Related
I have my head stuck in this exercise in prolog, I ve been trying to do it on my own but it just won't work. Example: ?-succesor([1,9,9],X) -> X = [2,0,0]. Had tried first to reverse the list and increment it with 1 and then do a if %10 = 0 the next element should be incremented too. Thing is that I m too used with programming syntax and I can't get my head wrapped around this.Any help would be appreciated.
I have done this so far, but the output is false.
%[1,9,9] -> 199 +1 -> 200;
numbers_atoms([],[]).
numbers_atoms([X|Y],[C|K]) :-
atom_number(C, X),
numbers_atoms(Y,K).
%([1,2,3],X)
digits_number(Digits, Number) :-
numbers_atoms(Digits, Atoms),
number_codes(Number, Atoms).
number_tolist( 0, [] ).
number_tolist(N,[A|As]) :-
N1 is floor(N/10),
A is N mod 10,
number_tolist(N1, As).
addOne([X],[Y]):-
digits_number(X,Y1), %[1,9,9] -> 199
Y1 is Y1+1, % 199 -> 200
number_tolist(Y1,[Y]), % 200 -> [2,0,0]
!.
You can solve this problem similarly to how you would solve it manually: traverse the list of digits until you reach the rightmost digit; increment that digit and compute the carry-on digit, which must be recursively propagated to the left. At the end, prepend the carry-on digit if it is equal to 1 (otherwise, ignore it).
% successor(+Input, -Output)
successor([X0|Xs], L) :-
successor(Xs, X0, C, Ys),
( C = 1 % carry-on
-> L = [C|Ys]
; L = Ys ).
% helper predicate
successor([], X, C, [Y]) :-
Z is X + 1,
Y is Z mod 10,
C is Z div 10. % carry-on
successor([X1|Xs], X0, C, [Y|Ys]) :-
successor(Xs, X1, C0, Ys),
Z is X0 + C0,
Y is Z mod 10,
C is Z div 10. % carry-on
Examples:
?- successor([1,9,9], A).
A = [2, 0, 0].
?- successor([2,7],A), successor(A,B), successor(B,C), successor(C,D).
A = [2, 8],
B = [2, 9],
C = [3, 0],
D = [3, 1].
?- successor([7,9,9,8], A), successor(A, B).
A = [7, 9, 9, 9],
B = [8, 0, 0, 0].
?- successor([9,9,9,9], A), successor(A, B).
A = [1, 0, 0, 0, 0],
B = [1, 0, 0, 0, 1].
Here's a version which doesn't use is and can work both ways:
successor(ListIn, ListOut) :-
reverse(ListIn, ListInRev),
ripple_inc(ListInRev, ListOutRev),
reverse(ListOutRev, ListOut).
ripple_inc([], [1]).
ripple_inc([0|T], [1|T]).
ripple_inc([1|T], [2|T]).
ripple_inc([2|T], [3|T]).
ripple_inc([3|T], [4|T]).
ripple_inc([4|T], [5|T]).
ripple_inc([5|T], [6|T]).
ripple_inc([6|T], [7|T]).
ripple_inc([7|T], [8|T]).
ripple_inc([8|T], [9|T]).
ripple_inc([9|T], [0|Tnext]) :-
ripple_inc(T, Tnext).
e.g.
?- successor([1,9,9], X).
X = [2, 0, 0]
?- successor([1,9,9], [2,0,0]).
true
?- successor(X, [2,0,0]).
X = [1, 9, 9]
although it's nicely deterministic when run 'forwards', it's annoying that if run 'backwards' it finds an answer, then leaves a choicepoint and then infinite loops if that choicepoint is retried. I think what causes that is starting from the higher number then reverse(ListIn, ListInRev) has nothing to work on and starts generating longer and longer lists both filled with empty variables and never ends.
I can constrain the input and output to be same_length/2 but I can't think of a way to constrain them to be the same length or ListOut is one item longer ([9,9,9] -> [1,0,0,0]).
This answer tries to improve the previous answer by #TessellatingHacker, like so:
successor(ListIn, ListOut) :-
no_longer_than(ListIn, ListOut), % weaker than same_length/2
reverse(ListIn, ListInRev),
ripple_inc(ListInRev, ListOutRev),
reverse(ListOutRev, ListOut).
The definition of no_longer_than/2 follows. Note the similarity to same_length/2:
no_longer_than([],_). % same_length([],[]).
no_longer_than([_|Xs],[_|Ys]) :- % same_length([_|Xs],[_|Ys]) :-
no_longer_than(Xs,Ys). % same_length(Xs,Ys).
The following sample queries still succeed deterministically, as they did before:
?- successor([1,9,9], X).
X = [2,0,0].
?- successor([1,9,9], [2,0,0]).
true.
The "run backwards" use of successor/2 now also terminates universally:
?- successor(X, [2,0,0]).
X = [1,9,9]
; false.
I want to exclude multiple rotations/mirrors of a list in my solutions of the predicate. I'll give an example of what I understand are rotations/mirrors of a list:
[1,2,3,4,5]
[2,3,4,5,1]
[3,4,5,1,2]
[5,4,3,2,1]
I have to find a predicate that delivers unique sequence of numbers from 1 to N, according to some constraints. I already figured out how to compute the right sequence but I can't find out how to exclude all the rotations and mirrors of 1 list. Is there an easy way to do this?
Edit:
Full predicate. clock_round(N,Sum,Yf) finds a sequence of the numbers 1 to N in such a way that no triplet of adjacent numbers has a sum higher than Sum.
clock_round(N,Sum,Yf) :-
generate(1,N,Xs),
permutation(Xs,Ys),
nth0(0,Ys,Elem1),
nth0(1,Ys,Elem2),
append(Ys,[Elem1,Elem2],Ym),
safe(Ym,Sum),
remove_duplicates(Ym,Yf).
remove_duplicates([],[]).
remove_duplicates([H | T], List) :-
member(H, T),
remove_duplicates( T, List).
remove_duplicates([H | T], [H|T1]) :-
\+member(H, T),
remove_duplicates( T, T1).
% generate/3 generates list [1..N]
generate(N,N,[N]).
generate(M,N,[M|List]) :-
M < N, M1 is M + 1,
generate(M1,N,List).
% permutation/2
permutation([],[]).
permutation(List,[Elem|Perm]) :-
select(Elem,List,Rest),
permutation(Rest,Perm).
safe([],_).
safe(List,Sum) :-
( length(List,3),
nth0(0,List,Elem1),
nth0(1,List,Elem2),
nth0(2,List,Elem3),
Elem1 + Elem2 + Elem3 =< Sum
; [_|RestList] = List, % first to avoid redundant retries
nth0(0,List,Elem1),
nth0(1,List,Elem2),
nth0(2,List,Elem3),
Elem1 + Elem2 + Elem3 =< Sum,
safe(RestList,Sum)
).
So what you want is to identify certain symmetries. At first glance you would have to compare all possible solutions with such. That is, in addition of paying the cost of generating all possible solutions you will then compare them to each other which will cost you a further square of the solutions.
On the other hand, think of it: You are searching for certain permutations of the numbers 1..n, and thus you could fix one number to a certain position. Let's fix 1 to the first position, that is not a big harm, as you can generate the remaining n-1 solutions by rotation.
And then mirroring. What happens, if one mirrors (or reverses) a sequence? Another sequence which is a solution is produced. The open question now, how can we exclude certain solutions and be sure that they will show up upon mirroring? Like: the number after 1 is larger than the number before 1.
At the end, rethink what we did: First all solutions were generated and only thereafter some were removed. What a waste! Why not avoid to produce useless solutions first?
And even further at the end, all of this can be expressed much more efficiently with library(clpfd).
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
clock_round_(N,Sum,Xs) :-
N #=< Sum, Sum #=< 3*N -2-1,
length(Xs, N),
Xs = [D,E|_],
D = 1, append(_,[L],Xs), E #> L, % symmetry breaking
Xs ins 1..N,
all_different(Xs),
append(Xs,[D,E],Ys),
allsums(Ys, Sum).
allsums([], _).
allsums([_], _).
allsums([_,_], _).
allsums([A,B,C|Xs], S) :-
A+B+C #=< S,
allsums([B,C|Xs], S).
?- clock_round_(N, Sum, Xs), labeling([], [Sum|Xs]).
N = 3, Sum = 6, Xs = [1,3,2]
; N = 4, Sum = 9, Xs = [1,3,4,2]
; N = 4, Sum = 9, Xs = [1,4,2,3]
; N = 4, Sum = 9, Xs = [1,4,3,2]
; N = 5, Sum = 10, Xs = [1,5,2,3,4]
; ... .
Here is a possibility do do that :
is_rotation(L1, L2) :-
append(H1, H2, L1),
append(H2, H1, L2).
is_mirror(L1, L2) :-
reverse(L1,L2).
my_filter([H|Tail], [H|Out]):-
exclude(is_rotation(H), Tail, Out_1),
exclude(is_mirror(H), Out_1, Out).
For example
?- L = [[1,2,3,4,5],[2,3,4,5,1],[3,4,5,1,2],[5,4,3,2,1], [1,3,2,4,5]],my_filter(L, Out).
L = [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [2, 3, 4, 5, 1], [3, 4, 5, 1, 2], [5, 4, 3, 2, 1], [1, 3, 2, 4|...]],
Out = [[1, 2, 3, 4, 5], [1, 3, 2, 4, 5]].
I want to multiply elements in a List with findall/3. Specifically I have two functions double(X,Y) which doubles X and square(X,Y) that returns the squared value of X. My problem is that it the operation works only for the first element of the list.
double(X,Y) :- Y is X*2.
square(X,Y) :- Y is X*X.
map_f(Operation,[H|List],[R|Results]) :-
Predicate=..[Operation,H,R],
call(Predicate),
findall(X,( member(X,List) ), Results).
For example, if I type map_f(double,[3,1,2,6,3,1,6],L). ,
I expect the output: L = [6,2,4,12,6,2,12],
but instead it shows:
?- map_f(double, [3, 1, 2, 6, 3, 1, 6], List).
List = [6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 1, 6]
Yes (0.00s cpu)
Any help will be very appreciated.
If you want to use findall/3, you'd have to write it like this:
?- Xs = [3,1,2,6,3,1,6], findall(Y, ( member(X, Xs), double(X, Y) ), Ys).
Xs = [3, 1, 2, 6, 3, 1, 6],
Ys = [6, 2, 4, 12, 6, 2, 12].
If you really want to pass the predicate as an argument and use =.., the logic is still the same, you'd just have to re-write your definition so that it does the right thing:
map_f(Pred_name, L1, L2) :-
Goal =.. [Pred_name, X, Y],
findall(Y, ( member(X, L1), Goal ), L2).
Then:
?- map_f(double, [3,1,2,6,3,1,6], R).
R = [6, 2, 4, 12, 6, 2, 12].
?- map_f(square, [3,1,2,6,3,1,6], R).
R = [9, 1, 4, 36, 9, 1, 36].
But, instead of:
Goal =.. [Pred_name, Arg1, Arg2], Goal
it is easier to use call/N+1:
call(Pred_name, Arg1, Arg2)
So your definition will become:
map_f(Pred_name, L1, L2) :-
findall(Y, ( member(X, L1), call(Pred_name, X, Y) ), L2).
But really, all of this is completely unnecessary if you only have lists. You can just use maplist/N+1, like that:
?- maplist(double, [3,1,2,6,3,1,6], R).
R = [6, 2, 4, 12, 6, 2, 12].
... which iterates over the lists instead of backtracking over them. You can see a maplist implementation for example here:
https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/blob/2d20d4e8ac28adfcede7a9bd231ea0d9d12d0bbb/library/apply.pl#L195-L205
If your predicate is a real relation (so if it works both ways), you can also use maplist both ways. findall cannot do that! Here is one silly example:
?- maplist(succ, [1,2,3], R).
R = [2, 3, 4].
?- maplist(succ, R, [1,2,3]).
R = [0, 1, 2].
?- map_f(succ, [1,2,3], R).
R = [2, 3, 4].
?- map_f(succ, R, [1,2,3]).
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
I am trying to run following code from N-Queens Problem..How far can we go? to find solutions to n-queens problem:
generate([],_).
generate([H|T],N) :- H in 1..N , generate(T,N).
lenlist(L,N) :- lenlist(L,0,N).
lenlist([],N,N).
lenlist([_|T],P,N) :- P1 is P+1 , lenlist(T,P1,N).
queens(N,L) :-
generate(L,N),lenlist(L,N),
safe(L),!,
labeling([ffc],L).
notattack(X,Xs) :- notattack(X,Xs,1).
notattack(X,[],N).
notattack(X,[Y|Ys],N) :- X #\= Y,
X #\= Y - N,
X #\= Y + N,
N1 is N + 1,
notattack(X,Ys,N1).
safe([]).
safe([F|T]) :- notattack(F,T), safe(T).
I have swi-prolog installed on Debian-9 (stable) Linux and I am running above using command "swipl -f nqueens.pl". On loading, I get an error:
Syntax error: operator expected (probably on 2nd code line)
Where is the problem and how can this be solved? Thanks for your help.
The question actually mentions that it is writting in CLPFD (A Constraint Logic Programming tool over Finite Domains). You have to import this library:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
generate([],_).
generate([H|T],N) :- H in 1..N , generate(T,N).
lenlist(L,N) :- lenlist(L,0,N).
lenlist([],N,N).
lenlist([_|T],P,N) :- P1 is P+1 , lenlist(T,P1,N).
queens(N,L) :-
generate(L,N),lenlist(L,N),
safe(L),!,
labeling([ffc],L).
notattack(X,Xs) :- notattack(X,Xs,1).
notattack(X,[],N).
notattack(X,[Y|Ys],N) :- X #\= Y,
X #\= Y - N,
X #\= Y + N,
N1 is N + 1,
notattack(X,Ys,N1).
safe([]).
safe([F|T]) :- notattack(F,T), safe(T).
Then it works, and produces for instance:
?- queens(5,L).
L = [1, 3, 5, 2, 4] ;
L = [1, 4, 2, 5, 3] ;
L = [2, 4, 1, 3, 5] ;
L = [2, 5, 3, 1, 4] ;
L = [3, 1, 4, 2, 5] ;
L = [3, 5, 2, 4, 1] ;
L = [4, 1, 3, 5, 2] ;
L = [4, 2, 5, 3, 1] ;
L = [5, 2, 4, 1, 3] ;
L = [5, 3, 1, 4, 2].
When I look at line 2, as the error message suggests, the most probable cause is the H in 1..N. I would have written that as between(1, H, N). I haven't done anything in Prolog lately, though.
There are several different implementations of Prolog, and they differ in these little details. Try searching for guidelines for writing portable Prolog code.
I want to make a program in which the user will give a negative number and it will return a list starting from zero till that number. Here is a desired output example
create(-5,L).
L = [0,-1,-2,-3,-4,-5]
could you help me in any way, please?
I would break it up into two auxiliary predicates. The auxiliary predicate is helpful for building the list in the direction you desire.
create(N, L) :-
N < 0,
create_neg(N, 0, L).
create(N, L) :-
N >= 0,
create_pos(N, 0, L).
create_neg(N, N, [N]).
create_neg(N, A, [A|T]) :-
A > N,
A1 is A - 1,
create_neg(N, A1, T).
create_pos(N, N, [N]).
create_pos(N, A, [A|T]) :-
A < N,
A1 is A + 1,
create_pos(N, A1, T).
This will put them in the right order as well:
| ?- create(-5, L).
L = [0,-1,-2,-3,-4,-5] ? a
no
| ?- create(5, L).
L = [0,1,2,3,4,5] ? a
no
| ?-
What you're after is not really a program, just an 'idiomatic' pattern:
?- findall(X, (between(0,5,T), X is -T), L).
L = [0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5].
Note the parenthesis around the Goal. It's a compound one...
Another way:
?- numlist(-5,0,T), reverse(T,L).
...
Since you provided your code (which as mentioned in comments would be better to appear in your question), one problem I think is that with X>0 and X<0 clauses-cases you will have infinite recursion, maybe it would be better to use abs/1:
create(0,[0]).
create(X,[X|T]):- Y is abs(X), Y > 0,
(X>0 -> N is X-1 ; N is X+1),
create(N,T).
Though still one problem:
?- create(-5,L).
L = [-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0] ;
false.
?- create(5,L).
L = [5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0] ;
false.
The list is built reversed so you could reverse it at the end like:
create_list(N,L):- create(N,L1), reverse(L1, L).
And now:
?- create_list(5,L).
L = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] ;
false.
?- create_list(-5,L).
L = [0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5] ;
false.