Related
I am a beginner in Prolog and I have a task to do.
I need to check if the graph is connected.
For now I have that...
graph(
[arc(a,b)],
[arc(a,f)],
[arc(b,c)],
[arc(c,d)],
[arc(c,e)],
[arc(e,d)],
[arc(f,c)],
[arc(f,e)],
[arc(f,g)],
[arc(g,c)],
[arc(c,a)]).
edge(X,Y):-arc(X,Y);arc(Y,X).
path(X,Y):-edge(X,Y).
path(X,Y):-edge(X,Z),path(Z,Y).
triangle(X,Y,Z):-arc(X,Y),arc(Y,Z),arc(Z,X).
cycle(X):-arc(X,Y),path(Y,X).
connectivity([]):-forall(member(edge(X,Y)),path(X,Y)).
Check:
connectivity(graph).
upper I have arc(x,y) and I need check if every pair is connected.
Could u help me ?
Since you changed the question after I was almost done I will post what would solve the question before the change and you can figure out how to change it to meet your update.
arc(a,b).
arc(a,f).
arc(b,c).
arc(c,d).
arc(c,e).
arc(e,d).
arc(f,c).
arc(f,e).
arc(f,g).
arc(g,c).
arc(c,a).
edge(X,Y) :-
arc(X,Y), !.
edge(X,Y) :-
arc(Y,X).
path_prime(Visited,X,Y) :-
\+ member(X,Visited),
edge(X,Y), !.
path_prime(Visited,X,Y) :-
\+ member(X,Visited),
edge(X,Z),
path_prime([X|Visited],Z,Y).
path(X,X) :-
ground(X), !.
path(X,Y) :-
path_prime([],X,Y).
nodes(Nodes) :-
setof(A,B^arc(A,B),Starts),
setof(B,A^arc(A,B),Ends),
union(Starts,Ends,Nodes).
connected(X,Y) :-
nodes(Nodes),
member(X,Nodes),
member(Y,Nodes),
path(X,Y).
The first thing that has to be done is to get a list of the unique nodes which will be a set.
This can be done using
nodes(Nodes) :-
setof(A,B^arc(A,B),Starts),
setof(B,A^arc(A,B),Ends),
union(Starts,Ends,Nodes).
Notice that both the start and the end node of an arc are done separately. In particular notice that the node d is only in the destination of an arc.
Since you included edge(X,Y):-arc(X,Y);arc(Y,X). in your question, this indicated that the arcs should not be directional and so it is possible to get cycles. To avoid the cycles the list of visited nodes is added to the argument list and checked before proceeding.
As no test cases or examples of a correct solution were given, some times a node connected to itself is valid and so the clause
path(X,X) :-
ground(X), !.
was added.
This is by no means an optimal or best way to do this, just to give you something that works.
Partial run
?- connected(X,Y).
X = Y, Y = a ;
X = a,
Y = b ;
X = a,
Y = c ;
X = a,
Y = d ;
X = a,
Y = e ;
X = a,
Y = f ;
X = a,
Y = g ;
X = b,
Y = a ;
X = Y, Y = b ;
X = b,
Y = c ;
...
As I often comment, you should do problems with pen an paper first before writing code. If you don't know exactly what the code will be before you start typing the first line of code then why are you typing in code?
Questions from comments:
And setof ,union ,whats mean? Im rly beigneer and I don't understand that language and predicates.
setof/3 collects all of the values from arc/2. Since only one of the two values is needed, ^ tells setup/3 not to bind the variable in the Goal, or in beginner terms to just ignore the values from the variable.
union/3 just combines the to sets into one set; remember that a set will only have unique values.
I am new to Prolog and can't understand predicates very well.
First question: How can I 'return' a certain variable?
We have alternate(?A, ?B). alternate(first, second) should give me back second, and alternate(second, first) should give back first.
Second question: How to check if variable is of certain type?
I have for example ispair(?Pair). I have to check if Pair is pos(X,Y).
Not sure if that's what you meant, but what about the following:
alternate(first, pair(X,_), X).
alternate(second, pair(_,X), X).
If you query without any restrictions, you get the following two answer substitutions:
?- alternate(X,Y,Z).
X = first,
Y = pair(Z, _5844) ; % hit ; to get the second answer
X = second,
Y = pair(_5842, Z). % variables _12345 are fresh ones created by prolog
You can also ask: on which side of the pair (a,b) is b?
?- alternate(Where, pair(a,b), b).
Where = second.
In the case that your pair is (b,b), you get two solutions:
?- alternate(Where, pair(b,b), b).
Where = first ;
Where = second.
Also, c is not part of the pair (a,b):
?- alternate(Where, pair(a,b), c).
false.
If you insist on picking an element from heaven, you will get no as answer:
?- alternate(heaven, X, Y).
false.
When you know that the first element of a pair is a, prolog will tell you how the pair must look like:
?- alternate(first, X, a).
X = pair(a, _5680).
Again we have a fresh variable (_5680) in there, because any second term is fine.
To grok green cuts in Prolog I am trying to add them to the standard definition of sum in successor arithmetics (see predicate plus in What's the SLD tree for this query?). The idea is to "clean up" the output as much as possible by eliminating all useless backtracks (i.e., no ... ; false) while keeping identical behavior under all possible combinations of argument instantiations - all instantiated, one/two/three completely uninstantiated, and all variations including partially instantiated args.
This is what I was able to do while trying to come as close as possible to this ideal (I acknowledge false's answer to how to insert green cuts into append/3 as a source):
natural_number(0).
natural_number(s(X)) :- natural_number(X).
plus(X, Y, X) :- (Y == 0 -> ! ; Y = 0), (X == 0 -> ! ; true), natural_number(X).
plus(X, s(Y), s(Z)) :- plus(X, Y, Z).
Under SWI this seems to work fine for all queries but those with shape ?- plus(+X, -Y, +Z)., as for SWI's notation of predicate description. For instance, ?- plus(s(s(0)), Y, s(s(s(0)))). yields Y = s(0) ; false.. My questions are:
How do we prove that the above cuts are (or are not) green?
Can we do better than the above program and eliminate also the last backtrack by adding some other green cuts?
If yes, how?
First a minor issue: the common definition of plus/3 has the first and second argument exchanged which allows to exploit first-argument indexing. See Program 3.3 of the Art of Prolog. That should also be changed in your previous post. I will call your exchanged definition plusp/3 and your optimized definition pluspo/3. Thus, given
plusp(X, 0, X) :- natural_number(X).
plusp(X, s(Y), s(Z)) :- plusp(X, Y, Z).
Detecting red cuts (question one)
How to prove or disprove red/green cuts? First of all, watch for "write"-unifications in the guard. That is, for any such unifications prior to the cut. In your optimized program:
pluspo(X, Y, X) :- (Y == 0 -> ! ; Y = 0), (X == 0 -> ! ; true), ...
I spot the following:
pluspo(X, Y, X) :- (...... -> ! ; ... ), ...
So, let us construct a counterexample: To make this cut cut in a red manner, the "write unification" must make its actual guard Y == 0 true. Which means that the goal to construct must contain the constant 0 somehow. There are only two possibilities to consider. The first or third argument. A zero in the last argument means that we have at most one solution, thus no possibility to cut away further solutions. So, the 0 has to be in the first argument! (The second argument must not be 0 right from the beginning, or the "write unification would not have a detrimental effect.). Here is one such counterexample:
?- pluspo(0, Y, Y).
which gives one correct solution Y = 0, but hides all the other ones! So here we have such an evil red cut!
And contrast it to the unoptimized program which gave infinitely many solutions:
Y = 0
; Y = s(0)
; Y = s(s(0))
; Y = s(s(s(0)))
; ... .
So, your program is incomplete, and any questions about further optimizing it are thus not relevant. But we can do better, let me restate the actual definition we want to optimize:
plus(0, X, X) :- natural_number(X).
plus(s(X), Y, s(Z)) :- plus(X, Y, Z).
In practically all Prolog systems, there is first-argument indexing, which makes the following query determinate:
?- plus(s(0),0,X).
X = s(0).
But many systems do not support (full) third argument indexing. Thus we get in SWI, YAP, SICStus:
?- plus(X, Y, 0).
X = Y, Y = 0
; false.
What you probably wanted to write is:
pluso(X, Y, Z) :-
% Part one: green cuts
( X == 0 -> ! % first-argument indexing
; Z == 0 -> ! % 3rd-argument indexing, e.g. Jekejeke, ECLiPSe
; true
),
% Part two: the original unifications
X = 0,
Y = Z,
natural_number(Z).
pluso(s(X), Y, s(Z)) :- pluso(X, Y, Z).
Note the differences to pluspo/3: There are now only tests prior to the cut! All unifications are thereafter.
?- pluso(X, Y, 0).
X = Y, Y = 0.
The optimizations so far relied only on investigating the heads of the two clauses. They did not take into account the recursive rule. As such, they can be incorporated into a Prolog compiler without any global analysis. In O'Keefe's terminology, these green cuts might be considered blue cuts. To cite The Craft of Prolog, 3.12:
Blue cuts are there to alert the Prolog system to a determinacy it should have noticed but wouldn't. Blue cuts do not change the visible behavior of the program: all they do is make it feasible.
Green cuts are there to prune away attempted proofs that would succeed or be irrelevant, or would be bound to fail, but you would not expect the Prolog system to be able to tell that.
However, the very point is that these cuts do need some guards to work properly.
Now, you considered another query:
?- pluso(X, s(s(0)), s(s(s(0)))).
X = s(0)
; false.
or to put a simpler case:
?- pluso(X, s(0), s(0)).
X = 0
; false.
Here, both heads apply, thus the system is not able to determine determinism. However, we know that there is no solution to a goal plus(X, s^n, s^m) with n > m. So by considering the model of plus/3 we can further avoid choicepoints. I'll be right back after this break:
Better use call_semidet/1!
It gets more and more complex and chances are that optimizations might easily introduce new errors in a program. Also optimized programs are a nightmare to maintain. For practical programming purposes use rather call_semidet/1. It is safe, and will produce a clean error should your assumptions turn out to be false.
Back to business: Here is a further optimization. If Y and Z are identical, the second clause cannot apply:
pluso2(X, Y, Z) :-
% Part one: green cuts
( X == 0 -> ! % first-argument indexing
; Z == 0 -> ! % 3rd-argument indexing, e.g. Jekejeke, ECLiPSe
; Y == Z, ground(Z) -> !
; true
),
% Part two: the original unifications
X = 0,
Y = Z,
natural_number(Z).
pluso2(s(X), Y, s(Z)) :- pluso2(X, Y, Z).
I (currently) believe that pluso2/3 is the optimal usage of green/blue cuts w.r.t. leftover choicepoints. You asked for a proof. Well, I think that is well beyond an SO answer...
The goal ground(Z) is necessary to ensure the non-termination properties. The goal plus(s(_), Z, Z) does not terminate, that property is preserved by ground(Z). Maybe you think it is a good idea to remove infinite failure branches too? In my experience, this is rather problematic. In particular, if those branches are removed automatically. While at first sight it seems to be a good idea, it makes program development much more brittle: An otherwise benign program change might now disable the optimization and thus "cause" non-termination. But anyway, here we go:
Beyond simple green cuts
pluso3(X, Y, Z) :-
% Part one: green cuts
( X == 0 -> ! % first-argument indexing
; Z == 0 -> ! % 3rd-argument indexing, e.g. Jekejeke, ECLiPSe
; Y == Z -> !
; var(Z), nonvar(Y), \+ unify_with_occurs_check(Z, Y) -> !, fail
; var(Z), nonvar(X), \+ unify_with_occurs_check(Z, X) -> !, fail
; true
),
% Part two: the original unifications
X = 0,
Y = Z,
natural_number(Z).
pluso3(s(X), Y, s(Z)) :- pluso3(X, Y, Z).
Can you find a case where pluso3/3 does not terminate while there are finitely many answers?
I try to check the correctness of student mathematical expression using Prolog (SWI-Prolog). So, for example if the student were asked to add three variable x, y, and z, and there's a rule that the first two variable that must be added are: x and y (in any order), and the last variable that must be added is z then I expect that prolog can give me true value if the student's answer is any of these:
x+y+z
(x+y)+ z
z+(x+y)
z+x+y
y+x+z
and many other possibilities.
I use the following rule for this checking:
addData :-
assert(variable(v1)),
assert(variable(v2)),
assert(variable(v3)),
assert(varName(v1,x)),
assert(varName(v2,y)),
assert(varName(v3,z)),
assert(varExpr(v1,x)),
assert(varExpr(v2,y)),
assert(varExpr(v3,z)).
add(A,B,R) :- R = A + B.
removeAll :- retractall(variable(X)),
retractall(varName(X,_)),
retractall(varExpr(X,_)).
checkExpr :-
% The first two variable must be x and y, in any combination
( (varExpr(v1,AExpr), varExpr(v2,BExpr));
(varExpr(v2,AExpr), varExpr(v1,BExpr))
),
add(AExpr, BExpr, R1),
% store the expression result as another variable, say v4
retractall(variable(v4)),
retractall(varName(v4, _)),
retractall(varExpr(v4, _)),
assert(variable(v4)),
assert(varName(v4, result)),
assert(varExpr(v4, R1)),
% add the result from prev addition with Z (in any combination)
( (varExpr(v3,CExpr), varExpr(v4,DExpr));
(varExpr(v4,CExpr), varExpr(v3,DExpr))
),
add(CExpr, DExpr, R2),
R2 = z + x + y. % will give me false
% R2 = z + (x + y). % will give me true
% Expected: both should give me true
checkCorrect :- removeAll,
addData,
checkExpr.
You should try to specify a grammar and write a parser for your expressions.
Avoid assert/retract, that make the program much more difficult to understand, and attempt instead to master the declarative model of Prolog.
Expressions are recursive data structures, using operators with known precedence and associativity to compose, and parenthesis to change specified precedence where required.
See this answer for a parser and evaluator, that accepts input from text. In your question you show expressions from code. Then you are using Prolog' parser to do the dirty work, and can simply express your requirements on the resulting syntax tree:
expression(A + B) :-
expression(A),
expression(B).
expression(A * B) :-
expression(A),
expression(B).
expression(V) :-
memberchk(V, [x,y,z]).
?- expression(x+y+(x+z*y)).
true .
edit: we can provide a template of what we want and let Prolog work out the details by means of unification:
% enumerate acceptable expressions
checkExpr(E) :-
member(E, [F = A + D, F = D + A]),
F = f,
A = c * N,
N = 1.8,
D = d.
And so on...
Test:
?- checkExpr(f=(c*1.8)+d).
true.
?- checkExpr(f=(c*1.8)+e).
false.
?- checkExpr(f=d+c*1.8).
true.
just started programming with prolog and I'm having a few issues. The function I have is supposed to take a value X and copy it N number of times into M. My function returns a list of N number of memory locations. Here's the code, any ideas?
duple(N,_,M):- length(M,Q), N is Q.
duple(N,X,M):- append(X,M,Q), duple(N,X,Q).
Those are not memory adresses. Those are free variables. What you see is their internal names in your prolog system of choice. Then, as #chac pointed out (+1 btw), the third clause is not really making sense! Maybe you can try to tell us what you meant so that we can bring light about how to do it correctly.
I'm going to give you two implementations of your predicate to try to show you correct Prolog syntax:
duple1(N, X, L) :-
length(L, N),
maplist(=(X), L).
Here, in your duple1/3 predicate, we tell prolog that the length of the resulting list L is N, and then we tell it that each element of L should be unified with X for the predicate to hold.
Another to do that would be to build the resulting list "manually" through recursion:
duple2(0, _X, []).
duple2(N, X, [X|L]) :-
N > 0,
NewN is N - 1,
duple1(NewN, X, L).
Though, note that because we use >/2, is and -/2, ie arithmetic, we prevent prolog from using this predicate in several ways, such as:
?- duple1(X, Y, [xyz, xyz]).
X = 2,
Y = xyz.
This worked before, in our first predicate!
Hope this was of some help.
I suppose you call your predicate, for instance, in this way:
?- duple(3,xyz,L).
and you get
L = [_G289, _G292, _G295] ;
ERROR: Out of global stack
If you try
?- length(X,Y).
X = [],
Y = 0 ;
X = [_G299],
Y = 1 ;
X = [_G299, _G302],
Y = 2 ;
X = [_G299, _G302, _G305],
Y = 3 ;
X = [_G299, _G302, _G305, _G308],
Y = 4 .
...
you can see what's happening:
your query will match the specified *M*, displaying a list of M uninstantiated variables (memory locations), then continue backtracking and generating evee longer lists 'til there is stack space. Your second rule will never fire (and I don't really understand its purpose).
A generator is easier to write in this way:
duple(N,X,M) :- findall(X,between(1,N,_),M).
test:
?- duple(3,xyz,L).
L = [xyz, xyz, xyz].