Lets assume there is pure_2 Prolog with dif/2 and pure_1 Prolog without dif/2. Can we realize
Peano apartness for values, i.e. Peano numbers, without using dif/2? Thus lets assume we have Peano apartness like this in pure_2 Prolog:
/* pure_2 Prolog */
neq(X, Y) :- dif(X, Y).
Can we replace neq(X,Y) by a more pure definition, namely from pure_1 Prolog that doesn't use dif/2? So that we have a terminating neq/2 predicate that can decide inequality for Peano numbers? So what would be its definition?
/* pure_1 Prolog */
neq(X, Y) :- ??
Using less from this comment:
less(0, s(_)).
less(s(X), s(Y)) :- less(X, Y).
neq(X, Y) :- less(X, Y); less(Y, X).
I had something else in mind, which is derived from two of the Peano Axioms, which is also part of Robinson Arithmetic. The first axiom is already a Horn clause talking about apartness:
∀x(0 ≠ S(x))
∀x∀y(S(x) = S(y) ⇒ x = y)
Applying contraposition to the second axiom gives.
The axiom is now a Horn clause talking about apartness:
∀x∀y(x ≠ y ⇒ S(x) ≠ S(y))
Now we have everything to write some Prolog code.
Adding some symmetry we get:
neq(0, s(_)).
neq(s(_), 0).
neq(s(X), s(Y)) :- neq(X, Y).
Here are some example queries. Whether the predicate leaves a choice
point depends on the Prolog system. I get:
SWI-Prolog 8.3.15 (some choice point):
?- neq(s(s(0)), s(s(0))).
false.
?- neq(s(s(0)), s(0)).
true ;
false.
Jekejeke Prolog 1.4.6 (no choice point):
?- neq(s(s(0)), s(s(0))).
No
?- neq(s(s(0)), s(0)).
Yes
Just removing the unwanted choicepoint (in swi-prolog) from user502187's answer:
neq(0, s(_)).
neq(s(N), M) :-
% Switch args, to use first-arg indexing
neq_(M, s(N)).
neq_(0, s(_)).
neq_(s(N), s(M)) :-
% Switch args back, to fix choicepoint
neq(M, N).
Results in swi-prolog:
?- neq(s(s(0)), s(0)).
true.
?- neq(s(0), s(s(0))).
true.
?- neq(N, M).
N = 0,
M = s(_) ;
N = s(_),
M = 0 ;
N = s(s(_)),
M = s(0) ;
N = s(0),
M = s(s(_)) ;
N = s(s(0)),
M = s(s(s(_))) ;
N = s(s(s(_))),
M = s(s(0)) ;
Related
A question states the following:
In Prolog, non-negative integers can be encoded as numerals given by 0 and its successors (with, for example, the numeral s(s(s(0))) encoding 3).
numeral(0).
numeral(s(X)) :- numeral(X).
Define the predicate less/2(X, Y) that holds when X and Y are numerals encoding non-negative integers x and y such that x < y. For example,
?- less(0, s(0)).
yes.
?- less(s(s(0)), s(s(0))).
no.
I have been able to come up with a solution for this question, however, it suffers from a limitation. Here is my solution:
less(X, s(X)) :- numeral(X).
less(X, Z) :- less(X, Y), less(Y, Z).
This solution correctly outputs a yes for inputs that satisfy this predicate. However, for inputs that expect a no, this solution seems to enter an endless recursion of some sort, and the program just keeps running, rather than outputting a no.
Please help.
I would do it like this:
less(0, s(Y)) :- numeral(Y).
less(s(X), s(Y)) :- less(X, Y).
?- less(0, s(0)).
true.
?- less(s(s(0)), s(s(0))).
false.
The idea is that 0 is less than any s(Y), where Y is a numeral. If X is not 0, then X is s(X'), and X = s(X') is less than Y = s(Y') iff X' is less than Y'.
This does only work if both X and Y are numerals. If X is not a numeral then it will get stuck somewhere in the recursion and "returns" false. Same for Y, except that there need to be a test at the end if the rest of Y is a numeral.
Try this:
less2(X, s(X)) :- numeral(X).
less2(X, s(Y)) :- less2(X,Y).
Seems to work for me; your solution could recurse endlessly though, because if there exists no value of Y between X and Z it will simply try everything under the sun.
I'm trying to program the unification algorithm in Prolog to verify if two expressions can unify by returning boolean True/False:
EDIT.
I found this implementation usefull:
from: http://kti.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/prolog/data_struct.html
unify(A,B):-
atomic(A),atomic(B),A=B.
unify(A,B):-
var(A),A=B. % without occurs check
unify(A,B):-
nonvar(A),var(B),A=B. % without occurs check
unify(A,B):-
compound(A),compound(B),
A=..[F|ArgsA],B=..[F|ArgsB],
unify_args(ArgsA,ArgsB).
unify_args([A|TA],[B|TB]):-
unify(A,B),
unify_args(TA,TB).
unify_args([],[]).```
Here is a partial implementation of something like the Martelli and Montanari unification algorithm described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_(computer_science)#A_unification_algorithm. The comments for each part refer to the corresponding rewrite rule from the algorithm. Note that there is no need for an explicit conflict rule, we can just fail if no other rule applies.
% assuming a universe with function symbols g/2, p/2, q/2
% identical terms unify (delete rule)
unify(X, Y) :-
X == Y,
!.
% a variable unifies with anything (eliminate rule)
unify(X, Y) :-
var(X),
!,
X = Y.
% an equation Term = Variable can be solved as Variable = Term (swap rule)
unify(X, Y) :-
var(Y),
!,
unify(Y, X).
% given equal function symbols, unify the arguments (decompose rule)
unify(g(A, B), g(X, Y)) :-
unify(A, X),
unify(B, Y).
unify(p(A, B), p(X, Y)) :-
unify(A, X),
unify(B, Y).
unify(q(A, B), q(X, Y)) :-
unify(A, X),
unify(B, Y).
Examples:
?- unify(q(Y,g(a,b)), p(g(X,X),Y)).
false.
?- unify(q(Y,g(a,b)), q(g(X,X),Y)).
false.
?- unify(q(Y,g(a,a)), q(g(X,X),Y)).
Y = g(a, a),
X = a.
One or two things remain for you to do:
Generalize the decompose rule to deal with arbitrary terms. You might find the =.. operator useful. For example:
?- Term = r(a, b, c), Term =.. FunctorAndArgs, [Functor | Args] = FunctorAndArgs.
Term = r(a, b, c),
FunctorAndArgs = [r, a, b, c],
Functor = r,
Args = [a, b, c].
You will need to check if two terms have the same functor and the same number of arguments, and whether all corresponding pairs of arguments unify.
Find out if your professor would like you to implement the occurs check, and if yes, implement it.
I have an add2 predicate which resolves like this where s(0) is the successor of 0 i.e 1
?- add2(s(0)+s(s(0)), s(s(0)), Z).
Z = s(s(s(s(s(0)))))
?- add2(0, s(0)+s(s(0)), Z).
Z = s(s(s(0)))
?- add2(s(s(0)), s(0)+s(s(0)), Z).
Z = s(s(s(s(s(0)))))
etc..
I'm trying to do add in a predecessor predicate which will work like so
?- add2(p(s(0)), s(s(0)), Z).
Z = s(s(0))
?- add2(0, s(p(0)), Z).
Z = 0
?- add2(p(0)+s(s(0)),s(s(0)),Z).
Z = s(s(s(0)))
?- add2(p(0), p(0)+s(p(0)), Z).
Z = p(p(0))
I can't seem to find a way to do this. My code is below.
numeral(0).
numeral(s(X)) :- numeral(X).
numeral(X+Y) :- numeral(X), numeral(Y).
numeral(p(X)) :- numeral(X).
add(0,X,X).
add(s(X),Y,s(Z)) :- add(X,Y,Z).
add(p(X),Y,p(Z)) :- add(X,Y,Z).
resolve(0,0).
resolve(s(X),s(Y)) :-
resolve(X,Y).
resolve(p(X),p(Y)) :-
resolve(X,Y).
resolve(X+Y,Z) :-
resolve(X,RX),
resolve(Y,RY),
add(RX,RY,Z).
add2(A,B,C) :-
resolve(A,RA),
resolve(B,RB),
add(RA,RB,C).
In general, adding with successor arithmetic means handling successor terms, which have the shape 0 or s(X) where X is also a successor term. This is addressed completely by this part of your code:
add(0,X,X).
add(s(X),Y,s(Z)) :- add(X,Y,Z).
Now you have to make a decision; you can either handle the predecessors and the addition terms here, in add/3, or you can wrap this predicate in another one that will handle them. You appear to have chosen to wrap add/3 with add2/3. In that case, you will definitely need to create a reducing term, such as you've built here with resolve/2, and I agree with your implementation of part of it:
resolve(0,0).
resolve(s(X),s(Y)) :-
resolve(X,Y).
resolve(X+Y,Z) :-
resolve(X,RX),
resolve(Y,RY),
add(RX,RY,Z).
This is all good. What you're missing now is a way to handle p(X) terms. The right way to do this is to notice that you already have a way of deducting by one, by using add/3 with s(0):
resolve(p(X), R) :-
resolve(X, X1),
add(s(0), R, X1).
In other words, instead of computing X using X = Y - 1, we are computing X using X + 1 = Y.
Provided your inputs are never negative, your add2/3 predicate will now work.
Let's consider that n=s(s(...s(0)...)) (simply n= s^n(0)). How could write a program calculating the division of two integers? I mean s^(n//m) (thats the definition of the division) . Any ideas? For example, if we had the question:
?-divide(s(s(s(s(0)))),s(0),D).
i have written the following code:
nat(0).
nat(s(X)) :- nat(X).
divide(0,_,D) :- D is 0.
divide(s(X),s(Y),D) :- divide(X,Y,D).
Your predicate divide/3 assumes wrongly that the following equation holds when x and y are numbers:
(x-1)/(y-1) = x/y
A counter-example is: (16-1)/(4-1) = 5 is different from 16/4 = 4
It seems you are trying to base your predicate on the well-know addition predicate:
add(0,Y,Y).
add(s(X),Y,s(Z)) :- add(X,Y,Z).
but division is a multiplicative not an additive operation. A possible way of solving your problem is to think of division as an iterated subtraction (as multiplication is an iterated addition). As your predicate is on natural numbers it must implement integral division as you wrote in the question.
s(0).
s(X):- X.
plus(0, Y, Y).
plus(s(X), Y, s(Z)):- plus(X , Y , Z).
minus(A, B, C) :- plus(C, B, A).
divide(_, 0, 0).
divide(0, _ , 0).
divide(X, s(0), X).
divide(A, B, s(N)) :- minus(A, B, R), divide(R, B, N).
Example:
| ?- divide(s(s(s(0))), s(0), N).
N = s(s(s(0))) ?
yes
| ?- divide(s(s(s(s(0)))), s(s(0)), N).
N = s(s(0)) ?
yes
This solution obviously only works for perfect divisions like 4/2 or 6/3 etc. Since we can only represent natural numbers using Peano's numerals.
Old post,but i have a same assignment.So the answer is:
%nat:Is X natural?,nat2:Is X,Y naturals?
nat(0).
nat(s(X)) :- nat(X).
nat2(0,s(Y)) :- nat(Y).
nat2(s(X),s(Y)) :- nat2(X,Y).
%Summary of X+Y=Z
sum(X,0,X) :- nat(X).
sum(X,s(Y),s(Z)) :- sum(X,Y,Z).
%Minus of X-Y=Z is same as Y+Z=X
minus(X,Y,Z) :- sum(Y,Z,X).
%Multiplication of X*Y,add X+0(Z) Y times(recursive)
mult(X,0,0).
mult(X,s(Y),D):-mult(X,Y,Z), sum(X,Z,D).
%Divide,check special occasions,add to W the s(0)(1) recursive.
divide(X,Y,D) :- div(X,Y,D,_).
div(s(X),0,undefined,_).
div(0,s(Y),0,_).
div(0,0,undefined,_).
div(X,Y,0,X) :- X \== 0,Y \== 0,nat2(X,Y).
div(X,Y,D,L) :- X \== 0,Y \== 0,minus(X,Y,Z),div(Z,Y,W,L),sum(W,s(0),D).
What is the difference between this:
X \= Y
and this piece of code:
dif(X, Y)
I thought that they should behave the same, but they do not. Here's the example:
n_puta(L, N, X) :- nputa(L, N, 0, X).
nputa([], N, C, _) :- N = C.
nputa([G|R], N, C, X) :- G = X, nputa(R, N, Y, X), C is Y - 1.
nputa([G|R], N, C, X) :- dif(G,X), nputa(R, N, C, X).
And here are some calls:
?- n_puta([a,a,b,b,b], 2, X).
X = a ;
false.
?- n_puta([a,a,b,a,b,b], 3, X).
X = a ;
X = b ;
false.
X should be the atom that occurs exactly N times in the list L. If I replace dif(G, X) with G \= X, I don't get the expected result. Can someone tell me what is the difference between these two operators? Can I use anything else except dif(G, X)?
This example works prefectly in SWI-Prolog, but doesn't work in Amzi! Prolog.
dif/2 and (\=)/2 are the same as long as their arguments are ground. But only dif/2 is a pure relation that works correctly also with variables and can be used in all directions. Your example clearly shows that you should use dif/2 in this case, because you use your predicate not only to test, but also to generate solutions. The most widely used Prolog systems all provide dif/2.