I would like to ask, if anyone knows how to improve (if it's not optimal) this code.
The idea, is that you have a list of elements, and I want to return a list, with two sublists inside it, the first sublist should contain the elements that are contained in the odd positions of the list, and the second sublist should contain, the elements that are contained in the even positions of the list.
Some examples:
?-evenAndOdd([1,2,3,4,5],[[1,3,5],[2,4]])
True.
?-evenAndOdd([a,b,c,d,e],[[a,c,e],[b,d]]).
True.
The code I have implemented is the next one:
evenAndOdd([],[]).
evenAndOdd([H|R],NL):-
evenAndOddRec([H|R], [[],[]],1,NL).
evenAndOddRec([], [LOdd,LEven],_,[LOdd,LEven]).
evenAndOddRec([H|R],[LOdd,LEven],Pos,NL):-
\+ even(Pos),
!,
NPos is Pos +1,
append(LOdd,[H],NLOdd),
evenAndOddRec(R,[NLOdd,LEven],NPos,NL).
evenAndOddRec([H|R],[LOdd,LEven],Pos,NL):-
NPos is Pos + 1,
append(LEven, [H], NLEven),
evenAndOddRec(R,[LOdd, NLEven],NPos,NL).
even(N):-
N mod 2 =:=0.
One symptom that the code is not optimal is that it will run off into the woods if you ask for an additional solution in the -,+,+ instantiation pattern:
?- evenAndOdd(X, [[1,3,5], [2,4,6]]).
X = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] ;
<time passes>
This kind of thing is a frequent occurrence when manually trying to match up lists with indexes in Prolog.
Stylistically, I would rather not give back a list containing exactly two lists when I could just have three arguments instead of two; this is, after all, a relationship between three lists, the combined list and the even and odd items.
Additionally, just eyeballing it, I'm not sure why any arithmetic or any cuts are needed here. This is how I would implement it:
evenAndOdd([], [], []).
evenAndOdd([O], [O], []).
evenAndOdd([O,E|Rest], [O|ORest], [E|ERest]) :- evenAndOdd(Rest, ORest, ERest).
This works with many instantiations:
?- evenAndOdd([1,2,3,4,5,6], O, E).
O = [1, 3, 5],
E = [2, 4, 6].
?- evenAndOdd([1,2,3,4,5], O, E).
O = [1, 3, 5],
E = [2, 4] ;
false.
?- evenAndOdd(X, [1,3,5], [2,4]).
X = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] ;
false.
?- evenAndOdd(X, [1,3,5], [2,4,6]).
X = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
?- evenAndOdd(X, [1,3,5], [2,4,6,8]).
false.
?- evenAndOdd([1,2,3,4,5,6], X, [2,4,6,8]).
false.
?- evenAndOdd([1,2,3,4,5,6], X, [2,4,6]).
X = [1, 3, 5].
You can implicitly determine even and odd values upon recursion, by taking two elements at a time (and taking into account when the has an odd number of elements):
evenAndOdd(L, [LOdd, LEven]):-
evenAndOdd(L, LOdd, LEven).
evenAndOdd([], [], []).
evenAndOdd([Odd], [Odd], []).
evenAndOdd([Odd,Even|Tail], [Odd|LOdd], [Even|LEven]):-
evenAndOdd(Tail, LOdd, LEven).
Related
I'm trying to get random permutation with prolog. But the problem is
?- permutation([1,2,3,4],L).
gives always L = [1, 2, 3, 4] as first answer. I could fix this by using the query
?- L1=[1,2,3,4], permutation(L1,L2), dif(L1,L2).
But this gives me always L2 = [1, 2, 4, 3] as first answer.
How can I get a random permutation in SWI Prolog?
Isn't [1,2,3,4] random enough? Looks random to me!
But I know what you mean - you want a permutation which looks more random.
Why not roll your own? Just pick the next element out of an ever-shrinking "input list".
This is a bit laborious. Maybe there are more elegant ways?
look_random_dammit([],[]) :- !.
% note that [PickedElement|PermutedList] APPENDS "PickedElement"
% to list being constructed. Appending or prepending does not
% really make a difference here though:
look_random_dammit(ListRemainder,[PickedElement|PermutedList]) :-
ListRemainder \== [],
length(ListRemainder,Length),
succ(Max,Length),
% We are now leaving logicland and asking an oracle to give
% use a random number. "Buckle your seatbelt Dorothy, 'cause
% Kansas is going bye-bye!"
random_between(0,Max,PickedIndex),
nth0(PickedIndex,ListRemainder,PickedElement),
length(Prefix,PickedIndex),
% Constructing a remainder list is probably slow
append([Prefix,[PickedElement],Suffix],ListRemainder) ,
append(Prefix,Suffix,ListRemainderNext),
look_random_dammit(ListRemainderNext,PermutedList).
And so:
?- look_random_dammit([1,2,3,4],P).
P = [2,3,1,4] ;
false.
?- look_random_dammit([],P).
P = [] ;
false.
?- look_random_dammit([1,1,1,2,2],P).
P = [2,1,1,2,1] ;
false.
If we also retained the information about which elements was picked in equence, we could write a predicate that "reverses the permutation" because no information was lost while creating it.
You can try:
?- random_permutation([1,2,3,4], P).
P = [2, 1, 4, 3].
I am just giving an alternate method.
Using findall to get all possible permutations.
Getting the length of the List containing the permutations.
Using random to generate a random number between 0 and the length. This will be used as an index value.
Using nth1 to give us a permutation on the given index.
! (Cut) is used to give only one value. if you want more values then remove it.
Example:-
perm([H|T],Permutation):-
findall(A,permutation([H|T],A),List),
length(List,Length),
random(1,Length,Random),
nth1(Random,List,Permutation),!.
?- perm([1,2,3,4],Permutation).
Permutation = [1, 4, 3, 2]
?- perm([1,2,3,4],Permutation).
Permutation = [3, 1, 2, 4]
?- perm([1,2,3,4],Permutation).
Permutation = [3, 1, 4, 2]
I am using Prolog to try and check if a list can be split into 2 sublists(subarrays) that have equal sums.
The following should succeed: [1,2,3,6], [2,1,1], [0], [1,1,2]
The following should fail: [1,4,8], [1,3,2], [2,2,1,1]
I believe my program is creating subsequences instead of sublists. This is causing queries similar to [1,3,2] and [2,2,1,1] to succeed when they should fail.
In the example of the query [1,3,2] it is returning true because the subsequences [1,2] and [3] have equal sums. That should not be allowed. Instead, [1,3,2] should be split into sublists [1]/[3,2] and [1,3]/[2]. Hence, it should fail.
I am unsure how to modify the subL predicate to return sublists instead of subsequences.
Here is what I have so far:
split([]).
split([0]).
split([H|T]) :-
subL([H|T], LEFT, RIGHT),
sum(LEFT, SUM1),
sum(RIGHT, SUM2),
SUM1=SUM2.
subL([],[],[]).
subL([H|T], [H|T2], X) :-
subL(T, T2, X).
subL([H|T], X, [H|T2]) :-
subL(T, X, T2).
sum([H|T], SUM1) :-
sum(T, SUM2),
SUM1 is SUM2 + H.
sum([H], SUM1) :-
H = SUM1.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
YOu can make use of append to split the list into different lists. Indeed:
?- append(L, R, [1,2,3,6]).
L = [],
R = [1, 2, 3, 6] ;
L = [1],
R = [2, 3, 6] ;
L = [1, 2],
R = [3, 6] ;
L = [1, 2, 3],
R = [6] ;
L = [1, 2, 3, 6],
R = [] ;
false.
so you can write a predicate:
split(X) :-
append(L, R, X),
sum(L, S),
sum(R, S).
Here we thus check if both the left and the right sublist sum up to the same sum S. You however slighly need to change your sum/2 predicate such that the sum for an empty list is 0 as well. I leave that as an exercise.
The above is not very efficient, since it takes O(n2) time. You can make it linear by first calculating the sum of the entire list, and then make a predicate that iterates over the list, each time keeping track of the sum of the elements on the left side, and the remaining sum on the right side. I think that by first solving it the "naive" way, you likely will find it easier to implement that as an improvement.
I am trying to run code on this page: https://swish.swi-prolog.org/example/clpfd_queens.pl in swipl on a Linux terminal.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
n_queens(N, Qs) :-
length(Qs, N),
Qs ins 1..N,
safe_queens(Qs).
safe_queens([]).
safe_queens([Q|Qs]) :-
safe_queens(Qs, Q, 1),
safe_queens(Qs).
safe_queens([], _, _).
safe_queens([Q|Qs], Q0, D0) :-
Q0 #\= Q,
abs(Q0 - Q) #\= D0,
D1 #= D0 + 1,
safe_queens(Qs, Q0, D1).
Following command works:
?- n_queens(4, Qs), labeling([ff], Qs).
But not just n_queens(4, Qs):
?- n_queens(4, Qs).
Qs = [_G1470, _G1473, _G1476, _G1479],
_G1470 in 1..4,
abs(_G1470-_G1479)#\=3,
_G1470#\=_G1479,
abs(_G1470-_G1476)#\=2,
_G1470#\=_G1476,
abs(_G1470-_G1473)#\=1,
_G1470#\=_G1473,
_G1479 in 1..4,
abs(_G1476-_G1479)#\=1,
_G1476#\=_G1479,
abs(_G1473-_G1479)#\=2,
_G1473#\=_G1479,
_G1476 in 1..4,
abs(_G1473-_G1476)#\=1,
_G1473#\=_G1476,
_G1473 in 1..4.
Why is labeling part needed here? Can one get proper output without labeling part?
For larger numbers, one gets only initial part of the solution:
?- n_queens(20, Qs), labeling([ff], Qs).
Qs = [1, 3, 5, 14, 17, 4, 16, 7, 12|...] ;
Qs = [1, 3, 5, 18, 16, 4, 10, 7, 14|...] ;
...
How can one get full list output for larger numbers? Also, how can one get all numbers together, without having to press spacebar for each solution? Thanks for your help.
n_queens/2 does not solves the N-queens problem for N queens: it constructs the constraint programming problem: it constructs N variables (the columns of the queens), and adds constraints between these queens: for instance that two queens can not be placed on the same row, nor on the same diagonal. We see this if we rewrite the problem output to more convenient output:
A in 1..4,
abs(A-D)#\=3,
A#\=D,
abs(A-C)#\=2,
A#\=C,
abs(A-B)#\=1,
A#\=B,
D in 1..4,
abs(C-D)#\=1,
C#\=D,
abs(B-D)#\=2,
B#\=D,
C in 1..4,
abs(B-C)#\=1,
B#\=C,
B in 1..4.
So we see four queens (A, B, C and D). Each of the queens should be in the domain 1..4, furthermore we see non equal constraints like A #\= D to prevent the first queen A sharing a column with the last queen D. We finally see constraints like abs(A-C) #\= 2 to prevent the first queen A and the third queen C to differ two columns (diagnal attack).
Next labeling/2 will actually solve the problem: it performs relaxation (reducing the domains) as well as branching (picking a value or a subrange of values for variables) and backtracking in case the constraints fail. It will continue until it finds a solution, and we can use Prolog's backtracking mechanism to let labeling/2 come up with more solutions.
labeling thus is given a list of variables and aims to label them: assign them a value out of the range such that all constraints are satisfied.
Therefore the problem construction part is usually very fast compared to the actually solving part: it is easy to generate O(N) variables and O(N2) constraints, but it can take an exponential amount of time O(DN) to come up with a solution satisfying all constraints.
Also, how can one get all numbers together, without having to press spacebar for each solution?
You can use the meta-predicate findall/3 for that:
all_n_queens(N,LL) :-
findall(L,(n_queens(N,L), labeling([ff], L)),LL).
Which generates:
?- all_n_queens(5,LL).
LL = [[1, 3, 5, 2, 4], [1, 4, 2, 5, 3], [2, 4, 1, 3, 5], [2, 5, 3, 1, 4], [3, 1, 4, 2|...], [3, 5, 2|...], [4, 1|...], [4|...], [...|...]|...].
How can one get full list output for larger numbers?
You can set the answer_write_options flag:
?- set_prolog_flag(answer_write_options,[max_depth(0)]).
true.
?- all_n_queens(5,LL).
LL = [[1,3,5,2,4],[1,4,2,5,3],[2,4,1,3,5],[2,5,3,1,4],[3,1,4,2,5],[3,5,2,4,1],[4,1,3,5,2],[4,2,5,3,1],[5,2,4,1,3],[5,3,1,4,2]].
I recently started learning Prolog and I got a task to write a predicate list(N, L) that generates lists L such that:
L has length 2N,
every number between 1 and N occurs exactly twice in L,
between each pair of the same element there is an even number of other elements,
the first occurrences of each number are in increasing order.
The author states that there are N! such lists.
For example, for N = 3 all solutions are:
?- list(3, L).
L = [1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3] ;
L = [1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 2] ;
L = [1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 3] ;
L = [1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1] ;
L = [1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1] ;
L = [1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3] ;
false.
My current solution looks like:
even_distance(H, [H | _]) :-
!.
even_distance(V, [_, _ | T]) :-
even_distance(V, T).
list(N, [], _, Length, _, _) :-
Length =:= 2*N,
!.
list(N, [New | L], Max, Length, Used, Duplicates) :-
select(New, Duplicates, NewDuplicates),
even_distance(New, Used),
NewLength is Length + 1,
list(N, L, Max, NewLength, [New | Used], NewDuplicates).
list(N, [New | L], Max, Length, Used, Duplicates) :-
Max < N,
New is Max + 1,
NewLength is Length + 1,
list(N, L, New, NewLength, [New | Used], [New | Duplicates]).
list(N, L) :-
list(N, L, 0, 0, [], []).
It does two things:
if current maximum is less than N, add that number to the list, put it on the list of duplicates, and update the max;
select some duplicate, check if there is an even number of elements between it and the number already on the list (ie. that number is on odd position), then add it to the list and remove it from duplicates.
It works, but it's slow and doesn't look really nice.
The author of this exercise shows that for N < 12, his solution generates a single list with average of ~11 inferences (using time/1 and dividing the result by N!). With my solution it grows to ~60.
I have two questions:
How to improve this algorithm?
Can this problem be generalized to some other known one? I know about similar problems based on the multiset [1, 1, 2, 2, ..., n, n] (eg. Langford pairing), but couldn't find something like this.
I'm asking because the original problem is about enumerating intersections in a self-intersecting closed curve. You draw such curve, pick a point and direction and follow the curve, enumerating each intersection when met for the first time and repeating the number on the second meeting: example (with the answer [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 1, 9, 5, 4, 6, 7, 9, 2, 8]).
The author states that every such curve satisfies the predicate list, but not every list corresponds to a curve.
I had to resort to arithmetic to satisfy the requirement about pairs of integers separated by even count of elements. Would be nice to be able to solve without arithmetic at all...
list(N,L) :- numlist(1,N,H), list_(H,L), even_(L).
list_([D|Ds],[D|Rs]) :-
list_(Ds,Ts),
select(D,Rs,Ts).
list_([],[]).
even_(L) :-
forall(nth0(P,L,X), (nth0(Q,L,X), abs(P-Q) mod 2 =:= 1)).
select/3 is used in 'insert mode'.
edit to avoid arithmetic, we could use this more verbose schema
even_(L) :-
maplist(even_(L),L).
even_(L,E) :-
append(_,[E|R],L),
even_p(E,R).
even_p(E,[E|_]).
even_p(E,[_,_|R]) :- even_p(E,R).
edit
Here is a snippet based on assignment in a prebuilt list of empty 'slots'. Based on my test, it's faster than your solution - about 2 times.
list(N,L) :-
N2 is N*2,
length(L,N2),
numlist(1,N,Ns),
pairs(Ns,L).
pairs([N|Ns],L) :- first(N,L,R),even_offset(N,R),pairs(Ns,L).
pairs([],_).
first(N,[N|R],R) :- !.
first(N,[_|R],S) :- first(N,R,S).
even_offset(N,[N|_]).
even_offset(N,[_,_|R]) :- even_offset(N,R).
My first attempt, filtering with even_/1 after every insertion, was much slower. I was initially focused on pushing the filter immediately after the select/3, and performance was indeed almost good as the last snippet, but alas, it loses a solution out of 6...
I am a beginner in prolog. I tried this in swipl interpreter:
?- length(Lists, 3), ord_subset(Lists, [1, 2, 3, 4]).
false.
expecting to get all length-3 lists that are subsets of [1, 2, 3, 4] like [1, 2, 3] or [1, 2, 4]. Why do i get false?
Notice: both length and ord_subset are builtin functions (or whatever they are called) in SWI-Prolog.
You don't get a solution because the ord_subset/2 predicate only checks if a list is a subset of another list; it does not generate subsets.
Here is one simplistic way to define a predicate that does what you seem to be after:
subset_set([], _).
subset_set([X|Xs], S) :-
append(_, [X|S1], S),
subset_set(Xs, S1).
This assumes that these are "ordsets", that is, sorted lists without duplicates.
You will notice that the subset happens to be also a subsequence. We could have written instead:
subset_set(Sub, Set) :-
% precondition( ground(Set) ),
% precondition( is_list(Set) ),
% precondition( sort(Set, Set) ),
subseq_list(Sub, Set).
subseq_list([], []).
subseq_list([H|T], L) :-
append(_, [H|L1], L),
subseq_list(T, L1).
With either definition, you get:
?- length(Sub, 3), subset_set(Sub, [1,2,3,4]).
Sub = [1, 2, 3] ;
Sub = [1, 2, 4] ;
Sub = [1, 3, 4] ;
Sub = [2, 3, 4] ;
false.
You can even switch the order of the two subgoals in the example query, but this is probably the better way to write it.
However, the second argument must be ground; if it is not:
?- subset_set([A,B], [a,B]), B = a.
A = B, B = a ; Not a real set, is it?
false.