bagof/3 is unpredictable - prolog

I am baffled by the following results. I am using SWI-Prolog.
?- bagof(Q, (Q=A, (A=[a,_] ; A=[_,b])), X).
A = [_G16898, b],
X = [[_G16898, b]] ;
A = [a, _G16892],
X = [[a, _G16892]].
Notice that [a,_] and [_,b] are not unified to produce an answer A = [a,b], X=[[a,b],[a,b]].
Now, lets try the same with arithmetic constraints:
?- bagof(Q, (Q=A, (A in 1..5 ; A in 3..8)), X).
X = [A, A],
A in 3..5.
Strangely, this time the arithmetic constraints are taken together but there are no answers A in 1..5, X=[A] and A in 3..8, X=[A].
Now lets try this in yet another way:
?- bagof(Q, (Q=A, ((1 #=< A, A #=< 5) ; (3 #=< A, A #=< 8))), X).
X = [A],
A in 3..5 ;
X = [A],
A in 3..5.
The arithmetic constraints are combined like before, but we have two answers instead of one.
How can all this be explained?
EDIT: Some more strange results. Compare this:
?- A=[_,_], bagof(Q, K1^K2^(Q=A, (A=[a,K1] ; A=[K2,b])), X).
A = [_G16886, b],
X = [[_G16886, b]] ;
A = [a, _G16889],
X = [[a, _G16889]].
with this:
?- A=[a,b], bagof(Q, K1^K2^(Q=A, (A=[a,K1] ; A=[K2,b])), X).
A = [a, b],
X = [[a, b], [a, b]].

Thats an artefact of SWI-Prolog, which also does copy attributed variables while taking findall/3 copies. findall/3 copies are used inside bagof/3 before doing keysort/2. But the effect can already be explained by means of findall/3:
SWI-Prolog, findall/3 copies attributed variables conditions:
?- findall(A, A in 1..5, L).
L = [_3464],
_3464 in 1..5.
?- findall(A, (A in 1..5, (true; true)), L).
L = [_3762, _3768],
_3762 in 1..5,
_3768 in 1..5
Jekejeke Prolog, findall/3 does not copy attributed variables conditions:
?- findall(A, A in 1..5, L).
L = [_A]
?- findall(A, (A in 1..5, (true; true)), L).
L = [_A, _B]
Inside bagof/3, there is not only a keysort/2 step, but also step where variables are restored. In this step for SWI-Prolog, constraints might be joined, since constraints will be present.
This explains the first result in the question of the OP. The second result in the question of the OP can be explained in that SWI-Prolog does goal expansion and introduce new variables in the case of (#=<)/2. You can check yourself:
?- [user].
test(A) :- A in 1..5 ; A in 3..8.
test(A) :- (1 #=< A, A #=< 5) ; (3 #=< A, A #=< 8).
?- listing(test/1).
test(A) :-
( ( integer(A)
-> between(1, 5, A)
; clpfd:clpfd_in(A, 1..5)
)
; integer(A)
-> between(3, 8, A)
; clpfd:clpfd_in(A, 3..8)
).
test(A) :-
( ( integer(A)
-> A>=1
; B=1,
clpfd:clpfd_geq(A, B)
),
( integer(A)
-> 5>=A
; C=5,
clpfd:clpfd_geq(C, A)
)
; ( integer(A)
-> A>=3
; D=3,
clpfd:clpfd_geq(A, D)
),
( integer(A)
-> 8>=A
; E=8,
clpfd:clpfd_geq(E, A)
)
).
There are no fresh variables in the expansion of (in)/2. But I guess the fresh variables inside the (#=<)/2 expansion, then causes bagof/3 to see two solutions, instead of only one.
Edit 19.08.2019:
Now I wonder how tabling with CLP(FD) solves the problem...

Related

How to program in Prolog a function that does operations on lists

How can I make a program in Prolog that contains n numbers of a and n numbers of b, it's important to note here that the number of a and b in the list must be equal, also the list must always start with a and finish with b, otherwise it's false. Example : [a,b] is true, [a,a,a,b,b,b] is true, [a,a,a,a] is false and [a,a,a,b,b] is also false.
Here is what I tried to do :
langageB([b]).
langageB([b| S]):- langageB(S).
language([]).
langage([a,b]).
langage([a | S]):- langage(S).
langage([a| S]):- langageB(S).
But it does not work as I want it to.
Using DCG notation, the desired language can be defined as:
langage --> [a,b].
langage --> [a], langage, [b]. % For each a at the beginning of the list
% there must be a corresponding b at the end
langage(List) :- phrase(langage, List).
Examples:
?- langage([a,a,a,b,b,b]).
true .
?- langage([a,a,b,b,b]).
false.
?- langage(L).
L = [a, b] ;
L = [a, a, b, b] ;
L = [a, a, a, b, b, b] ;
L = [a, a, a, a, b, b, b, b] .
If you want to see how to define the predicate directly using difference lists, you can list the clauses of the predicate langage/2:
?- listing(langage).
langage([a, b|A], A).
langage([a|A], B) :-
langage(A, C),
C=[b|B].
So, an alternative solution is:
langage(List) :-
langage(List, []).
langage([a, b|A], A).
langage([a|A], B) :-
langage(A, C),
C = [b|B].
langage --> [a], ( [] | langage ) , [b].
?- phrase(langage, Xs).
Xs = "ab"
; Xs = "aabb"
; Xs = "aaabbb"
; Xs = "aaaabbbb"
; Xs = "aaaaabbbbb"
; ... .
Assuming e.g. [a, b, a, b] is an acceptable list:
go :-
findnsols(20, ABs, ab_list(ABs), ABsLst), !,
writeln(ABsLst).
ab_list(ABsWrapped) :-
length(ABs, Len),
ab_list_(Len, 0, [], ABs),
append([[a], ABs, [b]], ABsWrapped).
ab_list_(0, 0, ABs, ABs) :- !.
ab_list_(CharsToAdd, Bal, SoFar, ABs) :-
succ(CharsToAdd0, CharsToAdd),
add_char(Char, Inc),
Bal1 is Bal + Inc,
% Ensure that the balance can be zero for the complete list
CharsToAdd0 >= abs(Bal1),
ab_list_(CharsToAdd0, Bal1, [Char|SoFar], ABs).
add_char(b, -1).
add_char(a, 1).
Results:
?- time(go).
[[a,b],[a,a,b,b],[a,b,a,b],[a,a,a,b,b,b],[a,a,b,a,b,b],[a,b,a,a,b,b],[a,a,b,b,a,b],[a,b,a,b,a,b],[a,b,b,a,a,b],[a,a,a,a,b,b,b,b],[a,a,a,b,a,b,b,b],[a,a,b,a,a,b,b,b],[a,b,a,a,a,b,b,b],[a,a,a,b,b,a,b,b],[a,a,b,a,b,a,b,b],[a,b,a,a,b,a,b,b],[a,a,b,b,a,a,b,b],[a,b,a,b,a,a,b,b],[a,b,b,a,a,a,b,b],[a,a,a,b,b,b,a,b]]
% 935 inferences, 0.001 CPU in 0.001 seconds (100% CPU, 1419728 Lips)
Original: Here's a (very inefficient) solution as a one-liner in swi-prolog:
length(As, 2), same_length(As, Bs), maplist(=(a), As), maplist(=(b), Bs), append([As, Bs], ABs), distinct(ABsPerm, permutation(ABs, ABsPerm)), append([[a], ABsPerm, [b]], Final).

Prolog membership predicate without dif or when

The following prolog logic
memberd(X, [X|_T]).
memberd(X, [Y| T]) :- dif(X,Y), memberd(X, T).
will produce
?- memberd(a, [a, b, a]).
true
?- memberd(X, [a, b, a]).
X = a ;
X = b ;
false.
?- memberd(X, [a, b, a, c, a, d, b]).
X = a ;
X = b ;
X = c ;
X = d ;
false.
is there prolog logic that can be used to produce the same result without using when() or dif() function or anything from a loaded prolog library. Just using pure logic?
To answer your question literally, just use:
?- setof(t, member(X, [a,b,a]), _).
X = a
; X = b.
However, some answers will be suboptimal:
?- setof(t,member(a,[a,X]),_).
true
; X = a. % redundant
... whereas memberd/2 answers in perfection:
?- memberd(a,[a,X]).
true
; false.
In fact, if you use library(reif) with
memberd(E, [X|Xs]) :-
if_(E = X, true, memberd(E, Xs) ).
you get the best answer possible:
?- memberd(a,[a,X]).
true.

Prolog unpacking lists predicate

I tried to create something what would work like this:
?- unpacking([[1], [1,2], [3]], Lst1, NewLst).
NewLst=[1,3]
I wrote it like this:
unpacking([], Lst1, Lst1).
unpacking([[H]|T], Lst1, NewLst):-
append([H], Lst2),
unpacking(T, Lst2, NewLst).
unpacking([_|T], Lst1, NewLst):-
unpacking(T, Lst1, NewLst).
and I know that I am doing something wrong. I am starting in Prolog so, need to learn from my mistakes :)
You probably meant:
unpacking([], []).
unpacking([[E]|T], [E|L]) :-
unpacking(T, L).
unpacking([[]|T], L) :-
unpacking(T, L).
unpacking([[_,_|_]|T], L) :-
unpacking(T, L).
There are more concise ways to write this - and more efficient, too.
What about this :
%?-unpacking([[a,b,c],[a],[b],[c,d]],Items).
unpacking(Lists,Items):-
my_tpartition(length_t(1),Lists,Items,Falses).
my_tpartition(P_2,List,Ts,Fs) :- my_tpartition_ts_fs_(List,Ts,Fs,P_2).
my_tpartition_ts_fs_([],[],[],_).
my_tpartition_ts_fs_([X|Xs0],Ts,Fs,P_2) :-
if_(call(P_2,X), (X=[NX],Ts = [NX|Ts0], Fs = Fs0),
(Ts = Ts0, Fs = [X|Fs0])),
my_tpartition_ts_fs_(Xs0,Ts0,Fs0,P_2).
length_t(X,Y,T):-
length(Y,L1),
=(X,L1,T).
This is based on Most general higher-order constraint describing a sequence of integers ordered with respect to a relation
* Update*
You could change to
length_t(X,Y,T):-
L1 #=< X,
fd_length(Y,L1),
=(X,L1,T),!.
length_t(_X,_Y,false).
fd_length(L, N) :-
N #>= 0,
fd_length(L, N, 0).
fd_length([], N, N0) :-
N #= N0.
fd_length([_|L], N, N0) :-
N1 is N0+1,
N #>= N1,
fd_length(L, N, N1).
giving:
?-unpacking([[1],[2,3],[4],[_,_|_]],U).
U= [1,4].
but:
?-unpacking([X],Xs).
X = Xs, Xs = [].
Based on #coder's solution, I made my own attempt using if_ and DCGs:
one_element_([], true).
one_element_([_|_],false).
one_element([], false).
one_element([_|Xs], T) :-
one_element_(Xs, T).
f([]) -->
[].
f([X|Xs]) -->
{ if_(one_element(X), Y=X, Y=[]) },
Y,
f(Xs).
unpack(Xs,Ys) :-
phrase(f(Xs),Ys).
I only tried for about 30s, but the queries:
?- Xs = [[] | Xs], unpack(Xs,Ys).
?- Xs = [[_] | Xs], unpack(Xs,Ys).
?- Xs = [[_, _ | _] | Xs], unpack(Xs,Ys).
didn't stop with a stack overflow. In my opinion, the critical one should be the last query, but apparently, SWI Prolog manages to optimize:
?- L = [_,_|_], one_element(L,T).
L = [_3162, _3168|_3170],
T = false.
Edit: I improved the solution and gave it a shot with argument indexing. According to the SWI Manual, indexing happens if there is exactly a case distinction between the empty list [] and the non-empty list [_|_]. I rewrote one_element such that it does exactly that and repeated the trick with the auxiliary predicate one_element_. Now that one_element is pure again, we don't lose solutions anymore:
?- unpack([A,B],[]).
A = [_5574, _5580|_5582],
B = [_5628, _5634|_5636] ;
A = [_5574, _5580|_5582],
B = [] ;
A = [],
B = [_5616, _5622|_5624] ;
A = B, B = [].
but
?- unpack([[a,b,c],[a],[b],[c,d]],Items).
Items = [a, b].
is still deterministic. I have not tried this solution in other Prologs, which might be missing the indexing, but it seems for SWI, this is a solution.
Update: Apparently GNU Prolog does not do this kind of indexing and overflows on cyclic lists:
| ?- Xs = [[] | Xs], unpack(Xs,Ys).
Fatal Error: global stack overflow (size: 32770 Kb, reached: 32768 Kb, environment variable used: GLOBALSZ)
After some thought, here is my implementation using if_/3:
unpacking(L,L1):-if_( =(L,[]), L1=[], unpack(L,L1)).
unpack([H|T],L):-if_(one_element(H), (H = [X],L=[X|T1],unpacking(T,T1)), unpacking(T,L)).
one_element(X, T) :-
( var(X) ->(T=true,X=[_]; T=false,X=[])
; X = [_] -> T = true
; X \= [_] -> T = false).
Some testcases:
?- unpacking([Xss],[]).
Xss = [].
?- unpacking([[1],[2,3],[4],[_,_|_]],U).
U = [1, 4].
?- unpacking([[1],[2,3],[4]],U).
U = [1, 4].
?- unpacking([[E]],[1]), E = 2.
false.
?- unpacking(non_list, []).
false.
?- unpacking([Xs],Xs).
Xs = [_G6221] ;
Xs = [].
UPDATE
To fix the case that #false referred in the comment we could define:
one_element([],false).
one_element([_],true).
one_element([_,_|_],false).
But this leaves some choice points...
One way to do it is with a findall I dont think its what the bounty is for though ;)
unpacking(Lists,L1):-
findall(I,(member(M,Lists),length(M,1),M=[I]),L1).
or
unpacking2(Lists,L1):-
findall(I,member([I],Lists),L1).

How to write earlier statement in prolog?

I was looking at prolog progrm and was unable to understand the following
earlier(X, _, [X|_]).
earlier(_, Y, [Y|_]) :- !, fail.
earlier(X, Y, [_|T]) :- earlier(X, Y, T).
Can anyone explain what does it mean??
As the name suggests, earlier(X, Y, Zs) is apparently supposed to check whether the element X appears earlier than the first occurrence of Y in the list Zs. It kind of does this:
?- earlier(a, b, [a, b, c, d]).
true ;
false.
?- earlier(b, d, [a, b, c, d]).
true ;
false.
With peculiar handling if the second argument is not in the given list:
?- earlier(a, not_in_list, [a, b, c, d]).
true ;
false.
How does this work? The first clause says that if X is the head of the list, then X appears earlier in the list than anything, represented by the anonymous variable _. The second clause says that if Y is the head of the list, then nothing (_ in first argument position) is before Y. In this case, the predicate fails and uses a cut to avoid finding spurious solutions. The third clause just recurses on the list of neither the first nor second clauses applied.
Due to the cut, this definition is not very declarative, and some interesting uses don't work as one might expect:
?- earlier(X, Y, Zs).
Zs = [X|_G947] ;
false.
?- earlier(a, b, Zs).
Zs = [a|_G923] ;
false.
?- earlier(X, Y, [a, b, c, d]).
X = a ;
false.
The last case, in particular, might be interesting for some use cases. Here is a more declarative version:
earlier_than(X, Y, Zs) :-
append(InitialPart, [X | _Rest], Zs),
notmember_of(Y, InitialPart).
notmember_of(_X, []).
notmember_of(X, [Y|Xs]) :-
dif(X, Y),
notmember_of(X, Xs).
You can use this to enumerate solutions more nicely:
?- earlier_than(X, Y, Zs).
Zs = [X|_G947] ;
Zs = [_G1162, X|_G1166],
dif(Y, _G1162) ;
Zs = [_G1254, _G1257, X|_G1261],
dif(Y, _G1257),
dif(Y, _G1254) ;
Zs = [_G1346, _G1349, _G1352, X|_G1356],
dif(Y, _G1352),
dif(Y, _G1349),
dif(Y, _G1346) .
?- earlier_than(a, b, Zs).
Zs = [a|_G923] ;
Zs = [_G1086, a|_G1090],
dif(_G1086, b) ;
Zs = [_G1169, _G1172, a|_G1176],
dif(_G1169, b),
dif(_G1172, b) ;
Zs = [_G1252, _G1255, _G1258, a|_G1262],
dif(_G1252, b),
dif(_G1255, b),
dif(_G1258, b) .
?- earlier_than(X, Y, [a, b, c, d]).
X = a ;
X = b,
dif(Y, a) ;
X = c,
dif(Y, b),
dif(Y, a) ;
X = d,
dif(Y, c),
dif(Y, b),
dif(Y, a) ;
false.
Personally, if the specification permits, I would also add a member(Y, Rest) to the definition of earlier_than/3. This makes things even nicer:
?- earlier_than(X, Y, Zs).
Zs = [X, Y|_G950] ;
Zs = [X, _G949, Y|_G953] ;
Zs = [X, _G949, _G952, Y|_G956] .
?- earlier_than(a, b, Zs).
Zs = [a, b|_G926] ;
Zs = [a, _G925, b|_G929] ;
Zs = [a, _G925, _G928, b|_G932] .
?- earlier_than(X, Y, [a, b, c, d]).
X = a,
Y = b ;
X = a,
Y = c ;
X = a,
Y = d ;
X = b,
Y = c ;
X = b,
Y = d ;
X = c,
Y = d ;
false.

Prolog compute the permutation

I'm writing a permutation function [a,b]-->[[[a], [b]], [[a, b]]
I have this so far, but it doesn't work.
perm([],[]).
perm(L,[H|T]) :- append(V,[H|U],L), append(V,U,W), perm(W,T).
Given your example, it looks like you might actually be wanting the powerset, not the permutation, of the given list.
For instance, the powerset of [a,b] is the set {[a,b], [a], [b], []}.
To compute the powerset of a list of items in Prolog, look at this answer by #gusbro. If this helps you, also please upvote that answer.
If you want all solutions of the powerset of a list L at once, you can wrap the call to powerset/2 in a findall/3 call like this:
?- findall(S, powerset(L, S), Ss).
If, on the other hand, you're after the partitions (as you've mentioned in one of your earlier edits), consider the following:
partition(L, PL) :-
partition(L, [], PL).
partition([], [], []).
partition([X|Xs], As, R) :-
% add X into the new partition...
append(As, [X], NewAs),
partition(Xs, NewAs, R).
partition(L, [A|As], [[A|As]|R]) :-
% ...or, collect the current non-empty partition
partition(L, [], R).
The predicate partition/2 takes a list and returns all partitions, as you've described. For example:
?- partition([a,b,c],L).
L = [[a, b, c]] ;
L = [[a, b], [c]] ;
L = [[a], [b, c]] ;
L = [[a], [b], [c]] ;
false.
Really? It seems to work in SWI-Prolog:
?- [user].
|: perm([],[]).
|: perm(L,[H|T]) :- append(V,[H|U],L), append(V,U,W), perm(W,T).
|: % user://1 compiled 0.00 sec, 3 clauses
true.
?- perm([a,b,c], X).
X = [a, b, c] ;
X = [a, c, b] ;
X = [b, a, c] ;
X = [b, c, a] ;
X = [c, a, b] ;
X = [c, b, a] ;
false.
?- perm([a,b,c,d], X).
X = [a, b, c, d] ;
/* trimming 22 solutions */
X = [d, c, b, a] ;
false.
This also yields the number of answers you'd expect: 3! = 6, 4! = 24. What's not working for you?
Quick note: Prolog doesn't offer functions, but relations.
In this case, perm/2 will hold true when the arguments are one the permutation of the other.
I find this definition more readable than your.
perm([], []).
perm([E|Es], P) :-
perm(Es, Q),
select(E, P, Q).
It's almost the same as that of permutation/2 SWI-Prolog, but hides a bug...

Resources