I have a prolog rule position_that_is_equals_to_two that sets X to the position at which the number 2 was found in the provided list of three elements [X, Y, Z]:
position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, Y, Z], X) :-
include(==(2), [X, Y, Z], AllElementsWhichHaveAValueOfTwo),
nth0(0, AllElementsWhichHaveAValueOfTwo, X).
When querying it, I immediately get false:
?- position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, _, _], X)
false
However, when I replace include/3 with individual comparisons, prolog gives three possible values for X, which is the output I would expect:
position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, Y, Z], X) :-
(
( X == 2 ; X #= 1)
; ( Y == 2 ; X #= 2)
; ( Z == 2 ; X #= 3)
).
Querying it:
?- position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, _, _], X)
X = 1
X = 2
X = 3
Why is the first variant returning false? How can it me modified to (1) still use include and (2) list possible values for X, like the second variant does?
How can it be modified to still use include?
It can't. Include shrinks the original list and throws away information you need to answer the question. With AllElementsWhichHaveAValueOfTwo = [2] what is the index of that two? Was it 0, 1, 2 or 50,000? You can't know.
Worse, include/3 has the signature include(:Goal, +List1, ?List2) and the + means the List1 must be provided, you can't give it unground variables like [X,Y,Z] and have it fill them in. So it can't be used for that reason also.
Take this query:
?- position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, _, _], X)
What you expect out of it is that X in the list has value two and X as the index has value zero. You want 2 = 0. That can't work.
Your other code is giving the right answer for the wrong reasons; the code (X == 2 ; X #= 1) says "variable X must be two OR variable X must be one" which is allowed but for your indexing you need them both at the same time, not either/or. What you want it to say is "first list item must be two AND the index must be one".
Change the code to (X = 2, X = 1) which is logically how it should be and you're back to asking for 2 = 1 which can't work.
In your example code, X is being used for 2 different purposes and values - that's a conflict.
== is not clpfd.
Looks like this would be sufficient (without using clpfd):
pos_2(Pos, L) :-
length(L, 3),
nth1(Pos, L, 2).
Result in swi-prolog:
?- pos_2(Pos, L).
Pos = 1,
L = [2, _, _] ;
Pos = 2,
L = [_, 2, _] ;
Pos = 3,
L = [_, _, 2].
Related
I'm new in prolog, and I wanted to create a "function" to count how many different values I have in a list.
I've made this predicate to count the total number of values:
tamanho([],0).
tamanho([H|T],X) :- tamanho(T,X1), X is X1+1.
I wanted to follow the same line of thought like in this last predicate.(Don't know if that's possible).
So in a case where my list is [1,2,2,3], the answer would be 3.
Can someone give me a little help?
Here is a pure version which generalizes the relation. You can not only count but just see how elements have to look like in order to obtain a desired count.
In SWI, you need to install reif first.
:- use_module(library(reif),[memberd_t/3]).
:- use_module(library(clpz)). % use clpfd in SWI instead
:- op(150, fx, #). % backwards compatibility for old SWI
nt_int(false, 1).
nt_int(true, 0).
list_uniqnr([],0).
list_uniqnr([E|Es],N0) :-
#N0 #>= 0,
memberd_t(E, Es, T),
nt_int(T, I),
#N0 #= #N1 + #I,
list_uniqnr(Es,N1).
tamanho(Xs, N) :-
list_uniqnr(Xs, N).
?- tamanho([1,2,3,1], Nr).
Nr = 3.
?- tamanho([1,2,X,1], 3).
dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2).
?- tamanho([1,2,X,Y], 3).
X = 1, dif:dif(Y,1), dif:dif(Y,2)
; Y = 1, dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2)
; X = 2, dif:dif(Y,1), dif:dif(Y,2)
; Y = 2, dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2)
; X = Y, dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2)
; false.
You can fix your code by adding 1 to the result that came from the recursive call if H exists in T, otherwise, the result for [H|T] call is the same result for T call.
tamanho([],0).
tamanho([H|T], X) :- tamanho(T, X1), (member(H, T) -> X is X1; X is X1 + 1).
Tests
/*
?- tamanho([], Count).
Count = 0.
?- tamanho([1,a,21,1], Count).
Count = 3.
?- tamanho([1,2,3,1], Count).
Count = 3.
?- tamanho([1,b,2,b], Count).
Count = 3.
*/
In case the input list is always numerical, you can follow #berbs's suggestion..
sort/2 succeeds if input list has non-numerical items[1] so you can use it without any restrictions on the input list, so tamanho/2 could be just like this
tamanho(T, X) :- sort(T, TSorted), length(TSorted, X).
[1] thanks to #Will Ness for pointing me to this.
I am new to prolog and have am trying to write a program that will do the following tell me if a number is between 2 values I can do the following:
between(L, X, R) :-
X > L, X < R.
and doing between(1, 3, 5) works, but I would like it to be able to do between(1, X, 5) and have prolog return all the values in between so in this case X = 2, X = 3, X = 4, I get why my solution doesn't because it needs to be have been initialised, but I cannot think of a solution to this problem, can this type of thing just not be done in prolog?, and help would be great thanks
In case you don't want to predefine all numbers: let prolog create a list with possible entries and state your X has to be one of them. To understand the code you have to have knowledge about lists in prolog, especially Head and Tail notation of lists.
betweenList(L,R,[]):-
L>=R.
betweenList(L,R,[L|Rest]):-
L<R,
LL is L+1,
betweenList(LL,R,Rest).
between(L, X, R) :-
betweenList(L, R, [L| List]),
member(X, List).
?- between(1,X,5).
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
false.
betweenList(L,R,List) creates a List of all numbers between L and R, including L (as head element), excluding R. So if you want to generate a List without L, it is the easiest to just call betweenList(L, R, [L| List]) so List will not include L. Now X just has to be a member of List. The member/2 predicate can be easily written as well if you don't want to use the inbuild predicate.
One way to approach this:
digit(0).
digit(1).
digit(2).
digit(3).
digit(4).
digit(5).
digit(6).
digit(7).
digit(8).
digit(9).
between(L, X, U) :- digit(L), digit(X), digit(U), L < X, X < U.
Tests:
?- between(2, X, 5).
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
false.
?- between(2, 7, U).
U = 8 ;
U = 9.
Alternatively, you may want to look into Constraint logic programming.
Incidentally, Prolog already has a between/3:
?- between(1, 5, X).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 5.
although it's "illogical": you can't run it backwards, as the above definition.
I am a beginner and I am using SWI Prolog to write a rule to print all the facts about addition of two numbers.The following is the code:
addition(X,Y,Z) :- Z is X+Y.
add(X,Y):-
between(X,Y,A),
addition(X,A,Z),
writeln(addition(X,A,Z)),
X1 is X+1,
add(X1,Y).
And the following is the output:
1 ?- add(1,2).
addition(1,1,2)
addition(2,2,4)
addition(1,2,3)
addition(2,2,4)
false.
As you can see the output addition(2,2,4) is repeating and addition(2,1,3) is missing. What am I doing wrong here??
addition/3 is a "rule", or a "predicate", not a fact. Anyway, you have defined it as:
% addition(X, Y, Z)
% Z is the sum of the integers X and Y
Now you want to apply this predicate to (and I am guessing here) each pair X and Y such that X is between A and B and Y is between A and B:
% add(A, B, Addition)
% Add all numbers X and Y that are between A and B
add(A, B, addition(X, Y, Z)) :-
between(A, B, X),
between(A, B, Y),
addition(X, Y, Z).
You will notice that you don't need recursion (or iteration): you can use the fact that between/3 is non-deterministic and will create choice points that will be evaluated on backtracking.
You can now call it like this:
?- add(1, 2, A).
A = addition(1, 1, 2) ;
A = addition(1, 2, 3) ;
A = addition(2, 1, 3) ;
A = addition(2, 2, 4).
You can press the ; or space to backtrack and evaluate the next solution.
The third argument to add/3 is unified with the term addition/3 in the head of add/3. It happens to have the same name as the predicate addition/3, but it could have been called anything.
If you insist on printing it out from a single call, you could use forall/2:
?- forall(add(1, 2, A), format('~q', [A])).
I've come across this code:
connectRow(_,_,0).
connectRow([spot(_,R,_,_)|Spots],R,K) :- K1 is K-1, connectRow(Spots,R,K1).
/*c*/
connectRows([]).
connectRows(Spots) :-
connectRow(Spots,_,9),
skip(Spots,9,Spots1),
connectRows(Spots1).
How does the wildcard in the connectRow(Spots,_,9) work? How does it know which values to check and how does it know that it checked all the possible values?
Edit: I think I understand why this works but I'd like it if someone could verify this for me:
When I "call" the connectRow with the wildcard it matches the wildcard with the "R" in the connectRow predicate. Could this be it?
The _ is just like any other variable, except that each one you see is treated as a different variable and Prolog won't show you what it unifies with. There's no special behavior there; if it confuses you about the behavior, just invent a completely new variable and put it in there to see what it does.
Let's talk about how Prolog deals with variables. Here's an experiment you can follow along with that should undermine unhelpful preconceived notions if you happen to have them.
?- length([2,17,4], X)
X = 3.
A lot of Prolog looks like this and it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that there are designated "out" variables that work like return values and designated "in" variables that work like parameters. After all:
?- length([2,17,4], 3).
true.
?- length([2,17,4], 5).
false.
Here we begin to see that something interesting is happening. A faulty intuition would be that Prolog is somehow keeping track of the input and output variables and "checking" in this case. That's not what's happening though, because unification is more general than that. Observe:
?- length(X, 3).
X = [_G2184, _G2187, _G2190].
We've now turned the traditional parameter/return value on its head: Prolog knows that X is a list three items long, but doesn't know what the items actually are. Believe it or not, this technique is frequently used to generate variables when you know how many you need but you don't need to have them individually named.
?- length(X, Y).
X = [],
Y = 0 ;
X = [_G2196],
Y = 1 ;
X = [_G2196, _G2199],
Y = 2 ;
X = [_G2196, _G2199, _G2202],
Y = 3
It happens that the definition of length is very general and Prolog can use it to generate lists along with their lengths. This kind of behavior is part of what makes Prolog so good at "generate and test" solutions. You define your problem logically and Prolog should be able to generate logically sound values to test.
All of this variation springs from a pretty simple definition of length:
length([], 0).
length([_|Rest], N1) :-
length(Rest, N0),
succ(N0, N1).
The key is to not read this like a procedure for calculating length but instead to see it as a logical relation between lists and numbers. The definition is inductive, relating the empty list to 0 and a list with some items to 1 + the length of the remainder of the list. The engine that makes this work is called unification.
In the first case, length([2,17,4], X), the value [17,4] is unified with Rest, N0 with 2 and N1 with 3. The process is recursive. In the final case, X is unified with [] and Y with 0, which leads naturally to the next case where we have some item and Y is 1, and the fact that the variable representing the item in the list doesn't have anything in particular to unify with doesn't matter because the value of that variable is never used.
Looking at your problem we see the same sort of recursive structure. The predicates are quite complex, so let's take them in pieces.
connectRow(_, _, 0).
This says connectRow(X, Y, 0) is true, regardless of X and Y. This is the base case.
connectRow([spot(_, R, _, _)|Spots], R, K) :-
This rule is matching a list of spots of a particular structure, presuming the first spot's second value (R) matches the second parameter.
K1 is K-1, connectRow(Spots, R, K1).
The body of this clause is essentially recurring on decrementing K, the third parameter.
It's clear now that this is basically going to generate a list that looks like [spot(_, R, _, _), spot(_, R, _, _), ... spot(_, R, _, _)] with length = K and no particular values in the other three positions for spot. And indeed that's what we see when we test it:
?- connectRow(X, Y, 0).
true ;
(infinite loop)^CAction (h for help) ? abort
% Execution Aborted
?- connectRow(X, Y, 2).
X = [spot(_G906, Y, _G908, _G909), spot(_G914, Y, _G916, _G917)|_G912] ;
(infinite loop)^CAction (h for help) ? abort
So there seem to be a few bugs here; if I were sure these were the whole story I would say:
The base case should use the empty list rather than matching anything
We should stipulate in the inductive case that K > 0
We should use clpfd if we want to be able to generate all possibilities
Making the changes we get slightly different behavior:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
connectRow([], _, 0).
connectRow([spot(_, R, _, _)|Spots], R, K) :-
K #> 0, K1 #= K-1, connectRow(Spots, R, K1).
?- connectRow(X, Y, 0).
X = [] ;
false.
?- connectRow(X, Y, 1).
X = [spot(_G906, Y, _G908, _G909)] ;
false.
?- connectRow(X, Y, Z).
X = [],
Z = 0 ;
X = [spot(_G918, Y, _G920, _G921)],
Z = 1 ;
X = [spot(_G918, Y, _G920, _G921), spot(_G1218, Y, _G1220, _G1221)],
Z = 2
You'll note that in the result we have Y standing in our spot structures, but we have weird looking automatically generated variables in the other positions, such as _G918. As it happens, we could use _ instead of Y and see a similar effect:
?- connectRow(X, _, Z).
X = [],
Z = 0 ;
X = [spot(_G1269, _G1184, _G1271, _G1272)],
Z = 1 ;
X = [spot(_G1269, _G1184, _G1271, _G1272), spot(_G1561, _G1184, _G1563, _G1564)],
Z = 2
All of these strange looking variables are there because we used _. Note that all of the spot structures have the exact same generated variable in the second position, because Prolog was told it had to unify the second parameter of connectRow with the second position of spot. It's true everywhere because R is "passed along" to the next call to connectRow, recursively.
Hopefully this helps explain what's going on with the _ in your example, and also Prolog unification in general.
Edit: Unifying something with R
To answer your question below, you can unify R with a value directly, or by binding it to a variable and using the variable. For instance, we can bind it directly:
?- connectRow(X, 'Hello, world!', 2).
X = [spot(_G275, 'Hello, world!', _G277, _G278), spot(_G289, 'Hello, world!', _G291, _G292)]
We can also bind it and then assign it later:
?- connectRow(X, R, 2), R='Neato'.
X = [spot(_G21, 'Neato', _G23, _G24), spot(_G29, 'Neato', _G31, _G32)],
R = 'Neato'
There's nothing special about saying R=<foo>; it unifies both sides of the expression, but both sides can be expressions rather than variables:
?- V = [2,3], [X,Y,Z] = [1|V].
V = [2, 3],
X = 1,
Y = 2,
Z = 3.
So you can use R in another predicate just as well:
?- connectRow(X, R, 2), append([1,2], [3,4], R).
X = [spot(_G33, [1, 2, 3, 4], _G35, _G36), spot(_G41, [1, 2, 3, 4], _G43, _G44)],
R = [1, 2, 3, 4] ;
Note that this creates opportunities for backtracking and generating other solutions. For instance:
?- connectRow(X, R, 2), length(R, _).
X = [spot(_G22, [], _G24, _G25), spot(_G30, [], _G32, _G33)],
R = [] ;
X = [spot(_G22, [_G35], _G24, _G25), spot(_G30, [_G35], _G32, _G33)],
R = [_G35] ;
X = [spot(_G22, [_G35, _G38], _G24, _G25), spot(_G30, [_G35, _G38], _G32, _G33)],
R = [_G35, _G38] ;
Hope this helps!
I am to write a program that does this:
?- pLeap(2,5,X,Y).
X = 2,
Y = 3 ;
X = 3,
Y = 4 ;
X = 4,
Y = 5 ;
X = 5,
Y = 5 ;
false.
(gives all pairs X,X+1 between 2 and 5, plus the special case at the end).
This is supposedly the solution. I don't really understand how it works, could anyone guide me through it?
pLeap(X,X,X,X).
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
L<H,
X is L,
Y is X+1.
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
L=<H,
L1 is L+1,
pLeap(L1,H,X,Y).
I'd do it simply like this:
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
X >= L,
X =< H,
Y is X+1.
Why doesn't it work (ignoring the special case at the end)?
You could use library clpfd for you problem.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
X in L..H,
Y #= min(H, X+1),
label([X]).
Here is the output:
?- pLeap(2,5,X,Y).
X = 2,
Y = 3 ;
X = 3,
Y = 4 ;
X = 4,
Y = 5 ;
X = 5,
Y = 5.
The >= and =< operators don't instantiate their arguments, and you can only use them once the arguments have already been instantiated.
Put another way, in the given solution, X and Y are given values with is, and the < and =< operators are only used on L and H, whose values are given by the user. (On the given solution, try pLeap(L,H,2,3) and you'll get the same problem as you're having.)
In your case, though, you try to use >= and =< on X, which has no value yet, and so the interpreter complains.