?- append([], [X1], [a,b]).
Why does this return no and not
X1 = a,b
Since
? - append([], [a,b], [a,b])
returns yes?
To understand a Prolog program you have two choices:
Think about the program as you do this in other programming languages by simulating the moves of the processor. This will lead to your mental exasperation very soon unless your name is Ryzen or in other words:
You are a processor
Let Prolog do the thinking and use Prolog to understand programs.
Whenever you see a failing goal, narrow down the reason why the goal fails by generalizing that goal (by replacing some term by a variable). You do not need to understand the precise definition at all. It suffices to try things out. In the case of your query
?- append([], [X1], [a,b]).
false.
We have three arguments. Maybe the first is the culprit? So I will replace it by a new variable:
?- append(Xs, [X1], [a,b]).
Xs = [a], X1 = b
; false.
Nailed it! Changing the first argument will lead to success. But what about the second argument?
?- append([], Ys, [a,b]).
Ys = [a, b].
Again, culprit, too. And now for the third:
?- append([], [X1], Zs).
Zs = [X1].
Verdict: All three kind-of guilty. That is, it suffices to blame one of them. Which one is up to you to choose.
Do this whenever you encounter a failing goal. It will help you gain the relational view that makes Prolog such a special language.
And if we are at it. It often helps to consider maximal failing generalizations. That is, generalizations that still fail but where each further step leads to success. In your example this is:
?- append([], [X1], [a,b]). % original query
false.
?- append([], [_], [_,_|_]). % maximal failing generalization
false.
From this you can already draw some conclusions:
The lists' elements are irrelevant.
Only the length of the three lists is of relevance
The third list needs to be two elements or longer.
See: append/3
append(?List1, ?List2, ?List1AndList2)
List1AndList2 is the concatenation of List1 and List2
So for
?- append([], [X1], [a,b]).
[] is the empty list and [X1] is a list with a variable X1
If you run the query like this
?- append([],[X1],A).
you get
A = [X1].
which means that A is the concatenation of [] and [X1].
In your query it is asking if the concatenation of [] and [X1] is [a,b] which is false, or no.
For your second query
? - append([], [a,b], [a,b])
it is asking if the concatenation of [] and [a,b] is [a,b] which is true, or yes.
Related
The following is a standard textbook definition of reverse(X,Y) which is true if the list Y is the reverse of the list X. The code is often used to introduce or illustrate the use of an accumulator.
% recursive definition
step([], L2, L2).
step([H1|T1], X, L2) :- step(T1, X, [H1|L2]).
% convenience property around step/3
reverse(X, Y) :- step(X, Y, []).
The following query works as expcted.
?- reverse([1,2,3], Y).
Y = [3,2,1]
But the following fails after it prompts to search for more solutions after the first one.
?- reverse(X, [1,2,3]).
X = [3,2,1]
Stack limit (0.2Gb) exceeded
Stack sizes: local: 3Kb, global: 0.2Gb, trail: 0Kb
Stack depth: 4,463,497, last-call: 100%, Choice points: 12
...
Questions:
What is the choice point prolog is going back to?
Is this called non-termination? I am not familiar with prolog terminology.
Is there a better way to define reverse(X,Y) such that it is reversible, in the sense that both of the above queries work and terminate?
I have found that using a cut step([], L2, L2):- !. appears to work, but this seems like we've waded into procedural programming and have drifted far away from declarative logic programming. Is this a fair judgement?
1mo, frankly I do not know what kind of choicepoint is responsible. This is a notion far too low level to be of direct relevance. And there are better techniques to understand the problem, in particular failure slices.
2do, the problem here is called (universal) non-termination. But note how you found it: You got an answer and then only when demanding the next answer Prolog looped. This can be even worse, like looping only after the n-th answer. The easiest way to spot all kinds of non-termination is to just add false to the query. If G_0 terminates universally also G_0, false terminates (and fails).
3tio, yes there is. But first, try to understand why your original program looped. The best is to add some falsework into your program. By adding goals false we obtain a failure-slice. And if we find such a slice that already does not terminate then also the original program does not terminate. (No further analysis required!1) Here is the one of relevance:
step([], L2, L2) :- false.
step([H1|T1], X, L2) :- step(T1, X, [H1|L2]), false.
reverse(X, Y) :- step(X, Y, []), false.
?- reverse(X, [1,2,3]), false.
loops.
So we need to understand only that visible part! As promised, there is now not a single choicepoint present.
Just look at the head of step/3! There, only the first argument insists on some specific term, but the second and third do not insist on anything. Therefore the second and third argument cannot influence termination. They are termination neutral. And thus, only the first argument of reverse/2 will influence termination.
To fix this, we need to somehow get the second argument of reverse/2 into a relevant position in step. The simplest way is to add another argument. And, if we are at it, we may realize that both arguments of reverse/2 are of the same length, thus:
step([], L2, L2, []).
step([H1|T1], X, L2, [_|Y]) :- step(T1, X, [H1|L2], Y).
reverse(X, Y) :- step(X, Y, [], Y).
?- reverse(X, [1,2,3]), false.
false.
?- reverse([1,2,3], Y), false.
false.
?- reverse(X,Y).
X = [], Y = []
; X = [_A], Y = [_A]
; X = [_A,_B], Y = [_B,_A]
; X = [_A,_B,_C], Y = [_C,_B,_A]
; ... .
4to, don't believe the tale of the green cut! They are so rare. Most good cuts are placed together with a guard that ensures that the cut is safe. See how your cut wreaked havoc:
?- X = [a], reverse(X,Y).
X = "a", Y = "a". % nice
?- reverse(X,Y), X = [a].
false, unexpected.
?- reverse(L,[]).
L = [].
?- L = [_|_], reverse(L,[]).
loops, unexpected.
So sometimes the program will fail incorrectly, and the looping is still present. Hardly an improvement.
1 Assuming that we use the pure monotonic subset of Prolog
Yes, you have correctly noted that this predicate does not terminate when you pass a variable in the first argument. It also does not terminate if the first argument is a partial list.
The first witness that you reported comes from the fact step([], L2, L2)., which is clearly the base case for your recursion/induction. When you ask the Prolog engine for additional witnesses, it proceeds by trying to do so using the induction rule step([H1|T1], X, L2) :- step(T1, X, [H1|L2]). Note that your implementation here is defined recursively on the first argument, and so this unifies the unbound first argument with [H1|T1], and then makes a recursive call with T1 as the first argument, which then unifies with a fresh [H1|T1], which makes a recursive call... This is the cause of the infinite loop you're observing.
Yes.
Often times with nontermination issues, it's helpful to understand Prolog's execution model. That doesn't necessarily mean we can't come up with a "pure logic" solution, though. In this case, the query doesn't terminate if the first argument is a partial list, so we simply need to ensure that the first argument has a fixed length. What should its length be? Well, since we're reversing a list it should be the same as the other list. Try out this definition instead:
reverse(X, Y) :- same_length(X, Y), step(X, Y, []).
This solves the problem for both of the queries you posed. As an added bonus, it's actually possible to pose the "most general query" and get a sensible infinite sequence of results with this definition:
?- reverse(X, Y).
X = Y, Y = [] ;
X = Y, Y = [_] ;
X = [_A, _B],
Y = [_B, _A] ;
X = [_A, _B, _C],
Y = [_C, _B, _A] ;
X = [_A, _B, _C, _D],
Y = [_D, _C, _B, _A] ;
...
As far as I know, there isn't really a clear way to describe Prolog's cut operator in the language of first order logic. All of the literature I've read on the topic describe it operationally within the context of Prolog's execution model — by this I mean that its semantics are defined in terms of choice points/backtracking rather than propositions and logical connectives. That being said, it's hard to write Prolog code that is fast or has good termination properties without being aware of the execution model, and "practical" Prolog programs often use it for this reason (look up "Prolog red and green cuts"). I think your judgement that the cut is "procedural" is on the right track, but personally I think it's still a valuable tool when used appropriately.
swi-prolog added an extra argument to fix such termination:
?- reverse(L, [1,2,3]).
L = [3,2,1].
This one tickled my interest in theory:
Is it possible to write an inconsistent Prolog program, i.e. a program that answers both false and true depending on how it is queried, using only pure Prolog, the cut, and false?
For example, one could query p(1) and the Prolog Processor would says false. But when one queries p(X) the Prolog Processor would give the set of answers 1, 2, 3.
This can be easily achieved with "computational state examination predicates" like var/1 (really better called fresh/1) + el cut:
p(X) :- nonvar(X),!,member(X,[2,3]).
p(X) :- member(X,[1,2,3]).
Then
?- p(1).
false.
?- p(X).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3.
"Ouch time" ensues if this is high-assurance software. Naturally, any imperative program has no problem going off the rails like this on every other line.
So. can be done without those "computational state examination predicates"?
P.S.
The above illustrates that all the predicates of Prolog are really carrying a threaded hidden argument of the "computational state":
p(X,StateIn,StateOut).
which can be used to explain the behavour of var/1 and friends. The Prolog program is then "pure" when it only calls predicates that neither consult not modify that State. Well, at least that seems to be a good way to look at what is going on. I think.
Here's a very simple one:
f(X,X) :- !, false.
f(0,1).
Then:
| ?- f(0,1).
yes
| ?- f(X,1).
no
| ?- f(0,Y).
no
So Prolog claims there are no solutions to the queries with variables, although f(0,1) is true and would be a solution to both.
Here is one attempt. The basic idea is that X is a variable iff it can be unified with both a and b. But of course we can't write this as X = a, X = b. So we need a "unifiable" test that succeeds without binding variables like =/2 does.
First, we need to define negation ourselves, since it's impure:
my_not(Goal) :-
call(Goal),
!,
false.
my_not(_Goal).
This is only acceptable if your notion of pure Prolog includes call/1. Let's say that it does :-)
Now we can check for unifiability by using =/2 and the "not not" pattern to preserve success while undoing bindings:
unifiable(X, Y) :-
my_not(my_not(X = Y)).
Now we have the tools to define var/nonvar checks:
my_var(X) :-
unifiable(X, a),
unifiable(X, b).
my_nonvar(X) :-
not(my_var(X)).
Let's check this:
?- my_var(X).
true.
?- my_var(1).
false.
?- my_var(a).
false.
?- my_var(f(X)).
false.
?- my_nonvar(X).
false.
?- my_nonvar(1).
true.
?- my_nonvar(a).
true.
?- my_nonvar(f(X)).
true.
The rest is just your definition:
p(X) :-
my_nonvar(X),
!,
member(X, [2, 3]).
p(X) :-
member(X, [1, 2, 3]).
Which gives:
?- p(X).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3.
?- p(1).
false.
Edit: The use of call/1 is not essential, and it's interesting to write out the solution without it:
not_unifiable(X, Y) :-
X = Y,
!,
false.
not_unifiable(_X, _Y).
unifiable(X, Y) :-
not_unifiable(X, Y),
!,
false.
unifiable(_X, _Y).
Look at those second clauses of each of these predicates. They are the same! Reading these clauses declaratively, any two terms are not unifiable, but also any two terms are unifiable! Of course you cannot read these clauses declaratively because of the cut. But I find this especially striking as an illustration of how catastrophically impure the cut is.
Hello I want to generate a list as following. Given a list like [x,y] I want to generate a list that is x,x,...,x : y times eg [2,3]=[2,2,2] but I cannot figure out how.
This is my implementation so far:
generate([T,1],[T]).
generate([X,S],[X|T]):-S1 is S-1,generate([X,S1],[T]).
but for some reason it fails. Can you help me?
generate([E,R], Es) :-
length(Es, R),
maplist(=(E), Es).
You said that your version fails. But in fact it does not:
?- generate([a,0], Xs).
false.
?- generate([a,1], Xs).
Xs = [a]
; false.
?- generate([a,2], Xs).
Xs = [a|a]
; false.
?- generate([a,3], Xs).
false.
It doesn't work for 0, seems to work for length 1, then, produces an incorrect solution Xs = [a|a] for length 2, and finally fails from length 3 on. [a|a] is a good hint that at someplace in your definition, lists and their elements are confused. To better distinguish them, use a variable in plural for a list, like Es which is the plural of E.
The problem is in your second clause. When you have [X|T], it means that T is a list. In the body you write generate([X,S1],[T]): by writing [T] you're now saying the second argument to generate is a list of which the only element is this list T. What you want to say is that it is simply this list T:
generate([T,1], [T]).
generate([X,S], [X|T]) :- S1 is S-1, generate([X,S1], T).
I am trying to write a short Prolog program which takes a list of numbers and returns a list where all numbers have been squared.
Ie: [2,4,5] => [4,16,25]
My code so far:
list_of_squares([X], L) :-
L is X^2.
list_of_squares([X|XS], [X^2|M]) :-
list_of_squares(XS, M).
For some reason though Prolog doesn't like me squaring X while adding it to a list... Any thoughts on how I could do this?
You're not that far off, but you make two small mistakes:
Firstly, you mix element X with list L. Your first clause should be:
list_of_squares([X], [Y]):-
Y is X ^ 2.
Secondly, you cannot perform an arithmetic function in list notation.
Your second clauses should be as follows:
list_of_squares([X|Xs], [Y|Ys]):-
Y is X ^ 2,
list_of_squares(Xs, Ys).
Thirdly, there is a more fundamental problem. With the first two fixes, your code works, but the base case, i.e. the first clause, is not that well chosen. (A) the code cannot process the empty list. (B) For a singleton list the code is needlessly nondeterministic, because both clauses apply. This is solved by choosing the base case wisely:
squares([], []).
squares([X|Xs], [Y|Ys]):-
Y is X ^ 2,
squares(Xs, Ys).
Here is a general method how you can localize such an error. First, let's start with your exemple:
?- list_of_squares([2,4,5],[4,16,25]).
false.
Oh no! It fails! There is a very general method what to do in such a situation:
Generalize the query
So we replace [4,16,25] by a new, fresh (ah, true freshness!) variable:
?- list_of_squares([2,4,5],L).
L = [2^2,4^2|25]
; false.
That's way better: Now you know that there is a "result", but that result it not what you expected.
Next,
Minimize the query
The list is way too long, so I will chop off some elements. Say, the first two:
?- list_of_squares([5],L).
L = 25
; false.
Again, wrong, but smaller. Now, where is the error for that? To get it
Specialize your program
list_of_squares([X], L) :-
L is X^2.
list_of_squares([X|XS], [X^2|M]) :- false,
list_of_squares(XS, M).
That program, again gives the same wrong answer! So in there is a bug in the visible part. What we expect is
?- list_of_squares([5],[25]).
false.
this to succeed. But where is the error? Again:
Generalize the query
?- list_of_squares([5],[X]).
false.
HET!
Now, you should realize that that rule might be:
list_of_squares([X], [Y]):-
Y is X ^ 2.
And the same (is)/2 should be used in the recursive rule. And, why not accept [].
I, personally, would rather write using library(lambda):
list_of_squares(Xs, Ys) :-
maplist(\X^XX^(XX is X^2), Xs, Ys).
Or, even better, using library(clpfd)
list_of_squares(Xs, Ys) :-
maplist(\X^XX^(XX #= X^2), Xs, Ys).
Prolog doesn't have a 'functional' mindset, but some standard builtin predicate can help working with lists. In this case
list_of_squares(L,S) :- findall(Sq,(member(E,L),Sq is E*E),S).
?- list_of_squares([2,4,5], R).
R = [4, 16, 25].
in this case, member/2 play a role similar to lambda expressions, giving a 'name' to each element E available in L. findall/3 compute all solutions of its goal ,(member(E,L),Sq is E*E),, and collects results (the 'template' expression, that is, Sq).
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
fact(treated=A) :- A in 0..1.
fact(numYears=B) :- B in 0..sup.
fact(numDrugs=C) :- C in 0..sup.
fact(treated2=D) :- D in 0..1.
fact(cParam=E) :- E in 0..4.
is_differentfact(X,X) :- false.
is_differentfact(Element=_,OtherElement=_) :-
dif(Element,OtherElement).
is_fakt([]).
is_fakt([X|Xs]) :-
fact(X),
maplist(is_differentfact(X),Xs),
is_fakt(Xs).
Why does ?- is_fakt(X) return a list of results answers but after a number of results answers it hangs. I don't know why Prolog cannot return all possible values of X.
You ask:
Why does ?- is_fakt(L) ... but after a number of results answers it hangs.
You say a number. That number is 62 times pressing SPACE to get to that moment of looping. Pretty long isn't it? And your program is tiny. How will you ever get the chance to do the same with a bigger program? Don't worry, there is help. But you need to look at the program from a different angle.
In Prolog understanding the very precise execution of a concrete query is next to impossible. You have two different kinds of control flows interleaved plus strange data structures that do not need to be present, but "come in" later ; sometimes. All that opens up a veritable panoply of possible execution traces that are so full of detail, that your mind will overflow — worse: your mind will still pretend you understand everything but effectively you don't. And the bugs have big party time in your program. Those bugs will bite at some point in time in the future, but only on a bug-to-bite basis. That can be very demoralizing. After all, the program is so small, that should be easy to understand (by the standards of imperative languages). But then, Prolog programs tend to be very compact for problems that are very complex in other languages.
Try to step through with a tracer to see what I mean. You will see all kinds of things happening. And most of them are irrelevant.
Fortunately, there are ways to understand Prolog, but here you have to rely on nice properties of the language itself. For localizing reasons for non-termination, the best is to start to consider a failure-slice. You obtain a failure slice from your program by adding goals false into your program. If the resulting program then still does not terminate, we have a reason why also our original program does not terminate.
Think of it: instead of trying to understand your program we do something humans are much better at: Making an educated guess. That guess can go wrong but we can check that easily. In the beginning you will be pretty awful at guessing. Soon you will see that you can do a lot of things systematically. All code that now becomes irrelevant is stike through.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
fact(treated=A) :- A in 0..1.
fact(numYears=B) :- B in 0..sup, false.
fact(numDrugs=C) :- C in 0..sup, false.
fact(treated2=D) :- D in 0..1, false.
fact(cParam=E) :- E in 0..4, false.
is_differentfact(X,X) :- false.
is_differentfact(Element=_,OtherElement=_) :-
dif(Element,OtherElement).
is_fakt([]).
is_fakt([X|Xs]) :-
fact(X),
maplist(is_differentfact(X),Xs),
is_fakt(Xs).
What did we gain? We can narrow down the problem much faster:
?- is_fakt(Xs).
Xs = []
; Xs = [treated=_A], _A in 0..1
; loops.
Before continuing, I try to understand what you mean with is_fakt/1. You probably mean: All the facts by their name, and make sure none is repeated. Now we have only the fact named treated, so we can only produce a list of length 1. And then it loops.
You said:
I don't know why Prolog cannot return all possible values of X.
To be picky, that is not true. Prolog did enumerate all possible values of X. But then it did not terminate.
((Some remarks to consider: Do you really want to get that list in that manner? You will get all permutations! With a list of length n you will get n! different answers. For n = 10 that is 3628800. Is this, what you want? Probably not.))
But let us first stick to identify the precise reason for non-termination.
To better identify the reason, lets "turn off" all answers. So we query is_fakt(L), false instead with:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
fact(treated=A) :- A in 0..1.
fact(numYears=B) :- B in 0..sup, false.
fact(numDrugs=C) :- C in 0..sup, false.
fact(treated2=D) :- D in 0..1, false.
fact(cParam=E) :- E in 0..4, false.
is_differentfact(X,X) :- false.
is_differentfact(Element=_,OtherElement=_) :-
dif(Element,OtherElement).
is_fakt([]) :- false.
is_fakt([X|Xs]) :-
fact(X),
maplist(is_differentfact(X),Xs), false,
is_fakt(Xs).
That is a minimal failure-slice. So it is the maplist/2 which does not terminate in the first place. Your idea was to ensure that X has a fact-name that is different to the fact-names in Xs. But if Xs is not bound, that will never terminate. Let's try it:
?- maplist(is_differentfact(X),Xs).
Xs = []
; X = (_A=_B), Xs = [_C=_D], dif(_A,_C)
; X = (_A=_B), Xs = [_C=_D,_E=_F], dif(_A,_C), dif(_A,_E)
; X = (_A=_B), Xs = [_C=_D,_E=_F,_G=_H],
dif(_A,_C), dif(_A,_E), dif(_A,_G)
; X = (_A=_B), Xs = [_C=_D,_E=_F,_G=_H,_I=_J],
dif(_A,_C), dif(_A,_E), dif(_A,_G), dif(_A,_I)
; X = (_A=_B), Xs = [_C=_D,_E=_F,_G=_H,_I=_J,_K=_L],
dif(_A,_C), dif(_A,_E), dif(_A,_G), dif(_A,_I), dif(_A,_K)
; ... .
Not so nice to look at... but we can do it better:
?- maplist(is_differentfact(X),Xs), false.
loops.
So it loops. This is the reason for non-termination. To fix the problem we have to do something in the remaining visible part of the failure slice...
For more, look up other explanations tagged failure-slice
Edited version based on the comments of false.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
:- use_module(library(lists)).
fact(treated-X) :- X in 0..1.
fact(numYears-X) :- X in 0..sup.
fact(numDrugs-X) :- X in 0..sup.
fact(treated2-X) :- X in 0..1.
fact(cParam-X) :- X in 0..4.
facts(Facts) :-
findall(X,fact(X),Facts).
is_fact2(_, []).
is_fact2(Facts, [X|Xs]) :-
member(X,Facts),
select(X,Facts,Remaining),
is_fact2(Remaining,Xs).
is_fakt(X) :-
facts(Facts),
is_fact2(Facts,X),
keysort(X,X).
This terminates now.