Sunday, December 03, 2006

Polynomials as numbers

So, I was trying to learn category theory, having gathered it was a good thing to know for people interested in programming language theory. I kind of got bogged down though -- it's castles built on castles built on castles in the air, and I was losing track of reality in all the abstractions. My book would talk about a category of Groups, for example, so I'd go looking up Groups in my faithful Wikipedia. I'd get the concept, it's not that tricky in itself, but obviously understanding the definition of a group does not make one a group theorist.

So, I finally declared "mission accomplished" brought the troops home to a ticker-tape parade, and started in on a group theory textbook instead (Knapp's Basic Algebra). I'm enjoying it a lot more -- it starts up where I left off with math classes, so I don't feel like I'm a freshman in a senior-level class.

Anyway, this book starts with a kind of review of polynomials, simultaneous equations, matrices, vector spaces, etc. that is stuff I've seen before, but with a more theoretical spin, that either was missing from my high school algebra or I've simply forgotten it. The book points out that factoring integers into products of smaller integers, is very much like factoring polynomials into products of polynomials of smaller degree, and a prime number is like a polynomial you can't factor any further (like say x2+9 = 0, when you're dealing with Reals). Of course you can also add, subtract, multiply, and divide polynomials, and the result is always still a polynomial. If a topologist can't tell a coffee cup from a doughnut, then a group theorist can't tell a polynomial from an integer.

Well, maybe she can; obviously integers and polynomials have some different properties. But I'm tickled enough with the idea that a polynomial is a kind of number, that I created a polynomial instance of Num in Literate Haskell as an exercise, reproduced below for your edification.

Since I'm also still learning Haskell, I welcome any critiques you might have of my code. I like the fact that the data structure I used (just a list of coefficients) turned out to make for short code; but it doesn't come out very readable. The fact that prepending a 0 to a list multiplies the polynomial by X seems as cryptic as it is convenient.


> module Main where
> main = print testP

I represent a polynomial as a list of its coefficients,
with the constant first, then the X, the X^2, etc. So
3x^2 - 4 would be Poly [-4,0,3].

> data Floating a => Poly a = Poly [a] deriving (Eq)

Now we evaluate by filling in the unknown. Note that
ax2 + bx + c evaluated at x is the same as
(ax + b)x + c, so you can evaluate it by taking the constant
term, popping it off the list, then multiplying x by the
polynomial interpretation of the rest of the list.

> evalPoly :: (Floating a) => (Poly a) -> a -> a
> evalPoly (Poly []) x = 0
> evalPoly (Poly (c:cs)) x = c + x*(evalPoly (Poly cs) x)

To add two polynomials, add corresponding coefficients. If
one is shorter than the other, you want to use zeroes. I don't
know how to do this beautifully with standard functions, because
zip cuts off when the shortest list runs out. So I defined
a helper function zipLong, that keeps going till the longest
list is done, filling in a default value.

10 Points to whoever emails me with a shorter, cleaner,
idiomatic way to do this.

> addPoly :: (Floating a) => (Poly a) -> (Poly a) -> (Poly a)
> addPoly (Poly r) (Poly s) = Poly $ map (\v -> (fst v + snd v)) (zipLong r s 0)

> zipLong [] [] d = []
> zipLong (x:xs) [] d = (x,d):(zipLong xs [] d)
> zipLong [] (y:ys) d = (d,y):(zipLong [] ys d)
> zipLong (x:xs) (y:ys) d = (x,y):(zipLong xs ys d)

Multiply a polynomial by a scalar. I have a feeling this
could be defined somehow under an instance of Num so that
the * operator is automatically overloaded. Not sure how.

> scalarPolyMult :: (Floating a) => a -> Poly a -> Poly a
> scalarPolyMult c (Poly rs) = Poly $ map (*c) rs

Since (ax^2 + bx + c)x = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx,
then Poly [c b a] * x = Poly [0 c b a]

> multByUnknown (Poly rs) = Poly (0:rs)

To multiply two polynomials, P1 * P2, where P2 = (dx^2 + ex + f),
rewrite as f*P1 + P1*x*(dx + e); the first term is a scalar multiplication
and the second has one less degree, so we can recurse on it. The
(Poly bs) term below is (dx + e) in this example.

> multPoly :: (Floating a) => (Poly a) -> (Poly a) -> (Poly a)
> multPoly (Poly []) cs = Poly []
> multPoly (Poly (b:bs)) cs =
> addPoly
> (scalarPolyMult b cs)
> (multPoly (Poly bs) (multByUnknown cs))

Define a polynomial as a number. I'm cheating a little by
picking a dumb definition of signum; really a polynomial
with an unknown isn't positive or negative before a number
is plugged into it, so I'm just defining it as the sign of
the constant term.

> instance (Floating a) => Num (Poly a) where
> s + t = addPoly s t
> negate (Poly cs) = Poly $ map (\q -> -q) cs
> s * t = multPoly s t
> abs s
> | signum s == -1 = negate s
> | signum s /= -1 = s
> signum (Poly []) = Poly []
> signum (Poly (c:cs)) = Poly [signum c]
> fromInteger i = Poly [fromInteger i]

And define a cheesy way to print out a polynomial

> instance Floating a => Show (Poly a) where
> show (Poly []) = "null"
> show (Poly cs) = concatMap
> (\c -> " + " ++ (show (fst c)) ++ "X^" ++ (show (snd c)))
> (reverse (zip cs [0..length(cs)-1] ))

Define some examples and some tests.

> p = Poly [2,0,1,2] -- 2x^3 + x + 2
> q = Poly [0,0,0,3,4] -- 4x^4 + 3x^3

> testP = (p * q == Poly [0,0,0,6,8,3,10,8]) &&
> (p + q == Poly [2,0,1,5,4]) &&
> (evalPoly p 3 == 65.0 ) &&
> (3 * p == Poly [6,0,3,6]) &&
> (show p == " + 2.0X^3 + 1.0X^2 + 0.0X^1 + 2.0X^0")

2 comments:

Mikael said...

Getting multiplication of a polynomial with a scalar doesn't lend itself easily to the typeclass Num, since this will give (*) the type a -> a -> a, thus taking either scalar * scalar = scalar, or polynomial * polynomial = polynomial.

Of course, with the identification of a scalar as a degree 0 polynomial, things'll work out again, as a side effect of polynomial multiplication.

For a mathematically slightly cleaner approach, you may want to sneak a peak on the NumericPrelude stuff developed (google it, or check the haskell wiki page on mathematical libraries) - they reconstruct the class Num using structures like Additive monoid, and similar neatness.

Nathan B said...

With polynomials, you're venturing into Ring theory. A ring is an abelian group (that operator called 'plus') equipped with a second operator ('times'), such that times distributes over plus; the integers, rationals, reals, and complexes are all examples of rings.

There are a handful of ways to construct new rings from old; one of the more important ones is to construct the ring of polynomials. If A is any ring, then A[x] is the ring of polynomials whose coefficients come from A. In A[x], plus and times are defined in the usual way, with coefficient addition and multiplication coming from A.

This is a long-winded way to approach the point of this comment, namely that the analogy of integer factorization to polynomial factorization that you identify is in fact more than superficial. Both Z and Z[x] (the integers and the polynomials over the integers) are members of a special class of rings called Unique Factorization Domains.

I've been working on a Haskell library to express this- so that Polynomial is an instance of Ring rather than Num.