I am trying to write a tiny recursive rewrite system inspired by Aristid Lindenmayers L-System basically to learn Prolog as well as to think about generative concepts in Prolog. I would like to achieve this without DCG. Due to the initial generate. and output predicate with side effects it is not a 100% pure prolog idea. Don´t hesitate to take the concept apart.
My main problem is at the end of the listing. Matching the rule for every element in the original list and creating a new list with the result of each substitution.
[a] the Axiom becomes [a,b] becomes [a,b,a] and so on. Or better as a list of lists
[[a,b],[a]] to keep it more flexible and comprehensible and then flatten it later?
Basic example without constants, which could be added in a similar way. The Axiom is just used one time at the start. The idea is to encode the rule name or symbol to exchange and the symbols it should be exchanged with, as a fact/relation. Start with generate. would repeat it 20 times with a counter.
% The rules
axiom(a, [a]).
rule(a, [a, b]).
rule(b, [a]).
% Starts the program
generate :-
axiom(a, G),
next_generation(20, G).
% repeats it until counter 0.
next_generation(0, _) :- !.
next_generation(N, G) :-
output(G),
linden(G, Next),
succ(N1, N),
next_generation(N1, Next).
% Concatenates the list to one string for the output
output(G) :-
atomic_list_concat(G,'',C),
writeln(C).
% Here I am stuck, the recursive lookup and exchange.
% How do I exchange each element with the according substitution to a new list
linden([],[]). % Empty list returns empty list.
linden([R],Next) :- % List with just one Element, e.g. the axiom
rule(R, Next). % Lookup the rule and List to exchange the current
linden([H|T], Next) :- % If more than one Element is in the original list
rule(H,E), % match the rule for the current Head/ List element
% ????? % concatenate the result with the result of former elements
linden(T, Next). % recursive until the original list is processed.
% Once this is done it returns the nw list to next_generation/2
Yes, you want lists of lists. Each character can then map cleanly to one corresponding expansion list:
linden([], []).
linden([H|T], [E | Next]) :-
rule(H, E),
linden(T, Next).
(This is simpler and shorter than with a DCG for the same thing, BTW.)
For example:
?- linden([a], Expansion).
Expansion = [[a, b]].
?- linden([a, b, a], Expansion).
Expansion = [[a, b], [a], [a, b]].
Then flatten this to a flat list before expanding the next generation.
Related
I am new to prolog, I am just learning about lists and I came across this question. The answer works perfect for a list of integers.
minimo([X], X) :- !.
minimo([X,Y|Tail], N):-
( X > Y ->
minimo([Y|Tail], N)
;
minimo([X|Tail], N)
).
How can I change this code to get the smallest int from a mixed list?
This
sint([a,b,3,2,1],S)
should give an answer:
S=1
you could just ignore the problem, changing the comparison operator (>)/2 (a binary builtin predicate, actually) to the more general (#>)/2:
minimo([X], X) :- !.
minimo([X,Y|Tail], N):-
( X #> Y ->
minimo([Y|Tail], N)
;
minimo([X|Tail], N)
).
?- minimo([a,b,3,2,1],S).
S = 1.
First of all, I don't think the proposed implementation is very elegant: here they pass the minimum found element thus far by constructing a new list each time. Using an additional parameter (we call an accumulator) is usually the way to go (and is probably more efficient as well).
In order to solve the problem, we first have to find an integer. We can do this like:
sint([H|T],R) :-
integer(H),
!,
sint(T,H,R).
sint([_|T],R) :-
sint(T,R).
So here we check if the head H is an integer/1. If that is the case, we call a predicate sint/3 (not to be confused with sint/2). Otherwise we call recursively sint/2 with the tail T of the list.
Now we still need to define sint/3. In case we have reached the end of the list [], we simply return the minum found thus far:
sint([],R,R).
Otherwise there are two cases:
the head H is an integer and smaller than the element found thus far, in that case we perform recursion with the head as new current minimum:
sint([H|T],M,R):
integer(H),
H < M,
!,
sint(T,H,R).
otherwise, we simply ignore the head, and perform recursion with the tail T.
sint([_|T],M,R) :-
sint(T,M,R).
We can put the recursive clauses in an if-then-else structure. Together with the earlier defined predicate, the full program then is:
sint([H|T],R) :-
integer(H),
!,
sint(T,H,R).
sint([_|T],R) :-
sint(T,R).
sint([],R,R).
sint([H|T],M,R):
(
(integer(H),H < M)
-> sint(T,H,R)
; sint(T,M,R)
).
The advantage of this approach is that filtering and comparing (to obtain the minimum) is done at the same time, so we only iterate once over the list. This will usually result in a performance boost since the "control structures" are only executed once: more is done in an iteration, but we only iterate once.
We can generalize the approach by making the filter generic:
filter_minimum(Filter,[H|T],R) :-
Goal =.. [Filter,H],
call(Goal),
!,
filter_minimum(Filter,T,H,R).
filter_minimum(Filter,[_|T],R) :-
filter_minimum(Filter,T,R).
filter_minimum(_,[],R,R).
filter_minimum(Filter,[H|T],M,R) :-
Goal =.. [Filter,H],
(
(call(Goal),H < M)
-> filter_minimum(Filter,T,H,R)
; filter_minimum(Filter,T,M,R)
).
You can then call it with:
filter_minimum(integer,[a,b,3,2,1],R).
to filter with integer/1 and calculate the minimum.
You could just write a predicate that returns a list with the numbers and the use the above minimo/2 predicate:
only_numbers([],[]).
only_numbers([H|T],[H|T1]):-integer(H),only_numbers(T,T1).
only_numbers([H|T],L):- \+integer(H),only_numbers(T,L).
sint(L,S):-only_numbers(L,L1),minimo(L1,S).
I am a newbie to prolog and am trying to write a program which returns the atoms in a well formed propositional formula. For instance the query ats(and(q, imp(or(p, q), neg(p))), As). should return [p,q] for As. Below is my code which returns the formula as As. I dont know what to do to split the single F in ats in the F1 and F2 in wff so wff/2 never gets called. Please I need help to proceed from here. Thanks.
CODE
logical_atom( A ) :-
atom( A ),
atom_codes( A, [AH|_] ),
AH >= 97,
AH =< 122.
wff(A):- ground(A),
logical_atom(A).
wff(neg(A)) :- ground(A),wff(A).
wff(or(F1,F2)) :-
wff(F1),
wff(F2).
wff(and(F1,F2)) :-
wff(F1),
wff(F2).
wff(imp(F1,F2)) :-
wff(F1),
wff(F2).
ats(F, As):- wff(F), setof(F, logical_atom(F), As).
First, consider using a cleaner representation: Currently, you cannot distinguish atoms by a common functor. So, wrap them for example in a(Atom).
Second, use a DCG to describe the relation between a well-formed formula and the list of its atoms, like in:
wff_atoms(a(A)) --> [A].
wff_atoms(neg(F)) --> wff_atoms(F).
wff_atoms(or(F1,F2)) --> wff_atoms(F1), wff_atoms(F2).
wff_atoms(and(F1,F2)) --> wff_atoms(F1), wff_atoms(F2).
wff_atoms(imp(F1,F2)) --> wff_atoms(F1), wff_atoms(F2).
Example query and its result:
?- phrase(wff_atoms(and(a(q), imp(or(a(p), a(q)), neg(a(p))))), As).
As = [q, p, q, p].
This should do what you want. It extracts the unique set of atoms found in any arbitrary prolog term.
I'll leave it up to you, though, to determine what constitutes a "well formed propositional formula", as you put it in your problem statement (You might want to take a look at DCG's for parsing and validation).
The bulk of the work is done by this "worker predicate". It simply extracts, one at a time via backtracking, any atoms found in the parse tree and discards anything else:
expression_atom( [T|_] , T ) :- % Case #1: head of list is an ordinary atom
atom(T) , % - verify that the head of the list is an atom.
T \= [] % - and not an empty list
. %
expression_atom( [T|_] , A ) :- % Case #2: head of listl is a compound term
compound(T) , % - verify that the head of the list is a compound term
T =.. [_|Ts] , % - decompose it, discarding the functor and keeping the arguments
expression_atom(Ts,A) % - recurse down on the term's arguments
. %
expression_atom( [_|Ts] , A ) :- % Finally, on backtracking,
expression_atom(Ts,A) % - we simply discard the head and recurse down on the tail
. %
Then, at the top level, we have this simple predicate that accepts any [compound] prolog term and extracts the unique set of atoms found within by the worker predicate via setof/3:
expression_atoms( T , As ) :- % To get the set of unique atoms in an arbitrary term,
compound(T) , % - ensure that's its a compound term,
T =.. [_|Ts] , % - decompose it, discarding the functor and keeping the arguments
setof(A,expression_atom(Ts,A),As) % - invoke the worker predicate via setof/3
. % Easy!
I'd approach this problem using the "univ" operator =../2 and explicit recursion. Note that this solution will not generate and is not "logically correct" in that it will not process a structure with holes generously, so it will produce different results if conditions are reordered. Please see #mat's comments below.
I'm using cuts instead of if statements for personal aesthetics; you would certainly find better performance with a large explicit conditional tree. I'm not sure you'd want a predicate such as this to generate in the first place.
Univ is handy because it lets you treat Prolog terms similarly to how you would treat a complex s-expression in Lisp: it converts terms to lists of atoms. This lets you traverse Prolog terms as lists, which is handy if you aren't sure exactly what you'll be processing. It saves me from having to look for your boolean operators explicitly.
atoms_of_prop(Prop, Atoms) :-
% discard the head of the term ('and', 'imp', etc.)
Prop =.. [_|PropItems],
collect_atoms(PropItems, AtomsUnsorted),
% sorting makes the list unique in Prolog
sort(AtomsUnsorted, Atoms).
The helper predicate collect_atoms/2 processes lists of terms (univ only dismantles the outermost layer) and is mutually recursive with atoms_of_prop/2 when it finds terms. If it finds atoms, it just adds them to the result.
% base case
collect_atoms([], []).
% handle atoms
collect_atoms([A|Ps], [A|Rest]) :-
% you could replace the next test with logical_atom/1
atom(A), !,
collect_atoms(Ps, Rest).
% handle terms
collect_atoms([P|Ps], Rest) :-
compound(P), !, % compound/1 tests for terms
atoms_of_prop(P, PAtoms),
collect_atoms(Ps, PsAtoms),
append(PAtoms, PsAtoms, Rest).
% ignore everything else
collect_atoms([_|Ps], Rest) :- atoms_of_prop(Ps, Rest).
This works for your example as-is:
?- atoms_of_prop(ats(and(q, imp(or(p, q), neg(p))), As), Atoms).
Atoms = [p, q].
I am trying to use Prolog's append and length predicates for the first time in order to split a list, and I believe it requires a recursive solution. I am new to Prolog, and would like some help with this starter problem! :)
Here is the expected code output:
?- splits([1,2,3],S).
S = [1]/[2, 3] ;
S = [1, 2]/[3] ;
false.
It takes a list and splits it, but it does so by creating a structure with the functor /, this is what confuses me so far... I know that I need to use append for this, but how would one do so?
Here is my code so far:
splits([H | T], S) :-
length(T, len), len > 0,
It will run until the tail of the list is empty, and then stop, but I can't quite figure out how to add in the append function or make it recursive... Could someone give me a tip? :)
I would say that you are almost at a working implementation with your remark that append/3 can be used for splitting lists. This is indeed what append/3 in the instantiation (-,-,+) does.
The only added requirement that seems to occur in your question is to exclude cases in which either of the splits is empty. This can be achieved by checking for inequivalence between terms using \==/2.
This results in the following code:
splits(List, X/Y):-
append(X, Y, List),
X \== [],
Y \== [].
PS: Notice that your use of len in your code snippet is wrong, since len is not a Prolog variable but an atom. Handing an atom to the second argument of length/2 produces a type error, and an arithmetic error in len > 0 (provided that len is not defined as a function). (Both observations relate to SWI-Prolog.)
Hope this helps!
Here is a recursive approach:
splits([A,B|T], [A]/[B|T]).
splits([A|T], [A|R]/S) :-
splits(T, R/S).
The first clause provides the base case of splitting a list with at least 2 elements ([A,B|T]) into [A]/[B|T] (it just splits out the first element).
The second clause says that [A|R]/S is the split of [A|T] if R/S is the split of T. So it will "generate" the other solutions recursing down to the base case. If the first list has only two elements, the base case will be successful, and backtrack to the recursive case will fail on the first try (which is what you want - no more solutions to that case) because the recursive case only succeeds when the first list has 3 or more elements (A plus the two enforced on T in the recursive query).
| ?- splits([1], S).
no
| ?- splits([1,2], S).
S = [1]/[2] ? ;
no
| ?- splits([1,2,3], S).
S = [1]/[2,3] ? ;
S = [1,2]/[3] ? ;
no
...
I am new to prolog , I have a list in prolog like A=[1,2,3,4], and than I accessed nth element using nth(N,[_|T],R). Now I have Nth element in R, than I have done some calculation on R. Now what I want is to update that nth element in list.
Because of I am doing a lot of calculations with each element in list I can't make a new list each time.
I didn't find any method to update list.
With regard to our conversation, you can add two lists together, creating a third, by specifying that the two head elements of the source lists, added together, make the head element of the result list, and that this applies to the remainder of the lists.
There is also a need for a base case, that is, when the two source lists are empty, so should the result list.
addLists([X|A], [Y|B], [Z|C]) :- Z is X+Y, addLists(A, B, C).
addLists([], [], []).
Remember you are always aiming to specify the constraints of the answer, more than the method of answering it. Prolog is very different to other programming languages in that you do not tell it how to do something, you simply tell it conditions that are true for the answer and let it extrapolate it.
From the comments you exchanged with #Orbling seems that what you need is a kind of maplist/4
process_list(A, B, C) :-
maplist(process_elem, A, B, C).
process_elem(A, B, C) :- C is A + B. % or whatever needed
If you are using the index in process_elem then this is not appropriate. Then make a recursive visit of list, passing down the index
process_list(A, B, C) :-
process_list(1, A, B, C).
process_list(I, [A|As], [B|Bs], [C|Cs]) :-
C is A + B * I, % or whatever needed
J is I + 1,
!, process_list(J, As, Bs, Cs).
process_list(_, [], [], []).
edit Just to add to the various ways exposed in answers to the question #Orbling suggests, here a way using nth0/4
?- I = 6, nth0(I,"hello world",_,T), nth0(I,U,0'W,T), format('~s',[U]).
hello World
I need write a set of clauses that take a list of integer lists and return a single list with all the elements doubled.
For example:
?- double([[1,2],[3]], X).
Yes
X = [2,4,6]
I have a set of clauses called mega_append that return a single list from a list of lists.
For example:
?- mega_append([[1,2],[3]], X).
Yes
X = [1,2,3]
Here is my progress (m_a is short for mega_append):
double([],[]).
double(List,[H1|T1]) :-
m_a(List,[H2|T2]),
H1 is 2 * H2,
double(T2, T1).
I'll try to explain how I thought it would work. I flatten the first list and split it up into a head and a tail (H2 and T2). I split the second list into a head and a tail (H1 and T1). I check to make sure that H1 (the doubled value) is equal to 2 times H2 (the original value). If it is then I check the rest of the list. Eventually if they all match correctly I should be left with two empty lists which should match the first clause and return yes.
It works when there is only a single value (for example: double([[1]], X)). Can anyone offer any insight into what I am doing wrong? Is my logic or code incorrect?
Your problem is that T2 is a single list so List after the recursive call is not a list of lists.
To solve this you can first use mega_append to flatten the list and then use an auxiliary predicate to work on the flattened list.
I.e. the double will look like this:
double([],[]).
double(List,X) :-
m_a(List,FList),
double_aux(List, FList).
Edit:
Here is a way to only use one clause since you want to see one.
I recommend using an auxiliary predicate.
double([],[]).
double([[]],[]).
double(List,[H1|T1]) :-
mega_append(List,[H2|T2]),
H1 is 2 * H2,
double([T2], T1).
Using clpfd, we define the dcg nonterminal double//1 like this:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
double([]) --> [].
double([D|Ds]) --> {DD #= D*2}, [DD], double(Ds).
Let's run some queries—using phrase/2,
apply:foldl/4, and nonterminal double//1:
:- use_module(library(apply)).
?- phrase(foldl(double,[[1,2],[3]]),Xs).
Xs = [2,4,6].
?- phrase(foldl(double,[[A,B],[C]]),[2,4,6]).
A = 1, B = 2, C = 3.
Want more examples using phrase/[2,3]?
Read this SICStus Prolog manual page!