The code for this section is in Scheme.
Here’s the code for integral estimation using the monte-carlo method. Note that I changed the definition of
random-in-range a little, since PLT Scheme’s
random doesn’t accept inexact numbers.
(define (random-in-range low high) (let ((range (- high low))) (+ low (* (random) range)))) (define (monte-carlo trials experiment) (define (iter trials-remaining trials-passed) (cond ((= trials-remaining 0) (/ trials-passed trials)) ((experiment) (iter (- trials-remaining 1) (+ trials-passed 1))) (else (iter (- trials-remaining 1) trials-passed)))) (iter trials 0)) (define (rect-area x1 x2 y1 y2) (abs (* (- x2 x1) (- y2 y1)))) (define (estimate-integral p x1 x2 y1 y2 n-trials) (let ((integral-test (lambda () (p (random-in-range x1 x2) (random-in-range y1 y2))))) (* (rect-area x1 x2 y1 y2) (monte-carlo n-trials integral-test))))
(define (unit-pred x y) (<= (+ (square x) (square y)) 1)) (do ((i 0 (+ i 1))) ((= i 10) '()) (printf "Pi estimated: ~a~%" (estimate-integral unit-pred 1.0 -1.0 1.0 -1.0 100000)))
The results I got in one run:
Pi estimated: 3.14004 Pi estimated: 3.1354 Pi estimated: 3.14428 Pi estimated: 3.13584 Pi estimated: 3.14064 Pi estimated: 3.13584 Pi estimated: 3.13852 Pi estimated: 3.1366 Pi estimated: 3.14224 Pi estimated: 3.14808
These aren’t as stable as I’d like after 100,000 iterations. The reason for the relative poorness of the results is either because of the exactness limit of Scheme numbers, or the poorness of the pseudorandom number generator, or both.
There are two ways to go about this exercise – either use the imaginary
rand-update function the authors refer to in the text, or write something that will surely work in a concrete Scheme implemenentation. I’ll take the second way, using the random-number facilities of PLT Scheme.
(define (rand command) (case command ('generate (random)) ('reset (lambda (new) (random-seed new))) (else (error "Bad command -- " command))))
random-seed is a built in function of the MzScheme language1.
I think this is quite possible to achieve without actually modifying the solution to exercise 3.3:
(define (make-joint acc acc-pass new-pass) (define (proxy-dispatch password m) (if (eq? password new-pass) (acc acc-pass m) (error "Bad joint password -- " password))) proxy-dispatch)
We have to carefully understand where the state is stored here…
acc as the original account, and
proxy-dispatch “closes over” it. The same with
acc-pass which is the original password to the account. Then, when the proxy2 function is called, it just checks if its password is correct and forwards the call to the original account (which, in turn, checks that its password is correct).
Here’s one such function. It is very contrived and file-tailored to the exercise, of course:
(define f (let ((state 1)) (lambda (n) (set! state (* state n)) state)))
PLT Scheme evaluates arguments left-to-right. So:
(+ (f 0) (f 1)) => 0
To “simulate” right-to-left evaluation, I’ll just change the order of the arguments to
(+ (f 1) (f 0)) => 1
1 MzScheme is the formal name of the Scheme dialect used in PLT Scheme. It’s a superset of R5RS Scheme.
2 This functions doesn’t do anything by itself, but rather forwards all calls to another function. Such a pattern is often called proxy.