Related
I want to construct a list of list to interleave each other to a single list like: coon([[1,4],[2,5],[3,6]], X) should return X=1,2,3,4,5,6. and there is a condition that each sublist should only have the same length, otherwise, it should fail such as [[q,r,y],[a,e],[c,g,t],X] shouid fail, and coon([A,B,C],[q,w,e,r,t,y]) should only return one solution, that is A=[q,r],B=[w,t],C=[e,y].
my recent approach is.
conns([],[]).
conns([[Head|Tail]|X],[Head|Y]):-
append(X,[Tail],X2),
conns(X2,Y).
conns([[]|T],A):-
conns(T,A).
It gives me multiple solutions when I try coon([A,B,C],[q,w,e,r,t,y]).
I have been trying hours to figure it out but all failed. How should I return the single list to each sub-lists that contain the same length?
Thank you so much!
:- use_module(library(clpfd),[transpose/2]).
connsx(Xss, Xs) :-
transpose(Xss, XssT),
append(XssT, Xs).
The problem you are having is with this predicate clause:
conns([[]|T],A):-
conns(T,A).
This allows solutions more general than you are wanting to define. Specifically, if I understand the problem correctly, the first argument to conns should always be a list whose elements are lists all of equal length. That would mean that if [[]|T] is the first argument and you expect conns([[]|T], A) to succeed, then T should also look like [[]|R] or []. That is, it should be a (possibly empty) list of empty lists.
If you revise the empty list case according to this constraint, your solution will work:
% The case where the first argument consists of non-empty lists
conns([[Head|Tail]|X], [Head|Y]):-
append(X, [Tail], X2),
conns(X2, Y).
% Base case in which first argument is a list of empty lists
conns([], []).
conns([[]|T], []) :-
conns(T, []).
Now when you run the query, you get this:
| ?- conns([[1,4],[2,5],[3,6]], R).
R = [1,2,3,4,5,6] ? ;
no
| ?-
As well as:
| ?- conns([A,B,C], [q,w,e,r,t,y]).
A = [q,r]
B = [w,t]
C = [e,y] ? a
no
| ?-
This solution does leave a choice point, which I'll leave as an exercise to eliminate if you wish.
Hello I would like to ask a doubt I have with the following code:
principio([],[]).
principio([H],[H]).
principio([H,_|_],[H]).
principio([H,H|C],P) :-
principio([H|C],R),P=[H|R].
I would like a way to get from:
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],X).
X = [222,222,222]
But in this moment I get just the head:
X = [222]
So, to keep it clear I'd like: all successive occurrences of the first element as a list.
My doubt is what does this assignment P=[H|R] why not to put just:
principio([H,H|C],P) :-
principio([H|C],P)
Also, how would you try to modify this to get the result I asked for?
Thank you
Here is two ways how you can narrow down the problem. 1st, start from an unexpectedly failing query. 2nd, start from a query that should fail but rather succeeds.
1st Diagnose unexpected incompleteness
Determine a most specific failing query
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],[222,222,222]).
false.
Generalize the query
... as much as possible. I could do this manually, or I could let Prolog do the work for me. Here I use library(diadem):
?- use_module(diadem).
true.
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],[222,222,222]).? Gen.
Gen = principio([222, 333|_], [_, _|_])
; Gen = (dif(A100, B100), principio([A100, B100|_], [_, _|_]))
; ... .
In other words: Not only does your original query fail, but also this generalization fails! Here, we only insist that the first two elements are different, and that the resulting list contains at least two elements — no matter which!
?- dif(X, Y), principio([X,Y|_],[_,_|_]).
Generalize your program
:- op(950, fy, *).
* _P_0.
principio([], _/*[]*/).
principio([_H], _/*[H]*/).
principio([H,_|_],[H]).
principio([H,H|C],P) :-
* principio([H|C],R),
* P=[H|R].
The error must reside in the little remaining part of your program. No need to read any further!
The problem is that for a list starting with two different elements you only have the clause principio([H,_|_],[H]).. So this part has to be generalized somehow.
2nd Diagnose unexpected unsoundness
Another way of finding the error would be to start with the unexpected solution:
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],[222]).
true. % incorrect !!
And then reduce the size of the query as much as possible.
?- principio([222,222],[222]).
true. % incorrect !!
Now, specialize your program inserting false as long as above query succeeds:
principio([],[]) : - false.
principio([H],[H]) :- false.
principio([H,_|_],[H]).
principio([H,H|C],P) :- false,
principio([H|C],R),
P=[H|R].
The remaining visible part is the culprit! We have to revise it. What it says is:
Any list starting with two elements corresponds to the list with the first element only.
principio([],[]).
principio([H],[H]).
principio([H,D|Xs], [H|Hs]) :-
dif(H,D),
principio([H|Xs],[H|Hs]).
principio([H,H|Xs],[H|Hs]) :-
principio([H|Xs],Hs).
In addition to the very nice answer provided by #false (+s(0)), I would point out the possibility to use DCGs for the task. They usually yield easily readable code when describing lists (see comments beside the grammar rules):
principio([H|T],Hs) :-
phrase(heads([H|T],H),Hs).
heads([],_H) --> % in the empty list
[]. % there's no element matching H
heads([H|Xs],H) --> % if the head of the list matches H
[H], % it's in the list
heads(Xs,H). % same for the tail
heads([X|Xs],H) --> % if the head of the list is
{dif(X,H)}, % different from H it's not in the list
heads(Xs,H). % same for the tail
Thus your example query yields the desired result:
?- principio([222,333,101,202,12,222,13,222],X).
X = [222,222,222] ? ;
no
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've just started experimenting with Prolog, and I was trying to write a rule to find out whether a list contained only unique elements. I got it working in the second variation (by negating a positive test), but I've completely failed to understand why the first variation doesn't work.
Given this file:
uniqueElements([X|Y]) :-
notmember(X, Y),
uniqueElements(Y).
notmember(X, Y) :-
\+ member(X, Y).
hasRepeatedElements([X|Y]) :-
(
member(X, Y) ->
true
; hasRepeatedElements(Y)
).
uniqueElements_2(X) :-
\+ hasRepeatedElements(X).
The GNU Prolog interpreter gives these responses:
| ?- uniqueElements([1,2,3]).
no
| ?- uniqueElements([1,2,3,2,3]).
no
| ?- uniqueElements_2([1,2,3]).
yes
| ?- uniqueElements_2([1,2,3,2,3]).
no
Why is the first response 'no'? (I would have expected member to return false, be negated to true, and thus have notmemeber return true on each iteration of uniqueElements). I guess I'm expecting '\+' to behave like '!' does in a C if clause, or the 'not' keyword in Python. Is this a misunderstanding?
In uniqueElements, you haven't provided the base case for the recursion:
uniqueElements([]).
Without that clause, when a particular call chain gets to the empty list case, it doesn't find any applicable clauses, which means fail in Prolog. Meaning, "unprovable". So, your call uniqueElements([1,2,3]) has produced an equivalent of true && true && true && false.
Now it should work.
hasRepeatedElements doesn't have a clause defined for the base case either, but its failure in finding whether there were repeated elements in an empty list [] is consistent with its semantics - it should have found that there are no repeated elements in empty list, in the first place.
In Prolog, "not" means "can't prove that ...".