/* Assume that a and b point to array with at least length elements */ /* Assume that none of the intermediate values overflows a double. */ ' double dotProduct(double *a, double *b, int length) { double runningSum = 0; for (int index = 0; index < length; index++) runningSum += a[index] * b[index]; return runningSum; }(in LispLanguage)

;; assume that a and b are the same length. ;; assume that corresponding elements of a and b can be multiplied together. ;; (defun dot-product (a b) (reduce '+ (mapcar '* a b)))(The original code here used "apply" instead of "reduce", but that may hit a limit on the number of arguments.) The name of the lisp function "mapcar" is not very descriptive, but it means something like "perform elementwise". However, you'd end up consing the extra lists (returned from MAPCAR) so, in a production system, most lispers would use a straightforward, non-functional, loop and collect:

;; assume that a and b are the same length. ;; assume that corresponding elements of a and b can be multiplied together. ;; (defun dot-product (a b) (loop for x across a for y across b summing (* a b)))Also, the above would probably have declarations on the types of vectors being multiplied. And you'd like to check that they're of congruent dimensions (not done in above code). Or, if they already included the SERIES package, they might use that; it provides macros which transforms applicative style coding into loops transparently. -- SmugLispWeenie

(define-compiler-macro apply (&whole exp operator &rest args) "Optimize (APPLY '+ (MAPCAR '* ....)) into an equivalent loop." (if (and (equal operator ''+) (equal (caar args) 'mapcar) (equal (cadar args) ''*)) (make-sum-of-products (nthcdr 2 (car args))) exp)) (defun make-sum-of-products (list-exps) "Return code to sum the element-wise products of LIST-EXPS." (let ((vars '())) (flet ((for-clause (list-exp) (push (gensym) vars) `(for ,(car vars) in ,list-exp))) `(loop ,@(mapcan #'for-clause list-exps) summing (* ,@vars)))))

Function dotProduct(ByVal a As IEnumerable(Of Double), ByVal b As IEnumerable(Of Double)) Return a.Zip(Function(a, b) a * b).Sum() End Function

def test(): assert sum([3,4,5]) == 12 assert ElementWiseMultiplication([3,2], [4,5]) == [12,10] assert DotProduct([1,2], [3,-4]) == -5 def ElementWiseMultiplication(list1, list2): return [ list1[i] * list2[i] for i in range(len(list1))] def DotProduct(list1, list2): return sum(ElementWiseMultiplication(list1, list2))It's a bit longer than the lisp solution, but it fits my brain a bit better. YMMV. The Python implementation need not be longer:

def dot_product(a, b): return reduce(lambda sum, p: sum + p[0]*p[1], zip(a,b), 0)

def dot_product(a, b): return sum([a[i]*b[i] for i in range(len(a))])However the most Pythonic way is clean, lazy, and works on any pair of iterables (if you don't need LazyEvaluation, use zip rather than izip):

from itertools import izip def dot_product(a, b): return sum(x*y for (x,y) in izip(a,b))Or a more FP style:

from itertools import imap from operator import mul def dot_product(a, b): return sum(imap(mul, a, b))Now it looks even more like Lisp.

dotProductOf: a and: b ^(a with: b collect: [:eachA :eachB | eachA * eachB]) inject: 0 into: [:sum :each | sum + each]or, as an extention to Float or Number:

dotProductOf: aNum ^(self with: aNum collect: [:a :b | a * b]) inject: 0 into: [:sum :each | sum + each]allowing

aNum dotProductOf: anotherNum

map2 f = (map (uncurry f) .) . zip dotProduct = (sum .) . map2 (*)or, without trying to look too smart and incomprehensible:

dotProduct :: Num a => [a] -> [a] -> a dotProduct xs ys = sum (zipWith (*) xs ys)

dotProduct = (sum .) . zipWith (*)

dot [] [] = 0 dot (x:xs) (y:ys) = x*y + dot xs ys

$sum += $a[$_] * $b[$_] for 0 .. $#a;

#include <vector> #include <algorithm> template <typename T> T DotProduct(std::vector<T> const &v1, std::vector<T> const &v2) { T result = 0; for (unsigned i = 0; i < std::min(v1.size(), v2.size()); ++i) result += v1[i] * v2[i]; return result; }This code should work for any type T for which the binary operator '*' is defined. The for-loop could also be implemented using for_each<>(), but this would result in longer code, I think.

template<class _II1, class _II2, class _Ty> inline _Ty inner_product(_II1 _F, _II1 _L, _II2 _X, _Ty _V) { for (; _F != _L; ++_F, ++_X) _V = _V + *_F * *_X; return (_V); }

template <int... Args> struct Vector {}; template <typename T, typename U> struct DotProduct; template <> struct DotProduct<Vector<>, Vector<>> { static int const value = 0; }; template <int A, int... As, int B, int... Bs> struct DotProduct<Vector<A,As...>, Vector<B,Bs...>> { static int const value = (A*B) + DotProduct<Vector<As...>, Vector<Bs...>>::value; }; #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << DotProduct<Vector<1, 2>, Vector<3, -4>>::value << std::endl; }

static double DotProduct(IEnumerable<double> v1, IEnumerable<double> v2) { return v1.Zip(v2, (a,b) => a * b).Sum(); }

dot_product([A|As], [B|Bs]) -> (A*B) + dot_product(As, Bs); dot_product([], []) -> 0.Would it be correct for DotProduct that if the vectors are of different lengths you only use a prefix of the longer one (as opposed to e.g. triggering an error)? Or are the others like this just because it made the original Lisp version prettier? :-) -- LukeGorrie

(defun dot-product (v1 v2) (assert (= (length v1) (length v2))) (loop for x across v1 for y across v2 summing (* x y)))

(defun dot-product (v1 v2) (declare (type (simple-array double-float (3)) v1 v2) (optimize speed)) (assert (= (length v1) (length v2))) (do ((n 0 (1+ n)) (res 0.0d0)) ((>= n (length v1)) res) (declare (type double-float res) (type fixnum n)) (incf res (* (aref v1 n) (aref v2 n)))))

(defun dot-product (v1 v2) (assert (and (= (length v1) (length v2)) (/= 0 1 (length v1)))) (reduce #'+ (mapcar #'* v1 v2)))

dot_product([],[],0). dot_product([A|As],[B|Bs],D) :- dot_product(As,Bs,D1), D is (A*B)+D1.

function DotProduct(a, b : array of double): double; var i : integer; begin Result := 0; for i := max(low(a), low(b)) to min(high(a), high(b)) do Result := result + a[i] * b[i]; end;

select sum(a * b) from tIf in different tables:

select sum(a * b) from t,u where t.index = u.index

: @+ ( a -- a+ a@ ) dup cell+ swap @ ; : .* ( v1 v2 len -- p ) 0 >r begin ?dup while rot rot @+ rot @+ rot * r> + >r rot 1- repeat 2drop r> ; : m.* ( v1 v2 len -- d ) \ double cell result 0. 2>r begin ?dup while rot rot @+ rot @+ rot m* 2r> d+ 2>r rot 1- repeat 2drop 2r> ;

: dot-prod ( v1 v2 len -- p ) 1- ?dup 0= if @ swap @ * else rot dup @ >r cell+ rot dup @ >r cell+ rot recurse 2r> * + then ;or to define dot-products for particular vector lengths...

: *step ( v1 v2 -- p v1+ v2+ ) over @ over @ * rot cell+ rot cell+ ; : make-N.*: ( n "name" -- ) 1- >r : r@ 0 do postpone *step loop postpone @ postpone swap postpone @ postpone * r> 0 do postpone + loop postpone ; ; 3 make-N.*: 3.* ( v1 v2 -- p ) \ where v1,v2 point to vectors of length 3 see 3.* \ gforth : 3.* *step *step @ swap @ * + + ; \ tests create v1 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , create v2 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , v1 v2 3 .* . \ 44 v1 v2 4 m.* . . \ 0 80 v1 v2 5 dot-prod . \ 130 v1 v2 3.* . \ 44There is a better way to do this if your Forth has A & B registers:

: *+ ( A:v1 B:v2 ( n -- n! ) @B+ @A+ * + ; \ ?EXIT is equivalent to IF EXIT THEN : .* ( v1 v2 len -- p ) -ROT >B >A 0 SWAP FOR *+ NEXT ; : make-N.*: ( n "name" -- ) >R : POSTPONE >B POSTPONE >A 0 POSTPONE LITERAL R> FOR POSTPONE *+ NEXT POSTPONE ; ; 3 make-N.*: 3.* ( v1 v2 -- p ) \ where v1 and v2 are vectors of length 3 \ Compiles this: : 3.* ( v1 v2 -- p ) >B >A 0 *+ *+ *+ ;If your Forth hasn't A & B registers then you can simulate them as user variables, and it shouldn't be much slower. This is cleaner and faster. -- Michael Morris

A +.x B

A +/ .* B

+/ A * B

def dot_product l1, l2 l1.zip(l2).inject(0) { |sum,els| sum+els[0]*els[1] } endor

def dot_product l1, l2 l1.zip(l2).map { |a,b| a*b }.inject {|sum,el| sum+el} endor

def dot_product l1, l2 sum=0 for a,b in l1.zip(l2) sum+= a*b end sum endBut I'm not an expert, so there may be better ways -- GabrieleRenzi Without resorting to intermediate arrays:

def dot_product l1, l2 sum=0 l1.zip(l2){|a, b| sum+=a*b} sum end Gotta love ruby blocks! -- Martin Jansson

function dotproduct(a,b) { var n = 0, lim = Math.min(a.length,b.length); for (var i = 0; i < lim; i++) n += a[i] * b[i]; return n; } assert( dotproduct([1,2,3,4,5], [6,7,8,9,10]) == 130 )

on min(a, b) if a < b then return a return b end min on dot_product(arr1, arr2) set sum to 0 repeat with i from 1 to min(number of items in arr1, number of items in arr2) set sum to sum + (item i of arr1) * (item i of arr2) end repeat return sum end dot_product set a1 to {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} set a2 to {6, 7, 8, 9, 10} set dp to dot_product(a1, a2) -- should be 130

Standard ML of New Jersey v110.57 [built: Fri Feb 10 21:37:49 2006] - val dotRealLists = ListPair.foldlEq (fn (x, y, s) => s + x * y) 0.0 ; [autoloading] [library $SMLNJ-BASIS/basis.cm is stable] [autoloading done] val dotRealLists = fn : real list * real list -> real - dotRealLists ([1.0, 0.0, 0.5], [0.5, 1.0, 1.0]) ; val it = 1.0 : realor shorter:

val dotRealLists = ListPair.foldlEq Real.*+ 0.0

let dotProductInts xs ys = List.fold_left (+) 0 (List.map2 ( * ) xs ys)For floats:

let dotProductFloats xs ys = List.fold_left (+.) 0.0 (List.map2 ( *.) xs ys)"List.map2" is the equivalent of Haskell's "zipWith". OCaml does not come with a standard "sum" function, so we had to do a fold explicitly. Extra spacing must be used when putting the multiplication operators inside parentheses for using them in non-infix style, because they contain asterisks, and "(*" and "*)" starts and ends comments in OCaml, respectively. In OCaml, the arithmetic operators for the different numeric types are different, and there are no generic operators for all numeric types, probably for reasons of speed, so the function for each type will have to be written separately. It can be modified to suit other numeric types trivially. It can be written shorter this way:

let dotProductInts = List.fold_left2 (fun s x y -> s + x * y) 0 let dotProductFloats = List.fold_left2 (fun s x y -> s +. x *. y) 0.0

$dot_product = array_sum(array_map('bcmul', $array1, $array2));This is kind of a hack, in that we are using "bcmul" the BC arbitrary-precision multiplication function, because we want a multiplication function, but we can't just tell it to use "*".

$dot_product = array_sum(array_map(create_function('$a, $b', 'return $a * $b;'), $array1, $array2));This creates a multiplication function on the fly, but is ugly and verbose. PHP 5.3 has decent lambda functions; not

$dot_product = array_sum(array_map(function($a,$b) { return $a*$b; }, $array1, $array2));Using an idiom that's similar to FP's zip:

$dot_product = array_sum(array_map('array_product', array_map(null, $array1, $array2)));

For a little more of a challenge how about HessianInMultipleProgrammingLanguages? see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hessian.html (used a lot in MathematicalEconomics?) It takes the Jacobian which itself is the derivative of a dot product (above) and cross product (not much more complex), of differentials of a function. The tricky part would be the differentiation steps. But many contend the SymbolicProgramming distinction is illusory. Algorithms for the Hessian would see if some languages allow this to be expressed easier. I.e. hessian(f) where f is a polynomial (to keep it manageable) this function should do all the differentiation steps (input should not already be differentiated). Output is a matrix (vector of vectors) assume no simplification is needed but could be PrettyPrinted.

If you were putting the DotProduct method in an OO program should it belong to the Vector class or an Operation or Utility class according to the VisitorPattern? In other words would you do

Vector v = (1,2,3) Vector u = (4,5,6) v.DotProduct(u)or

Vector v = (1,2,3) Vector u = (4,5,6) VectorOperation? o o.DotProduct(u,v)? What if you needed to include many operations such as ScalarMultiplication?, CrossProduct etc?

LogoLanguage From the UCB Logo manual:

to dotprod :a :b ; vector dot product op apply "sum (map "product :a :b) end

def dotProduct(as: Seq[Double], bs: Seq[Double]) = { require(as.size == bs.size) (0.0 /: (for ((a, b) <- as.elements zip bs.elements) yield a * b)) (_ + _) }Scala 2.8 has zip and sum for all collection types so:

def dotProduct[T <% Double](as: Iterable[T], bs: Iterable[T]) = { require(as.size == bs.size) (for ((a, b) <- as zip bs) yield a * b) sum }

Also see ArraySumInManyProgrammingLanguages, CounterInManyProgrammingLanguages

CategoryMath CategoryInManyProgrammingLanguages

View edit of July 9, 2010 or FindPage with title or text search