I am currently trying to solve a riddle:
"How many men and horses have 8 heads and 20 feet?"
As I am trying to solve this question with Prolog, my attempt was:
puzzle(M,H,M+H,M*2 + H*4).
And then running:
puzzle(M, H,8,20).
Unfortunately, swipl just returns false.
Can anybody say, why prolog is not working as I was expecting?
To anyone that is interested in a working solution:
horsemen(Man, Horse, Heads, Legs) :-
between(0, Legs, Man),
between(0, Legs, Horse),
Legs is 2*Man + 4*Horse, Heads is Man + Horse.
Anyway, I can't really understand, why the easier solution is not working.
If you write your expression like this:
puzzleSimple(M,M+2).
Prolog will return true for a statement like this :
puzzleSimple(3,3+2). or puzzleSimple(M,M+2).
But it will return false for puzzleSimple(3,5). What you see here is that, prolog will not execute the M+2as an arithmetic operation but rather use it in pattern matching. For arithmetic operations, you need to use the is keyword. For example:
puzzleSimple(M,V):-
V is M + 2.
This code will return true for puzzleSimple(3,5). So, when you try to directly use
puzzle(M,H,M+H,M*2 + H*4). and call puzzle(M, H,8,20).
It returns false, because the pattern is not matching.
You can also modify the code to this:
puzzle(M,H,X,Y):-
X is M+H,
Y is M*2 + H*4.
Now it will be correct in the sense of pattern matching and arithmetic operations. However, when you again call puzzle(M, H,8,20). You will see an Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated error. Why? Because you tried to do an arithmetic operation with a variable which is not instantiated. That is why the working solution uses the predicate between/3. Between assigns a value to a variable and enables the use of backtracking for finding multiple solutions.
Note : Using the gtrace command in swipl can help you in debugging your code!
You can solve it using the library "CLP(FD) Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains".
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
%% "How many men and horses have 8 heads and 20 feet?"
men_and_horses(Men, Horses):-
Men in 0..10,
Horses in 0..10,
Men + Horses #= 8, %% heads must be 8
Men * 2 + Horses * 4 #= 20. %% feet mus be 20
The solution is
?- men_and_horses(X,Y).
X = 6,
Y = 2.
Related
I should preface this by saying this is a homework problem that I am having issues with, and Im not sure if that sort of thing is allowed around here, but I dont know where else to turn to. This is the question I've been asked:
In the sample code for this question, you can see a Fibonacci predicate fibSimple/2 which calculates the Fibonacci of X, a natural number. The problem with the naive recursive solution, is that you end up recalculating the same recursive case several times. See here for an explanation.
For example, working out the fib(5) involves working out the solution for fib(2) three separate times. A Dynamic Programming approach can solve this problem. Essentially, it boils down to starting with fib(2), then calculating fib(3), then fib(4) etc.... until you reach fib(X). You can store these answers in a list, with fib(X) ending up as the first item in the list.
Your base cases would look like the following:
fib(0,[0]).
fib(1,[1,0]).
Note the way that fib(1) is defined as [1,0]. fib(1) is really 1 but we are keeping a list of previous answers.
Why do we do this? Because to calculate fib(X), we just have to calculate fib(X-1) and add the first two elements together and insert them at the front of the list. For example, from the above, it is easy to calculate fib(2,Ans). fib(2) in this case would be [1,1,0]. Then fib(3) would be [2,1,1,0], fib(4) would be [3,2,1,1,0] etc....
Complete the fib/2 predicate as outlined above - the base cases are shown above. You need to figure out the one line that goes after the base cases to handle the recursion.
This is the sample code they provided
fibSimple(0,0). % fib of 0 is 0
fibSimple(1,1). % fib of 1 is 1
fibSimple(N,X) :- N>1,fibSimple(N-1,A), fibSimple(N-2,B), X is A+B.
fib(0,[0]).
fib(1,[1,0]).
I've had a few attempts at this, and while I'm fairly certain my attempt will end up being hopelessly wrong, this is what I have most recently tried
fib(X,[fib(X-2)+fib(X-1) | _]).
My reasoning to this is that if you can get the answer to the last 2, and add them together making them the first or "head" of the list, and then the underscore representing the rest.
My 2 issues are:
1) I don't know/think this underscore will do what I want it to do, and am lost in where to go from here
and
2) I don't know how to even run this program as the fib\2 predicate requires 2 parameters. And lets say for example I wanted to run fib\2 to find the fibonacci of 5, I would not know what to put as the 2nd parameter.
Because this is homework I will only sketch the solution - but it should answer the questions you asked.
A predicate differs from a function in that it has no return value. Prolog just tells you if it can derive it (*). So if you just ask if fib(5) is true the best you can get is "yes". But what are the Fibonacci numbers from 1 to 5 then? That's where the second argument comes in. Either you already know and check:
?- fib(5, [5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 0]).
true ; <--- Prolog can derive this fact. With ; I see more solutions.
false <--- no, there are no other solutions
Or you leave the second argument as a variable and Prolog will tell you what values that variable must have such that it can derive your query:
?- fib(5, X).
X = [5, 3, 2, 1, 1, 0] ;
false.
So the second argument contains the result you are looking for.
You can also ask the other queries like fib(X,Y) "which numbers and their fibonacci hostories can we derive?" or fib(X, [3 | _]) "which number computes the the fibonacci number 3?". In the second case, we used the underscore to say that the rest of the list does not matter. (2)
So what do we do with fib(X,[fib(X-2)+fib(X-1) | _]).? If we add it to the clauses for 0 and 1 you were given we can just query all results:
?- fib(X,Y).
X = 0,
Y = [1] ; <-- first solution X = 0, Y = [1]
X = 1,
Y = [1, 0] ; <-- second solution X = 1, Y = [1, 0]
Y = [fib(X-2)+fib(X-1)|_2088]. <-- third solution
The third solution just says: a list that begins with the term fib(X-2)+fib(X-1) is a valid solution (the _2088 as just a variable that was not named by you). But as mentioned in the beginning, this term is not evaluated. You would get similar results by defining fib(X, [quetzovercaotl(X-1) | _]).
So similar to fibSimple you need a rule that tells Prolog how to derive new facts from facts it already knows. I have reformatted fibSimple for you:
fibSimple(N,X) :-
N>1,
fibSimple(N-1,A),
fibSimple(N-2,B),
X is A+B.
This says if N > 1 and we can derive fibSimple(N-1,A) and we can derive fibSimple(N-2,B) and we can set X to the result of A + B, then we derive fibSimple(N, X). The difference to what you wrote is that fibSimple(N-1,A) occurs in the body of the rule. Again the argument N-1 does not get evaluated. What actually happens is that the recursion constructs the terms 3-1 and (3-1)-1) when called with the query fib(3,X). The actual evaluation happens in the arithmetic predicates is and <. For example, the recursive predicate stops when it tries to evaluate (3-1)-1 > 1 because 1>1 is not true. But we also do not hit the base case fibSimple(1, 1) because the term (3-1)-1 is not the same as 1 even though they evaluate to the same number.
This is the reason why Prolog does not find the Fibonacci number of 3 in the simple implementation:
?- fibSimple(3, X).
false.
The arithmetic evaluation is done by the is predicate: the query X is (3-1) -1 has exactly the solution X = 1. (3)
So fibSimple must actually look like this: (4)
fibSimple(0,1).
fibSimple(1,1).
fibSimple(N,X) :-
N>1,
M1 is N -1, % evaluate N - 1
M2 is N -2, % evaluate N - 2
fibSimple(M1,A),
fibSimple(M2,B),
X is A+B.
For fib you can use this as a template where you only need one recursive call because both A and B are in the history list. Be careful with the head of your clause: if X is the new value it can not also be the new history list. For example, the head could have the form fib(N, [X | Oldhistory]).
Good luck with the homework!
(1) This is a little simplified - Prolog will usually give you an answer substitution that tells you what values the variables in your query have. There are also some limited ways to deal with non-derivability but you don't need that here.
(2) If you use the arithmetic predicates is and > these two queries will not work with the straightforward implementation. The more declarative way of dealing with this is arithmetic constraints.
(3) For this evaluation to work, the right hand side of is may not contain variables. This is where you would need the arithmetic constraints from (2).
(4) Alternatively, the base cases could evaluate the arithmetic terms that were passed down:
fibSimple(X, 0) :-
0 is X.
fibSimple(X, 1) :-
1 is X.
fibSimple(N,X) :-
N>1,
fibSimple(N-1,A),
fibSimple(N-2,B),
X is A+B.
But this is less efficient because a single number takes much less space than the term 100000 - 1 - 1 -1 .... -1.
I'm starting learning Prolog and I want a program that given a integer P gives to integers A and B such that P = A² + B². If there aren't values of A and B that satisfy this equation, false should be returned
For example: if P = 5, it should give A = 1 and B = 2 (or A = 2 and B = 1) because 1² + 2² = 5.
I was thinking this should work:
giveSum(P, A, B) :- integer(A), integer(B), integer(P), P is A*A + B*B.
with the query:
giveSum(5, A, B).
However, it does not. What should I do? I'm very new to Prolog so I'm still making lot of mistakes.
Thanks in advance!
integer/1 is a non-monotonic predicate. It is not a relation that allows the reasoning you expect to apply in this case. To exemplify this:
?- integer(I).
false.
No integer exists, yes? Colour me surprised, to say the least!
Instead of such non-relational constructs, use your Prolog system's CLP(FD) constraints to reason about integers.
For example:
?- 5 #= A*A + B*B.
A in -2..-1\/1..2,
A^2#=_G1025,
_G1025 in 1..4,
_G1025+_G1052#=5,
_G1052 in 1..4,
B^2#=_G406,
B in -2..-1\/1..2
And for concrete solutions:
?- 5 #= A*A + B*B, label([A,B]).
A = -2,
B = -1 ;
A = -2,
B = 1 ;
A = -1,
B = -2 ;
etc.
CLP(FD) constraints are completely pure relations that can be used in the way you expect. See clpfd for more information.
Other things I noticed:
use_underscores_for_readability_as_is_the_convention_in_prolog instead ofMixingTheCasesToMakePredicatesHardToRead.
use declarative names, avoid imperatives. For example, why call it give_sum? This predicate also makes perfect sense if the sum is already given. So, what about sum_of_squares/3, for example?
For efficiency sake, Prolog implementers have choosen - many,many years ago - some compromise. Now, there are chances your Prolog implements advanced integer arithmetic, like CLP(FD) does. If this is the case, mat' answer is perfect. But some Prologs (maybe a naive ISO Prolog compliant processor), could complain about missing label/1, and (#=)/2. So, a traditional Prolog solution: the technique is called generate and test:
giveSum(P, A, B) :-
( integer(P) -> between(1,P,A), between(1,P,B) ; integer(A),integer(B) ),
P is A*A + B*B.
between/3 it's not an ISO builtin, but it's rather easier than (#=)/2 and label/1 to write :)
Anyway, please follow mat' advice and avoid 'imperative' naming. Often a description of the relation is better, because Prolog it's just that: a relational language.
I'm pretty new to Prolog but I'm trying to get this program to give me the first set of twin primes that appears either at or above N.
twins(M) :-
M2 is M + 2,
twin_prime(M, M2),
write(M),
write(' '),
write(M2).
M3 is M + 1,
twins(M3).
However, I'm not completely sure how to go about getting it to loop and repeat until it's true. I've tried using the repeat/0 predicate but I just get stuck in an infinite loop. Does anyone have any tips I could try? I'm pretty new to Prolog.
You're on the right track using tail recursion and #Jake Mitchell's solution works swell. But here are some tips that might help clarify a few basic concepts in Prolog:
First, it seems like your predicate twins/1 is actually defining a relationship between 2 numbers, namely, the two twin primes. Since Prolog is great for writing very clear, declarative, relational programs, you might make the predicate more precise and explicit by making it twin_primes/2. (That this should be a binary predicate is also pretty clear from your name for the predicate, since one thing cannot be twins...)
One nice bonus of explicitly working with a binary predicate when describing binary relations is that we no longer have to fuss with IO operations to display our results. We'll simply be able to query twin_primes(X,Y) and have the results returned as Prolog reports back on viable values of X and Y.
Second, and more importantly, your current definition of twins/1 wants to describe a disjunction: "twins(M) is true if M and M + 2 are both prime or if M3 is M + 3 and twins(M3) is true". The basic way of expressing disjunctions like this is by writing multiple clauses. A single clause of the form <Head> :- <Body> declares that the Head is true if all the statements composing the Body are true. Several clauses with the same head, like <Head> :- <Body1>. <Head> :- <Body2>. ..., declare that Head is true if Body1 is true or if Body2 is true. (Note that a series of clauses defining rules for a predicate are evaluated sequentially, from top to bottom. This is pretty important, since it introduces non-declarative elements into the foundations of our programs, and it can be exploited to achieve certain results.)
In fact, you are only a small step from declaring a second rule for twins/1. You just tried putting both clause-bodies under the same head instance. Prolog requires the redundant measure of declaring two different rules in cases like this. Your code should be fine (assuming your definition of twin_prime/2 works), if you just change it like so:
twins(M) :-
M2 is M + 2,
twin_prime(M, M2),
write(M),
write(' '),
write(M2).
twins(M) :-
\+twin_prime(M, M2), %% `\+` means "not"
M3 is M + 1,
twins(M3).
Note that if you take advantage of Prolog's back-tracking, you often don't actually need to effect loops through tail recursion. For example, here's an alternative approach, taking into account some of what I advised previously and using a quick (but not as in "efficient" or "fast") and dirty predicate for generating primes:
prime(2).
prime(P) :-
between(2,inf,P),
N is (P // 2 + 1),
forall(between(2,N,Divisor), \+(0 is P mod Divisor)).
twin_primes(P1, P2) :-
prime(P1),
P2 is P1 + 2,
prime(P2).
twin_primes/2 gets a prime number from prime/1, then calculates P2 and checks if it is prime. Since prime/1 will generate an infinite number of primes on backtracking, twin_primes/2 will just keep asking it for numbers until it finds a satisfactory solution. Note that, if called with two free variables, this twin_primes/2 will generate twin primes:
?- twin_primes(P1, P2).
P1 = 3,
P2 = 5 ;
P1 = 5,
P2 = 7 ;
P1 = 11,
P2 = 13 ;
P1 = 17,
P2 = 19 ;
P1 = 29,
P2 = 31 ;
But it will also verify if two numbers are twin primes if queried with specific values, or give you the twin of a prime, if it exists, if you give a value for P1 but leave P2 free:
?- twin_primes(3,Y). Y = 5.
There's a handy if-then-else operator that works well for this.
twin_prime(3,5).
twin_prime(5,7).
twin_prime(11,13).
next_twin(N) :-
A is N+1,
B is N+2,
(twin_prime(N,B) ->
write(N),
write(' '),
write(B)
;
next_twin(A)).
And a quick test:
?- next_twin(5).
5 7
true.
?- next_twin(6).
11 13
true.
Alright so I am coding a parser for arithmetic equations. I get the input in a list, e.g. "10+20" = [49,48,43,50,48] and then I convert all the digits to there corresponding numbers e.g. [49,48,43,50,48] = [1,0,43,2,0] and from there I want to put integers > 10 back together.
Converting from ascii -> digits I use a maplist and number_codes to convert.
One approach I had was to just traverse the list and if it's 0-9 store it in a variable and then check the next number, 0-9 append it to the other variable and so on until I hit an operator. I can't seem to simply append digits as it were. Here's my current code.
expression(L) :-
maplist(chars, L, Ls).
chars(C, N) :-
(
C >= "0", "9" >= C -> number_codes(N, [C]);
N is C
).
Not sure if there's a simple way to add to my code (as far as I know, maplist only gives back a list of equal length to the list passed in but I could be mistaken).
Any help is appreciated :)
Yes, maplist only 'gives back' a list of equal length. Moreover, maplist applies a predicate only to one element (basically it's context-free). Therefore, it is not possible to do what you want (combine digits between operators to a single number) with maplist and you would have to write the recursion yourself.
However, you can do something way easier than all this converting back and forth:
expression(L, E):-
string_to_atom(L,A),
atom_to_term(A,E,[]).
Which works like this:
2 ?- expression("1+2",E).
E = 1+2.
3 ?- expression("1+2",E), X is E.
E = 1+2, X = 3.
4 ?- expression("1+2",E), X+Y = E.
E = 1+2, X = 1, Y = 2.
5 ?- expression("1+2+3",E), X+Y = E.
E = 1+2+3, X = 1+2, Y = 3.
Naturally, if you want a list with all the numbers involved you will have to do something recursive but this is kinda trivial imho.
If however you still want to do the converting, I suggest checking Definite Clause Grammars; it will simplify the task a lot.
I answered some time ago with an expression parser.
It will show you how to use DCG for practical tasks, and I hope you will appreciate the generality and simplicity of such approach.
Just a library predicate is required from SWI-Prolog, number//1, easily implemented in Sicstus. Let me know if you need more help on that.
Here's a snippet on the classic SENDMORY crypt-arithmetic problem solutiong using prolog constraint solving mechanism-
:- lib(ic).
sendmore(Digits) :-
Digits = [S,E,N,D,M,O,R,Y],
Digits :: [0..9],
alldifferent(Digits),
S #\= 0,
M #\= 0,
1000*S + 100*E + 10*N + D
+ 1000*M + 100*O + 10*R + E
#= 10000*M + 1000*O + 100*N + 10*E + Y,
labeling(Digits).
Now, to execute this, I would send a goal/query like this:
?- sendmore(Digits).
And that would return me the possible solutions for the digits.
Now, my question is, I do not want to sort of "hard-code" the variables (like S,E,N,...) this way, but the goal/query would give the number of variables. For example, if the query I pass is something like:
?- sendmore(S,E,N,D,M).
then, it should compute only the values of SENDM and assume that the other variables are not applicable, and hence assign 0 to those variables and then proceed with the computation. And the next time I query, I may pass a different number of variables in the query.. like example:
?- sendmore(S,N,D,M,O,Y).
and the program should compute likewise.
What I am trying to achieve is a more generalised problem solver for the above scenario. Any directions on this is really appreciated. I am quite new to prolog,and am using ECLIPSE constraint solver.
Thank You.
Here are 2 ideas:
You can define sendmore() with different numbers of parameters, which would call the "real" version with the missing ones filled in. But you couldn't have different versions with the same NUMBER of parameters but DIFFERENT ones (since Prolog matches args to parameters by position).
You could expand/complicate your list format to allow the specification of which parameters you are passing; something line [(s,S),(e,E),(n,N),(d,D),(m,M)] for your middle example. A little tedious, but gives you the flexibility you seem to want.
Normally, variables in a goal and variables in a clause head are matched by their positions, not their names. So a call ?- sendmore0([S,E,N,D,M]). should be implemented as:
sendmore0([S,E,N,D,M]) :- sendmore([S,E,N,D,M,_,_,_]).
However, this would mean that you would need to implement this for every possible combination.
If you really want to implement what you describe, then you need to give the variable stable names. In ECLiPSe, you can do this with the library var_name. It's quite a hack, though...
:- lib(var_name).
sendmore0(L) :-
build_arg(["S","E","N","D","M',"O","R","Y"], L, A),
sendmore(A).
build_arg([], _, []) :- !.
build_arg([H|T], L, [HA|HT]) :-
match_arg(L, H, HA),
build_arg(T, L, HT).
match_arg([], _, _). % or use 0 as last argument if you want
match_arg([H|T], Base, A) :-
(
get_var_name(H, S),
split_string(S,"#","",[Base,_])
->
A = H
;
match_arg(T, Base, A)
).
Then you can call sendmore0/1 with a shorter list of variables. Don't forget to set the variable names!
?- set_var_name(S, "S"), set_var_name(E, "E"), sendmore0([S, E]).
S = 9
E = 5
Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more)
Disclaimer: this is not what stable names are for. They are meant for debugging purposes. If Joachim ever sees this, he'll give me a sharp clip round the ears...