I recently started studying and working with Prolog for an application where logic programming is very suited for. In particular, I am woroking with SWI-Prolog (v. 7.6.4, amd64) and Etalis (v. 1.1), an extension for prolog.
What I am not understading is the meaning of: /0, /1, and even /2, /3, that I found in examples during the definition of custom predicates. Most of the prolog directives are defined by directive_name/1.
So, what do these numbers stand for?
It's simply the number of arguments.
For example, append/3 means append(A1, A2, A3).
This number is called the arity, it is the number of arguments a predicate, or functor takes. A constant is in fact a fuctor with zero arity, so /0.
The name of a predicate together with the arity identify a specific predicate. For example the member/2 predicate is diffrent from the append/2 predicate, and the append/3 predicate is different from the append/2 predicate.
Related
I have defined the following knowledge base:
leaf(_).
tree(X) :- leaf(X).
and was expecting the query:
leaf(X) = tree(X).
to return true ., because any leaf should per definition be a tree.
Unfortunately activating trace doesn't yield any useful results.
Here is a link to this minimal example if you'd like to play around with it.
Short answer: you here check if the term leaf(X) can be unified with tree(X). Since these are terms that consist out of different functors, this will fail.
The tree/1 and leaf/1 in your statement leaf(X) = tree(X) are not the predicates. What you basically here have written is:
=(leaf(X), tree(X))
So you call the (=)/2 predicate, with leaf(X) and tree(X) terms.
Now in Prolog two terms are unifiable if:
these are the same atom; or
it is a term with the same functor and arity, and the arguments are elementwise unifiable.
Since the functor leaf/1 is not equal to the functor tree/1, this means that leaf(X) and tree(X) can not be equal.
Even if we would define a predicate with the intent of checking if two predicates are semantically the same, this would fail. Here you basically aim to solve the Equivalence problem, which is undecidable. This means that one, in general, can not construct an algorithm that verifies if two Turing machines decide the same language. Prolog is a Turing complete language, we basically can translate any predicate in a Turing machine and vice versa. So that means that we can not calculate if two predicates accept the same input.
for example: aggregate_all/3 , findall/3, aggregate/4 and so on.
What is the difference between aggregate/3 and aggregate/4.
The number is the so-called arity of the predicate and indicates the number of arguments of the predicate.
This is useful because there are often several variants of predicates that share the same name, but differ in their number of arguments.
Examples: findall/3 and findall/4, append/3 and append/2 etc.
You also often see the notation (Pred)/2. Example: (#=)/2.This is because #= (for example) is also an infix operator, and the parentheses turn (#=)/2 into a valid Prolog term.
The slash (/) symbol is not used only in built in predicates but in all predicates ant it states the number of parameters (arity) of the predicate for example aggregate/3 is a predicate with 3 parameters while aggregate/4 is a predicate with 4 parameters.
I am teaching myself Prolog and have been given a handful of examples.
One of which uses the dynamic/1 built-in directive:
:- dynamic(items/1).
I get the idea of dynamic. That one can modify predicates via the assert, and retract predicates.
However, the program also uses the following in places:
:- dynamic(location/2).
What is the difference between the two /1 and /2, is their also a /3 .... /n?
In Prolog, predicates are identified by their name (or functor) and their number of arguments (or arity). Thus, items/1 denotes a predicate with functor items and arity 1 while location/2 denotes a predicate with functor location and arity 2. Two predicates with the same functor but different arities are different predicates.
So I just started Prolog and I was wondering two things:
1) Is there built in functions (or are they all called predicates?) for simple things like max of 2 numbers, or sine of a number, etc... If so, how do I access them?
2) How can I call a predicate from another one? I wrote two predicates called car and cdr. car returns the head of a list and cdr returns the list without the head. But now I want to call car on the cdr. Here are some examples for clarification:
car([3,4,5,5], H). would return H = 3
cdr([3,4,5,5],L). would return L = [4,5,5]
and what I am asking is how can I do this:
car(cdr[3,4,5,5]))
??
As others have pointed out, the predicates in Prolog are called that for a reason: they really aren't functions. Many newcomers to Prolog start out by trying to map the functionality they know in other languages over to Prolog and it generally fails. Prolog is a very different programming tool than most other languages. So it's a bit like using a variety of hammers for a long time, then having someone hand you a wrench, and you wonder why it doesn't make a good hammer.
In Prolog, predicates are a means of declaring relations between entities. If you say foo(a, b) it means there's a relationship between a and b called foo. You've probably seen the examples: knows(joe, jim). and knows(jim, sally). And you can define a relation, like:
remotely_acquainted(X, Y) :- knows(X, Z), knows(Z, Y), \+ knows(X, Y).
Or something like that.
A predicate does not return a value. It either succeeds or it fails. If you have a sequence of predicates separated by commas (an "and" relationship) and Prolog encounters a predicate that fails, it backs up (backtracks) to the nearest prior predicate which it can make succeed again with different instantiation of its arguments and moves forward again.
Just to add a little to the confusion, there are some predicates in Prolog designed specifically for the evaluation of arithmetic expressions. These act like functions, but they are special case. For example:
X is Y / gcd(Z, 4).
Here, gcd of Z and 4 is computed an its value returned, and then Y is divided by that value and the result is instantiated into X. There are a variety of other functions as well, such as max/2, sin/1, etc. You can look them up in the documentation.
Arithmetic comparative operators function this way as well (using =:=/2, >/2, </2, etc with numeric expressions). So if you say:
X < Y + Z
The Prolog will consider numerical evaluation of these arguments and then compare them.
So having said all that, Prolog does allow embedding of term structures. You could have something like:
car(cdr([1,2,3]))
as a term. Prolog will not interpret it. Interpretation is left up to the programmer. I could then create a predicate which defines an evaluation of such terms:
car([H|_], H).
cdr([_|T], T).
proc_list(car(X), Result) :-
proc_list(X, R1),
car(R1, Result), !.
proc_list(cdr(X), Result) :-
proc_list(X, R1),
cdr(R1, Result), !.
proc_list(X, X).
The cut in the above clauses prevents backtracking to proc_list(X, X) when I don't want it.
Then:
| ?- proc_list(car(cdr([1,2,3])), R).
R = 2
yes
| ?- proc_list(car(cdr(cdr([1,2,3]))), R).
R = 3
yes
| ?-
Note this is a simple case and I may not have captured all of the subtleties of doing a proper sequence of car and cdr. It can also be made more general using =.. and call, etc, instead of discrete terms car and cdr in the parameters. For example, a slightly more general proc_list might be:
proc_list(Term, Result) :-
Term =.. [Proc, X], % Assumes terms have just one argument
member(Proc, [car, cdr]), % True only on recognized terms
proc_list(X, R1), % Recursively process embedded term
ProcCall =.. [Proc, R1, Result], % Construct a calling term with Result
call(ProcCall), !.
proc_list(X, X).
This technique of processing a term does step away from relational behavior which Prolog is best at, and leans into functional behavior, but with an understand of how Prolog works.
Prolog has a really different attitude to computing...
You don't define functions, but relations among arguments. The most similar and well known language I'm aware of is SQL. Think of predicates as tables (or stored procedures, when some computation not predefined by database engine is required).
car([H|_],H).
cdr([_|T],T).
car_of_cdr(L, Car) :- cdr(L, Cdr), car(Cdr, Car).
but since lists' syntax is a core part of the language, a better definition could be
car_of_cdr([_,X|_], X).
Anyway, I think you should spend some time on some Prolog tutorial. SO info page has much more information...
:- use_module(support).
This means the module will use predicates written in other modules.
<module_name>:<predicate_name>(<atoms / Variables>).
This way you can call a predicate in another module.
Because Prolog uses chronological backtracking(from the Prolog Wikipedia page) even after an answer is found(in this example where there can only be one solution), would this justify Prolog as using eager evaluation?
mother_child(trude, sally).
father_child(tom, sally).
father_child(tom, erica).
father_child(mike, tom).
sibling(X, Y) :- parent_child(Z, X), parent_child(Z, Y).
parent_child(X, Y) :- father_child(X, Y).
parent_child(X, Y) :- mother_child(X, Y).
With the following output:
?- sibling(sally, erica).
true ;
false.
To summarize the discussion with #WillNess below, yes, Prolog is strict. However, Prolog's execution model and semantics are substantially different from the languages that are usually labelled strict or non-strict. For more about this, see below.
I'm not sure the question really applies to Prolog, because it doesn't really have the kind of implicit evaluation ordering that other languages have. Where this really comes into play in a language like Haskell, you might have an expression like:
f (g x) (h y)
In a strict language like ML, there is a defined evaluation order: g x will be evaluated, then h y, and f (g x) (h y) last. In a language like Haskell, g x and h y will only be evaluated as required ("non-strict" is more accurate than "lazy"). But in Prolog,
f(g(X), h(Y))
does not have the same meaning, because it isn't using a function notation. The query would be broken down into three parts, g(X, A), h(Y, B), and f(A,B,C), and those constituents can be placed in any order. The evaluation strategy is strict in the sense that what comes earlier in a sequence will be evaluated before what comes next, but it is non-strict in the sense that there is no requirement that variables be instantiated to ground terms before evaluation can proceed. Unification is perfectly content to complete without having given you values for every variable. I am bringing this up because you have to break down a complex, nested expression in another language into several expressions in Prolog.
Backtracking has nothing to do with it, as far as I can tell. I don't think backtracking to the nearest choice point and resuming from there precludes a non-strict evaluation method, it just happens that Prolog's is strict.
That Prolog pauses after giving each of the several correct answers to a problem has nothing to do with laziness; it is a part of its user interaction protocol. Each answer is calculated eagerly.
Sometimes there will be only one answer but Prolog doesn't know that in advance, so it waits for us to press ; to continue search, in hopes of finding another solution. Sometimes it is able to deduce it in advance and will just stop right away, but only sometimes.
update:
Prolog does no evaluation on its own. All terms are unevaluated, as if "quoted" in Lisp.
Prolog will unfold your predicate definitions as written and is perfectly happy to keep your data structures full of unevaluated uninstantiated holes, if so entailed by your predicate definitions.
Haskell does not need any values, a user does, when requesting an output.
Similarly, Prolog produces solutions one-by-one, as per the user requests.
Prolog can even be seen to be lazier than Haskell where all arithmetic is strict, i.e. immediate, whereas in Prolog you have to explicitly request the arithmetic evaluation, with is/2.
So perhaps the question is ill-posed. Prolog's operations model is just too different. There are no "results" nor "functions", for one; but viewed from another angle, everything is a result, and predicates are "multi"-functions.
As it stands, the question is not correct in what it states. Chronological backtracking does not mean that Prolog will necessarily backtrack "in an example where there can be only one solution".
Consider this:
foo(a, 1).
foo(b, 2).
foo(c, 3).
?- foo(b, X).
X = 2.
?- foo(X, 2).
X = b.
So this is an example that does have only one solution and Prolog recognizes that, and does not attempt to backtrack. There are cases in which you can implement a solution to a problem in a way that Prolog will not recognize that there is only one logical solution, but this is due to the implementation and is not inherent to Prolog's execution model.
You should read up on Prolog's execution model. From the Wikipedia article which you seem to cite, "Operationally, Prolog's execution strategy can be thought of as a generalization of function calls in other languages, one difference being that multiple clause heads can match a given call. In that case, [emphasis mine] the system creates a choice-point, unifies the goal with the clause head of the first alternative, and continues with the goals of that first alternative." Read Sterling and Shapiro's "The Art of Prolog" for a far more complete discussion of the subject.
from Wikipedia I got
In eager evaluation, an expression is evaluated as soon as it is bound to a variable.
Then I think there are 2 levels - at user level (our predicates) Prolog is not eager.
But it is at 'system' level, because variables are implemented as efficiently as possible.
Indeed, attributed variables are implemented to be lazy, and are rather 'orthogonal' to 'logic' Prolog variables.