Hi I am learning prolog (using swi-prolog 7 on Mac) but I cannot find enough docs/tutorials to explain how to print out a result of a term evaluation. I tried code below but it always prints out ERROR: prolog/test.pl:2: user:main: false for any arguments.
#!/usr/bin/env swipl
:- initialization(main, main).
fun1(A, B):- A < B.
fun2([A1 | A2]):- A3 is fun1(A1, A2), write(A3).
main(args) :- fun2(args).
How can I write result of fun1 to stdout in SWI-Prolog?
Perhaps this?
fun1(A,B,Value) :-
(
A < B
->
Value = true
;
Value = false
).
fun2(A1,A2) :-
fun1(A1, A2, Value ),
format('Result: ~w~n',[Value]).
Example run:
?- fun2(1,2).
Result: true
true.
In Prolog you have to think of the result of each line as being true or false and then possibly binding a value to a variable or something more complex as state.
The code in the question was returning that the predicate was true or false but not binding a value to a variable or altering state. By adding Value as an additional parameter and then binding a value in the predicate, the value in Value was able to be used for display.
EDIT
Question from OP in comment
I have never seen -> is it documented somewhere? Sorry if it is a noobie question.
No it is not a noobie question, and actually it was wise of you to just ask instead of festering on it.
See: Control Predicates
In particular ->/2 or (:Condition -> :Action) is often used with ;/2 and together they work like an if then else, e.g.
if then else syntax:
NB This is not Prolog syntax but a syntax common in many imperative programming languages.
if (<condition>) then
<when true>
else
<when false>
-> ; syntax:
This is Prolog syntax.
(
<condition>
->
<when true>
;
<when false>
)
EDIT
Question from OP in comment
When I run this code without the init block and main, so just in interactive mode, then it works. When I try to make a script out of it I get the same error ERROR: prolog/test.pl:2: user:main: false
First
main(args) :- fun2(args).
args is a value but needs to be a variable and in Prolog variables by default start with a capital letter.
main(Args) :- fun2(Args).
Next, Args as received in main/1 is a list, but fun2/2 expects two separate parameters. So by deconstructing Args into a list of two items with Args = [A1,A2] the items in the list can be used as individual items to be passed as parameters to fun2/2.
main(Args) :-
Args = [A1,A2],
fun2(A1,A2).
Example run from top level.
?- main([1,2]).
Result: true
true.
I leave it as an exercise to check if this works as needed from the command line.
Related
Completely new to prolog. Interesting journey so far in trying to change how I think, so appreciate any help here.
I am trying to assert facts for a pre-defined set of names. For example, assume I have a a set of people [alice, bob, ...] in one file. I would like to assert facts about these folks in other files, but want to make sure that these folks exist and that is checked when the facts are loaded/compiled(?).
For example, assume I don't have 'chuck' in the list and I make an assertion:
user: swipl app.pl
?- full_name(chuck, "Charlie Steel").
should result in an error.
What is the best way I can do this?
So, here's the code I came up with:
person(deborah).
person(tony).
read_my_file(Filename) :-
open(Filename, read, In),
read_my_file1(In),
close(In).
read_my_file1(In) :-
read(In, Term),
( Term == end_of_file
-> true
; assert_or_abort(Term),
read_my_file1(In)
).
assert_or_abort(Term) :-
( full_name(Person, Name) = Term
-> ( person(Person)
-> assertz(full_name(Person, Name))
; format(user, '~w is not a person I recognize~n', [Person])
)
; format(user, '~w is not a term I know how to parse~n', [Term])
).
The trick here is using read/2 to obtain a Prolog term from the stream, and then doing some deterministic tests of it, hence the nested conditional structure inside assert_or_abort/1. Supposing you have an input file that looks like this:
full_name(deborah, 'Deborah Ismyname').
full_name(chuck, 'Charlie Steel').
full_name(this, has, too, many, arguments).
squant.
You get this output:
?- read_my_file('foo.txt').
chuck is not a person I recognize
full_name(this,has,too,many,arguments) is not a term I know how to parse
squant is not a term I know how to parse
true.
?- full_name(X,Y).
X = deborah,
Y = 'Deborah Ismyname'.
I have just started learning Prolog, and I'm wondering about the first question of this exercise.
%% Suppose we are working with the following knowledge base:
wizard(ron).
hasWand(harry).
quidditchPlayer(harry).
wizard(X) :- hasBroom(X), hasWand(X).
hasBroom(X) :- quidditchPlayer(X).
How does Prolog respond to the following queries?
wizard(ron). -> true
witch(ron). -> undefined procedure
wizard(hermione). -> false
witch(hermione). -> undefined procedure
wizard(harry). -> true
wizard(Y). -> Y = ron ; Y = harry.
witch(Y). -> undefined procedure
Using swipl on Ubuntu, importing the knowledge base for this exercise, first of course trying to decipher what Prolog will returns, and finally checking by myself.
Ok pretty boring stuff until now, I have seen a few answer to these exercises over Github (here, here and there), and I don't understand the answer to the first one: %% 1. wizard(ron). -> true.
First of all the interpreter is complaining about the two definition of what is a wizard:
Warning: /tmp/prolog/ex15.pl:4:
Clauses of wizard/1 are not together in the source-file
Earlier definition at /tmp/prolog/ex15.pl:1
Current predicate: quidditchPlayer/1
Use :- discontiguous wizard/1. to suppress this message
Secondly, when querying I obtain:
?- wizard(ron).
true ;
false.
The way I get it, first Prolog returns the first fact from the knowledge base, then apply the rule head and find out that ron has neither a broom nor a wand.
All this leading to my question: what subtlety have I missed that makes others writing true as an answer to this query?
what subtlety have I missed that makes others writing true as an answer to this query?
`?- wizard(ron).`
true;
false
You have the clause (fact) wizard(ron). in your KB.
To make the things clearer you can write the fact also as the rule clause:
wizard(ron) :- true.
As you can see this is pretty redundant notation but useful in some cases as the general fact representation.
So your query can be interpreted as follows:
Is there an wizard called ron?
Since you have the fact wizard(ron) :- true.
Prolog will first unify the goal and the head.
In your case unify is trivial comparison because no variables are in the goal and the head.
Then Prolog tries to prove body. The body is builtin predicate true, so you quickly get the answer - true.
Then pressing ';' you initiate the search for the alternative solution.
Since no (more) solutions exist for the query wizard(ron), Prolog writes false.
The dot operator designates the clause end. So you wrongly typed dots in your examples:
-> operator means if-then-else relation. It can be used within clause body.
For example you can write std_member/2 as if_member/2
std_member(X, [ X | _ ]).
std_member(X, [ _ | Xs ]) :-
std_member(X, [ _ | Xs).
if_member(X, [ Y | Xs ]) :-
X = Y -> true;
if_member( X, Xs ).
I have to write a predicate to do work like following:
?- cat(north,south,X).
X = northsouth
?- cat(alley,'91',Y).
X = alley91
?-cat(7,uthah,H).
Bad Input
H = H
Please Help..
atom_concat_redefined(A1, A2, A3) :-
( nonvar(A1) -> atom_chars(A1, Chs1) ; true ),
( nonvar(A2) -> atom_chars(A2, Chs2) ; true ),
( nonvar(A1), nonvar(A2) -> true ; atom_chars(A3, Chs3) ),
append(Chs1, Chs2, Chs3),
atom_chars(A1, Chs1),
atom_chars(A2, Chs2),
atom_chars(A3, Chs3).
This definition produces the same errors in a standard conforming implementation like SICStus or GNU - there should be no other differences, apart from performance. To compare the errors use the goal:
?- catch(atom_concat_redefined(A,B,abc+1), error(E,_), true).
E = type_error(atom,abc+1).
Note the underscore in error(E,_), which hides the implementation defined differences. Implementations provide additional information in this argument, in particular, they would reveal that atom_chars/2 or atom_concat/3 produced the error.
atom_codes/2 it's the ISO approved predicate to convert between an atom and a list of codes. When you have 2 lists corresponding to first two arguments, append/3 (alas, not ISO approved, but AFAIK available in every Prolog), will get the list corresponding to third argument, then, convert that list to atom...
Note that, while append/3 is a 'pure' Prolog predicate, and can work with any instantiation pattern, atom_codes/2 requires at least one of it's argument instantiated. Here is a SWI-Prolog implementation of cat/3, 'working' a bit more generally. I hope it will inspire you to read more about Prolog...
ac(X,Xs) :- when((ground(X);ground(Xs)), atom_codes(X,Xs)).
cat(X,Y,Z) :- maplist(ac, [X,Y,Z],[Xs,Ys,Zs]), append(Xs,Ys,Zs).
edit
as noted by #false I was wrong about append/3. Now I'll try to understand better what append/3 does... wow, a so simple predicate, so behaviour rich!
I want to parse a logical expression using DCG in Prolog.
The logical terms are represented as lists e.g. ['x','&&','y'] for x ∧ y the result should be the parse tree and(X,Y) (were X and Y are unassigned Prolog variables).
I implemented it and everything works as expected but I have one problem:
I can't figure out how to parse the variable 'x' and 'y' to get real Prolog variables X and Y for the later assignment of truth values.
I tried the following rule variations:
v(X) --> [X].:
This doesn't work of course, it only returns and('x','y').
But can I maybe uniformly replace the logical variables in this term with Prolog variables? I know of the predicate term_to_atom (which is proposed as a solution for a similar problem) but I don't think it can be used here to achieve the desired result.
v(Y) --> [X], {nonvar(Y)}.:
This does return an unbound variable but of course a new one every time even if the logical variable ('x','y',...) was already in the term so
['X','&&','X'] gets evaluated to and(X,Y) which is not the desired result, either.
Is there any elegant or idiomatic solution to this problem?
Many thanks in advance!
EDIT:
The background to this question is that I'm trying to implement the DPLL-algorithm in Prolog. I thought it would by clever to directly parse the logical term to a Prolog-term to make easy use of the Prolog backtracking facility:
Input: some logical term, e.g T = [x,'&&',y]
Term after parsing: [G_123,'&&',G_456] (now featuring "real" Prolog variables)
Assign a value from { boolean(t), boolean(f) } to the first unbound variable in T.
simplify the term.
... repeat or backtrack until a assignment v is found so that v(T) = t or the search space is depleted.
I'm pretty new to Prolog and honestly couldn't figure out a better approach. I'm very interested in better alternatives! (So I'm kinda half-shure that this is what I want ;-) and thank you very much for your support so far ...)
You want to associate ground terms like x (no need to write 'x') with uninstantiated variables. Certainly that does not constitute a pure relation. So it is not that clear to me that you actually want this.
And where do you get the list [x, &&, x] in the first place? You probably have some kind of tokenizer. If possible, try to associate variable names to variables prior to the actual parsing. If you insist to perform that association during parsing you will have to thread a pair of variables throughout your entire grammar. That is, instead of a clean grammar like
power(P) --> factor(F), power_r(F, P).
you will now have to write
power(P, D0,D) --> factor(F, D0,D1), power_r(F, P, D1,D).
% ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^
since you are introducing context into an otherwise context free grammar.
When parsing Prolog text, the same problem occurs. The association between a variable name and a concrete variable is already established during tokenizing. The actual parser does not have to deal with it.
There are essentially two ways to perform this during tokenization:
1mo collect all occurrences Name=Variable in a list and unify them later:
v(N-V, [N-V|D],D) --> [N], {maybesometest(N)}.
unify_nvs(NVs) :-
keysort(NVs, NVs2),
uniq(NVs2).
uniq([]).
uniq([NV|NVs]) :-
head_eq(NVs, NV).
uniq(NVs).
head_eq([], _).
head_eq([N-V|_],N-V).
head_eq([N1-_|_],N2-_) :-
dif(N1,N2).
2do use some explicit dictionary to merge them early on.
Somewhat related is this question.
Not sure if you really want to do what you asked. You might do it by keeping a list of variable associations so that you would know when to reuse a variable and when to use a fresh one.
This is an example of a greedy descent parser which would parse expressions with && and ||:
parse(Exp, Bindings, NBindings)-->
parseLeaf(LExp, Bindings, MBindings),
parse_cont(Exp, LExp, MBindings, NBindings).
parse_cont(Exp, LExp, Bindings, NBindings)-->
parse_op(Op, LExp, RExp),
{!},
parseLeaf(RExp, Bindings, MBindings),
parse_cont(Exp, Op, MBindings, NBindings).
parse_cont(Exp, Exp, Bindings, Bindings)-->[].
parse_op(and(LExp, RExp), LExp, RExp)--> ['&&'].
parse_op(or(LExp, RExp), LExp, RExp)--> ['||'].
parseLeaf(Y, Bindings, NBindings)-->
[X],
{
(member(bind(X, Var), Bindings)-> Y-NBindings=Var-Bindings ; Y-NBindings=Var-[bind(X, Var)|Bindings])
}.
It parses the expression and returns also the variable bindings.
Sample outputs:
?- phrase(parse(Exp, [], Bindings), ['x', '&&', 'y']).
Exp = and(_G683, _G696),
Bindings = [bind(y, _G696), bind(x, _G683)].
?- phrase(parse(Exp, [], Bindings), ['x', '&&', 'x']).
Exp = and(_G683, _G683),
Bindings = [bind(x, _G683)].
?- phrase(parse(Exp, [], Bindings), ['x', '&&', 'y', '&&', 'x', '||', 'z']).
Exp = or(and(and(_G839, _G852), _G839), _G879),
Bindings = [bind(z, _G879), bind(y, _G852), bind(x, _G839)].
I'm trying to write a program using swi-prolog that randomly asks people for their first or last name and prints "correct" or "incorrect" based on what they type. The current correct answers are "Hello" and "World" but regardless of what the user types, the output is false and correct/incorrect isn't printed.
start:-(Q=['What is your first name?','What is your last name?'],
random_member(N,[0,1]),
nth0(N,Q,X),
writeln(X)),
readln(S),
check_answer(N,S).
check_answer(N,S):-A=['Hello','World'],
nth0(N,A,X),
writeln(X),
(S=#=X)->writeln('correct'),
not(S=#=X)->writeln('incorrect').
I later edited it to:
start:-(Q=['What is your first name?','What is your last name?'],
random_member(N,[0,1]),
nth0(N,Q,X),
writeln(X)),
read(S),
check_answer(N,S).
check_answer(N,S):-A=['Hello','World'],
nth0(N,A,X),
writeln(X),
writeln(S),
((S=#=X))->writeln('correct') ; writeln('incorrect').
I can spot two problems in your code.
a) readln/1 (undocumented) returns a list of items (then peek the first item or use read/1):
?- readln(X).
|: Hello.
X = ['Hello', '.'].
?- readln(X).
|: Hello
X = ['Hello'].
?- readln(X).
|: Hello .
X = ['Hello', '.'].
b) The pair of if then else operator (->) will always fail, because you omit the else branch on both, and the conditions are exclusives. Try
...
((S=#=X)->writeln('correct') ; writeln('incorrect')).
edit there are 2 problems. I wrongly suggested read/1. That read a Prolog term, and then read a variable if we write a variable, i.e. a UppercaseStartingSymbol. My fault. readln seems ok then, but change the pattern to select the first item.
Another problem, unrelated: you misplaced the closed parenthesis in -> 'statement'.
Here the code:
start:-(Q=['What is your first name?','What is your last name?'],
random_member(N,[0,1]),
nth0(N,Q,X),
writeln(X)),
readln(S),
check_answer(N,S).
check_answer(N,[S|_]):-A=['Hello','World'],
nth0(N,A,X),
writeln(X),
writeln(S),
((S=#=X)->writeln('correct') ; writeln('incorrect')).