Permalink
Commits on Mar 4, 2015
  1. Minor fixes to documentation.

    Aditya Athalye committed Mar 2, 2015
Commits on Mar 1, 2015
  1. Ex. 2.33 to 2.36 and Sequs Horriblis, 4clojure prob 112.

    Aditya Athalye committed Mar 1, 2015
Commits on Feb 25, 2015
  1. Ex. 2.31 square-tree, and Ex. 2.32 subsets

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
  2. Ex. 2.30 square-tree without & with higher order fns.

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
  3. gitignore racket / scheme artefacts.

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
  4. Ex. 2.17 to 2.29

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
  5. Ex 2.12 through to 2.16

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
  6. Ex. 2.9 to 2.11, extended interval arithmetic.

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
  7. Minor formatting edits.

    Aditya Athalye committed Feb 25, 2015
Commits on Apr 19, 2014
  1. Attempt for ex2-12.

    Aditya Athalye committed Apr 19, 2014
  2. Attempts at ex2-09, ex2-10, and ex2-11.

    Aditya Athalye committed Apr 19, 2014
  3. Attempts at ex2-07 and ex2-08.

    Aditya Athalye committed Apr 19, 2014
Commits on Oct 13, 2013
  1. Delete Lisp-Is-a-Sanskrit-Parallel.pdf

    Amateurish and ill-thought through. No longer merits being around.
    committed Oct 13, 2013
Commits on Apr 16, 2013
  1. Deduced add from procedures add-1, one, and two

    With a clue from Chandra Sivaraman's post where I stopped reading after
    the point where he says:
    "; In retrospect, looking at the definition of add-1 above should
    ; have provided an instant clue as to Church's scheme."
    http://cdfrag.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/sicp-exercise-2-6/
    committed Apr 16, 2013
Commits on Apr 15, 2013
  1. Defined numbers one and two as pure functions!

    It took a while to walk through the evaluation of (add-1 zero) and
    (add-1 one by hand). I was confused by how to deal with the nested
    lambdas for the longest time. Sorted after a few experiments in REPL and
    re-re-re-readings of the introduced to lambda procedures on page 63 of
    the book.
    
    Now working our how to define + in pure functional terms without using
    scalar numerals.
    committed Apr 15, 2013
Commits on Apr 14, 2013
  1. This works but not as well as I'd like it to

    There must be a better way.
    committed Apr 14, 2013
Commits on Apr 13, 2013
  1. Alternative procedural representation of pairs

    Includes step-by-step evaluation of (car (cons x y)) by substitution.
    committed Apr 13, 2013
  2. Compute area, perimeter, diagonals of rectangle

    For the purpose of this exercise, I blindly trust that the user will
    read this and supply a guaranteed rectangle, in one of two ways:
    - As lengths of two adjacent edges or
    - As a set of adjacent coordinates.
    
    Guaranteeing correctness of a rectangle is proving to be rather
    cumbersome as I can only construct pairs and access elements of pairs,
    at this time.
    committed Apr 13, 2013
  3. Missed edge case: if all three numbers are equal

    Realized my old code didn't handle this, while reading a Stack Overflow
    thread.
    committed Apr 13, 2013
Commits on Apr 10, 2013
  1. Fixed file name

    Changed 'ex2-1-' to 'ex2-01-'
    committed Apr 10, 2013
  2. Flattened directory structure

    All chapter examples and exercise solution files will now be in the
    /sicp directory. The naming convention takes care of ordered listing
    anyway. And loading file paths needs fewer keystrokes.
    committed Apr 10, 2013
Commits on Apr 9, 2013
  1. Construct a better rational number representation

    Piece of cake! (Which means there's a really steep slope coming up
    pretty soon! :D)
    committed Apr 9, 2013
  2. General-purpose iterative improvement

    square-root works :)
    
    The iterative-improve procedure did not converge for the longest time
    because I carelessly omitted the tolerance value (0.0001) in the lambda
    procedure passed as the good-enough? argument inside the square-root
    procedure.
    committed Apr 9, 2013
Commits on Apr 8, 2013
  1. I iz the NEO nao!

    I don't even want to _begin_ paper interpretation of the nth-root
    procedure. It works - but how the magic is it doing that?!
    committed Apr 8, 2013
  2. Appears to work - need some real test data

    I crudely tested convergence of smoothing of the sine primitive, for
    different values of dx, by comparing the different smoothened values
    with the value of sin x. Doesn't feel like a good test though.
    committed Apr 8, 2013
Commits on Apr 7, 2013
  1. Solved, FTW!

    Only, stuck in the paper eval of exercise 1.41... Not yet been able to
    properly work out why (((double (double double) inc) 5) evaluates to 21
    (i.e. 5 was incremented 16 times--i.e. why does (double (double double)
    inc) produce 2^3*[argument]?)
    committed Apr 7, 2013
Commits on Apr 6, 2013
  1. Make x^x procedure definition more clear

    Change the name from 'x-to-x', to 'x-exp-x' as the former does not
    convey the meaning of the procedure.
    committed Apr 6, 2013
Commits on Apr 5, 2013
  1. Iterative and recursive variants. It's working!

    Compare computation with Scheme's built-in 'tan' primitive.
    committed Apr 5, 2013