I have the Prolog rule:
superAbility(M1,A,M2) :-
monsterAbility(M1,M1A),
ability(M1A,M1T),
monster(M2,M2T),
typeEffectiveness(M1T,M2T,A).
Where M1A is Monster1 Ability, M1T is Monster1 Type and so on
I call the rule using: superAbility(squirtle,A,charmander)
and get the results
A = ordinary
A = super
A = super
A = ordinary
How do I alter my rule so that I only return when A = super?
You have 3 choices. First is to alter your function to get the result as mentioned from Isabelle Newbie:
superAbility(M1,A,M2) :-
monsterAbility(M1,M1A),
ability(M1A,M1T),
monster(M2,M2T),
A = super,
typeEffectiveness(M1T,M2T,A).
Instead you can also call the predicate with the desired result:
?- superAbility(M1,super,M2).
Or you can use an additional predicate to tunnel the desired result:
superDuperAbility(M1,A,M2) :-
A = super,
superAbility(M1,A,M2).
Or shorter without the unneccessary middle variable
superDuperAbility(M1,M2) :- superAbility(M1,super,M2).
Related
another way to ask the question is:
How I can list all the properties of an atom?
For example:
movie(agora).
director(agora, 'Alejandro Amenabar')
duration(agora, '2h').
so, I will like to receive all the predicates that has agora for argument. In this case it will be: movie, director, duration, with the other parameters ('Alejandro Amenabar', '2h').
I found: this, and this questions, but I couldn't understand well.
I want to have the value of false in the "variable Answer" if PersonInvited doesn't like something about the movie.
My query will be:
answer(Answer, PersonInvited, PersonWhoMadeInvitation, Movie)
Answer: I don't like this director
answer(false, PersonInvited, PersonWhoMadeInvitation, Movie):-
director(Movie, DirectorName),not(like(PersonInvited,DirectorName)).
The same thing will happen with any property like genre, for example.
Answer: I don't like this genre
answer(false, PersonInvited, PersonWhoMadeInvitation, Movie):-
genre(Movie, Genre), not(like(PersonInvited,Genre)).
So, I want to generalize this situation, instead of writing repeatedly every feature of every object.
I found two solutions the 2nd is cleaner from my point of view, but they are different.
Parameters:
PredName: Name of the predicate.
Arity: The Arity of the Predicate.
ParamValue: If I want to filter by one specific parameter.
PosParam: Which is the position of the parameter in the predicate.
ListParam: All the value of the posibles values parameters (mustbe a Variable all the time).
Solution 1:
filter_predicate(PredName, Arity, ParamValue,PosParam, ListParam):-
current_predicate(PredName/Arity),
Arity >= PosParam,
nth(PosParam, ListParam, ParamValue),
append([PredName], ListParam, PredList),
GlobalArity is Arity + 1,
length(PredList, GlobalArity),
Predicate =.. PredList,
Predicate.
Query
filter_predicate(PredName, Arity, agora, 1, Pm).
Output
Arity = 2
Pm = [agora,'Alejandro Amenabar']
PredName = director ?
yes
Solution2:
filter_predicate(PredName, Arity, ParamList):-
current_predicate(PredName/Arity),
append([PredName], ParamList, PredList),
GlobalArity is Arity + 1,
length(PredList, GlobalArity),
Predicate =.. PredList,
Predicate.
Query 1:
filter_predicate(PredName, Arity, [agora, X]).
Output
Arity = 2
PredName = director
X = 'Alejandro Amenabar' ?
Query 2:
filter_predicate(PredName, Arity, [X, 'Alejandro Amenabar']).
Output
Arity = 2
PredName = director
X = agora ?
here is my attempt, using SWI-Prolog
?- current_predicate(so:F/N), N>0, length(As,N), Head =.. [F|As], clause(so:Head,Body), As=[A|_], A==agora.
note that I coded into a module called so the facts, so I qualify with the module name the relevant calls. Such builtins (clause/2 and current_predicate/1) are ISO compliant, while modules (in SWI-prolog) are not. So I'm not sure about portability, etc...
clause/2 it's a builtin that allows for easy writing metainterprets. See the link for an awesome introduction to this Prolog historical 'point of strength'.
The 2 last calls (I mean, As=[A|_], A==agora) avoid matching clauses having a variable as first argument.
Using reading lines into lists with prolog
All your predicates are in a file 'my_file.pl'.
e.g. my_file.pl contains:
movie(agora).
director(agora, 'Alejandro Amenabar').
duration(agora, '2h').
You can use:
getLines(File,L):-
setup_call_cleanup(
open(File, read, In),
readData(In, L),
close(In)
).
readData(In, L):-
read_term(In, H, []),
( H == end_of_file
-> L = []
; L = [H|T],
readData(In,T)
).
pred_arg_file(Pred,Argue,File):-
getLines(File,L),
member(M,L),
M=..List,
member(Argue,List),
List=[Pred|_].
Then you can query:
?-pred_arg_file(Pred,agora,'my_file.pl').
Pred = movie ;
Pred = director ;
Pred = duration ;
false
or
?- findall(Pred,pred_arg_file(Pred,agora,'my_file.pl'),Preds).
Preds = [movie,director,duration].
If you want to return the properties, return the whole List not just the head.
pred_arg_file(List,Argue,File):-
getLines(File,L),
member(M,L),
M=..List,
member(Argue,List).
From my understanding you should change your data representation so that you can query the relations.As other answers have pointed out, So use triples, you can easily write code to change all your relations into this form as a one off. You then need to work out what the best way to store likes or dislikes are. This will effect how negation works. In this example:
relation(starwars,is,movie).
relation(lucas, directs,starwars).
relation(agora, is,movie).
relation('Alejandro Amenabar', directs, agora).
relation(agora, duration, '2h').
like(ma,'Alejandro Amenabar').
like(ma,movie).
like(ma,'2h').
ma_does_not_want_to_go(Film):-
relation(Film,is,movie),
relation(Film,_,Test), \+like(ma,Test).
ma_does_not_want_to_go(Film):-
relation(Film,is,movie),
relation(Test,_,Film), \+like(ma,Test).
ma_wants_to_go(Film):-
relation(Film,is,movie),
\+ma_does_not_want_to_go(Film).
sa_invites_ma(Film,true):-
ma_wants_to_go(Film).
sa_invites_ma(Film,false):-
ma_does_not_want_to_go(Film).
A draft of a solution using Logtalk with GNU Prolog as the backend compiler:
% a movie protocol
:- protocol(movie).
:- public([
director/1,
duration/1,
genre/1
]).
:- end_protocol.
% a real movie
:- object('Agora',
implements(movie)).
director('Alejandro Amenabar').
duration(120).
genre(drama).
:- end_object.
% another real movie
:- object('The Terminator',
implements(movie)).
director('James Cameron').
duration(112).
genre(syfy).
:- end_object.
% a prototype person
:- object(person).
:- public([
likes_director/1,
likes_genre/1
]).
:- public(likes/1).
likes(Movie) :-
conforms_to_protocol(Movie, movie),
( Movie::genre(Genre),
::likes_genre(Genre) ->
true
; Movie::director(Director),
::likes_director(Director) ->
true
; fail
).
:- end_object.
% a real person
:- object(mauricio,
extends(person)).
likes_director('Ridlye Scott').
likes_genre(drama).
likes_genre(syfy).
:- end_object.
Some sample queries:
$ gplgt
...
| ?- {movies}.
...
(5 ms) yes
| ?- mauricio::likes('Agora').
true ?
yes
| ?- mauricio::likes(Movie).
Movie = 'Agora' ? ;
Movie = 'The Terminator' ? ;
no
| ?- 'The Terminator'::director(Director).
Director = 'James Cameron'
yes
The code can be improved in several ways but it should be enough to give you a clear idea to evaluate this solution.
If I understood your question properly I propose the follow:
What if you change your schema or following this idea you can make a method that simulate the same thing.
class(movie, agora).
property(director, agora, 'Alejandro Amenabar').
property(duration, agora, '2h').
If do you want the types of agora, the query will be:
class(Type, agora)
If you want all the properties of agora, that will be:
property( PropertyName, agora, Value).
I got the following event: item(C,X,G,P), (where C is a number for the product,X it's name,G it's price,P it's cost).
When i use the command item(n3001,_,_,P) directly on the prolog console i get as answer
G = 1.25 X = 100 but when i write the equation p3(C)-: item(C,_,_,P). then i consult the text i get as answer yes.
My question clarified is how come the one time i get the value of P which i want and the other time i get whether it's true or false?
There are no return values in Prolog and p3/1 does not constitute a function but a relation. Your definition
p3(C) :-
item(C,_,_,P).
reads: If item(C,_,_,P) succeeds then p3(C) succeeds as well. For the sake of argument, let's assume that your code includes the following fact:
item(n3001,100,1.25,1).
If you query
?- p3(n3001).
Prolog unifies C in the head of your rule with n3001 and then tries your goal item(C,_,_,P) which succeeds. Hence the rule succeeds and Prolog tells you:
?- p3(n3001).
yes
If you want to know the price corresponding to n3001 you have to to define a rule where P appears in the head of the rule as well, e.g.:
p3(C,P) :-
item(C,_,_,P).
If you query that you'll get to see the value of P corresponding to n3001:
?- p3(n3001,P).
P = 1
If you query item/4 directly P appears in the arguments and therefore you get to see a substitution for it that satisfies your query:
?- item(n3001,_,_,P).
P = 1
Given this program, why am I forced to define every atom in the predicate, even if they're anonymous. Why is it that undefined variables in a dict predicate aren't thought of as anonymous?
funt2(X) :-
X = point{x:5, y:6}.
evalfunt(point{x:5, y : 6}) :-
write('hello world!').
evalfunt(point{x:_, y : _} ) :-
write('GoodBye world!').
Why can't I just say
evalfunt(point{x:5}) :-
write('GoodBye world!').
^that won't match, by the way.
I may as well just use a structure if I have to define every possible value in the dict to use dicts.
What's the motivation here? Can I do something to make my predicate terse? I'm trying to define a dict with 30 variables and this is a huge roadblock. It's going to increase my program size by a magnitude if I'm forced to define each variables (anonymous or not).
Dict is just a complex data type, like tuple, which has data AND structure. If you have, for example two facts:
fact(point{x:5, y:6}).
fact(point{x:5}).
Then the query
fact(point{x:_}).
will match the second one, but not the first one.
And the query
fact(point{x:_, y:_}).
Will match the first one, but not the second.
Now, if you want to match facts of the form fact(point{x:_, y:_, z:_}) only by one specific field, you can always write a helper rule:
matchByX(X, P) :- fact(P), P=point{x:X, y:_, z:_}.
So having facts:
fact(point{x:5, y:6, z:1}).
fact(point{x:1, y:2, z:3}).
fact(point{x:2, y:65, z:4}).
and quering
matchByX(1, P).
will return:
P = point{x:1, y:2, z:3}
UPDATE:
Moreover, in SWI-Prolog 7 version the field names can be matched as well, so it can be written in much more generic way, even for facts with different structures:
fact(point{x:5, y:6, z:1}).
fact(point{x:1, y:2}).
fact(point{x:2}).
fact(point{x:2, y:2}).
matchByField(F, X, P) :- fact(P), P.F = X.
So query:
?- matchByField(x, 2, P).
P = point{x:2} ;
P = point{x:2, y:2}.
I was able to accomplish what I needed by doing the following
checkiffive(Y) :-
get_dict(x, Y, V), V=5.
You need to use the built in methods for unifying values from a dict.
Described in chapter 5.4 of the SWI prolog reference
http://www.swi-prolog.org/download/devel/doc/SWI-Prolog-7.1.16.pdf
I'm currently trying to to interpret user-entered strings via Prolog. I'm using code I've found on the internet, which converts a string into a list of atoms.
"Men are stupid." => [men,are,stupid,'.'] % Example
From this I would like to create a rule, which then can be used in the Prolog command-line.
% everyone is a keyword for a rule. If the list doesn't contain 'everyone'
% it's a fact.
% [men,are,stupid]
% should become ...
stupid(men).
% [everyone,who,is,stupid,is,tall]
% should become ...
tall(X) :- stupid(X).
% [everyone,who,is,not,tall,is,green]
% should become ...
green(X) :- not(tall(X)).
% Therefore, this query should return true/yes:
?- green(women).
true.
I don't need anything super fancy for this as my input will always follow a couple of rules and therefore just needs to be analyzed according to these rules.
I've been thinking about this for probably an hour now, but didn't come to anything even considerable, so I can't provide you with what I've tried so far. Can anyone push me into the right direction?
Consider using a DCG. For example:
list_clause(List, Clause) :-
phrase(clause_(Clause), List).
clause_(Fact) --> [X,are,Y], { Fact =.. [Y,X] }.
clause_(Head :- Body) --> [everyone,who,is,B,is,A],
{ Head =.. [A,X], Body =.. [B,X] }.
Examples:
?- list_clause([men,are,stupid], Clause).
Clause = stupid(men).
?- list_clause([everyone,who,is,stupid,is,tall], Clause).
Clause = tall(_G2763):-stupid(_G2763).
I leave the remaining example as an easy exercise.
You can use assertz/1 to assert such clauses dynamically:
?- List = <your list>, list_clause(List, Clause), assertz(Clause).
First of all, you could already during the tokenization step make terms instead of lists, and even directly assert rules into the database. Let's take the "men are stupid" example.
You want to write down something like:
?- assert_rule_from_sentence("Men are stupid.").
and end up with a rule of the form stupid(men).
assert_rule_from_sentence(Sentence) :-
phrase(sentence_to_database, Sentence).
sentence_to_database -->
subject(Subject), " ",
"are", " ",
object(Object), " ",
{ Rule =.. [Object, Subject],
assertz(Rule)
}.
(let's assume you know how to write the DCGs for subject and object)
This is it! Of course, your sentence_to_database//0 will need to have more clauses, or use helper clauses and predicates, but this is at least a start.
As #mat says, it is cleaner to first tokenize and then deal with the tokenized sentence. But then, it would go something like this:
tokenize_sentence(be(Subject, Object)) -->
subject(Subject), space,
be, !,
object(Object), end.
(now you also need to probably define what a space and an end of sentence is...)
be -->
"is".
be -->
"are".
assert_tokenized(be(Subject, Object)) :-
Fact =.. [Object, Subject],
assertz(Fact).
The main reason for doing it this way is that you know during the tokenization what sort of sentence you have: subject - verb - object, or subject - modifier - object - modifier etc, and you can use this information to write your assert_tokenized/1 in a more explicit way.
Definite Clause Grammars are Prolog's go-to tool for translating from strings (such as your English sentences) to Prolog terms (such as the Prolog clauses you want to generate), or the other way around. Here are two introductions I'd recommend:
http://www.learnprolognow.org/lpnpage.php?pagetype=html&pageid=lpn-htmlse29
http://www.pathwayslms.com/swipltuts/dcg/
I have some basic formulas like
female(camilla).
female(diana).
...
parent(person, child).
...
and predicate language/2 that specifies which predicates will I be using:
langugage(female, 1).
language(parent, 2).
What I have to do is to create predicate called body_lit/1 that returns whole clauses specified in language like this:
?- body_lit(X).
X = parent(charles, harry) ;
X = parent(diana, harry) ;
...
X = female(camilla) ;
X = female(diana) ;
...
I know I need to use call/n function and functor/3. I know how functor/3 works but I cant seem to figure out how to return the whole clause instead of just the name of the predicate.
I presume that body_lit is supposed to return all answers to predicates given in language with their arities.
body_lit(X) :- language(N,A), functor(F,N,A), call(F), X=F.
language/2 selects a predicate, functor/3 constructs an actual call from the predicate name and its arity, call/1 executes the call, and finally X=F records the call as the output argument. The last unification could have been removed:
body_lit(X) :- language(N,A), functor(X,N,A), call(X).