lists" or some other terminology that makes it clear what data structure I really mean. The terms "array" and "list" are of no use if I want to be clear.
An array is an ordered collection of data items indexed by integer. It is not possible to be certain of anything more. Vote for this answer you believe this is the only reasonable outcome of this question.
An array:
is a finite collection of elements
the elements are ordered, and this is their only structure
elements of the same type
supported efficient random access
has no expectation of efficient insertions
may or may not support append
(1) differentiates arrays from things like iterators or generators. (2) differentiates arrays from sets. (3) differentiates arrays from things like tuples where you get an int and a string. (4) differentiates arrays from other types of lists. Maybe it's not always true, but a programmer's expectation is that random access is constant time. (5) and (6) are just there to deny additional requirements.
I would argue that a real array stores values in contiguous memory. Anything else is only called an array because it can be used like array, but they aren't really ("arrays" in PHP are definately not actual arrays (non-associative)). Vectors and such are extensions of arrays, adding additional functionality.
an array is a container, and the objects it holds have no any relationships except the order; the objects are stored in a continuous space abstractly (high level, of course low level may continuous too), so you could access them by slot[x,y,z...].
for example, per array[2,3,5,7,1], you could get 5 using slot[2] (slot[3] in some languages).
for a list, a container too, each object (well, each object-holder exactly such as slot or node) it holds has indicators which "point" to other object(s) and this is the main relationship; in general both high or low level the space is not continuous, but may be continuous; so accessing by slot[x,y,z...] is not recommended.
for example, per |-2-3-5-7-1-|, you need to do a travel from first object to 3rd one to get 5.