I'm trying to learn prologue, but man am I having trouble.
I have an example below as well as what it outputs, and I'm clearly stuck on some concepts but not sure what.
output([]).
output([c|R]):- output(R), !, nl.
output([X|R]) :- output(R), write(X).
?- output([a,b,c,d,e]).
Answer:
ed
ba
true.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what I understand so far...
When we call output([a,b,c,d,e]).
prologue looks for a solution using unification,
it tries output([]) and fails, so it proceeds to the second output([c|R]) which then passes the tail of the list recursively into output([c|R]) until it hits the base case of output([]).
Now I get confused...It then hits the cut which locks R to [] and c with a value of e? how does the output afterwards happens? I'm really confused.
I think you're having a fundamental misunderstanding of what Prolog is doing and what unification is about. In Prolog when you make a query such as output([a,b,c,d,e]). Prolog will start from the beginning of your asserted facts and predicates and attempt to unify this term (your query) with a fact or the head of a predicate.
Unification
We need to stop here for a moment and understand what unification is. In Prolog, the operator =/2 is the unification operator and can be used to query the unification of two terms, term1 = term2. This query will succeed if term and term2 can be successfully unified. How can they be successfully unified? This can happen if there is a binding of variables in term1 and term2 such that the terms become, essentially, identical (by "essentially" I mean they might differ only in syntactic representation but are truly identical when in canonical form - see details below on what that is).
Here are examples of unification attempts that fail. You can enter these at a Prolog prompt and it will show immediate failure.
a = e. % This fails because the atom `a` is different than the atom `e1`
% There are no variables here that can change this fact
foo(X) = bar(Y)
% This fails because the functor `foo` is different than
% the functor `bar`. There's no way to get these terms to match
% regardless of how the variables `X` or `Y` might be instantiated
foo(a, Y) = foo(b, Y)
% This fails because no matter how the variable `Y` is instantiated
% the 1st argument of `foo` just cannot match. That is, the atom
% `a` doesn't match the atom `b`.
foo(a, b, X) = foo(a, b)
% This fails because the `foo/3` and `foo/2` have a different
% number of arguments. No instantiation of the variable `X` can
% change that fact
[1,2] = [1,2,3] % Fails because a list of 2 elements cannot match a list of 3 elements
[] = [_|_] % Fails because the empty list cannot match a list of at
% least one element.
[a,b,c] = [x|T] % Fails, regardless of how `T` might be bound, because `[a,b,c]`
% is a list whose first element is `a`
% and `[x|T]` is a list whose first element is `x`. The
% atoms `a` and `x` do not and cannot match.
Here are examples of successful unifications. You can test these as well at a Prolog prompt and you should get success or, if variables are involved, get at least one solution showing binding of variables that causes it to succeed:
a = a. % Trivial case: an atom successfully unifies with itself
X = a. % Succeeds with `X` bound to `a`
foo(X) = foo(a). % Succeeds with `X` bound to `a`
[a,b,c] = [a|T] % Succeeds with `T` bound to `[b,c]` because the first element
% `a` is the same in both cases.
[1,2,3] = [H|T] % Succeeds with `H` bound to 1, and `T` bound to `[2,3]`
% since `[1,2,3]` is equivalent to `[1|[2,3]]` (they are two
% different syntaxes representing the same term)
Just an aside: Prolog list syntax
We're writing lists using a form that's familiar from other languages. So [] is an empty list, and [1,2,3] is a list of the 3 elements 1, 2, and 3. You can also have lists inside of lists, or any terms in a list for that matter. This, for example, is a valid list of 3 elements: [a, [1,foo(a)], bar(x,Y,[])]. The first element is a, the second is a list of two elements, [1, foo(a)], and the third element is bar(x,Y,[]). In Prolog, you can also write a list in a form that describes the first of one or more elements and a tail. For example [H|T] is a list whose first element is H and the rest of the list is T (itself a list). A list of at least two elements could be written as [H|T] and you'd know that T has at least one element. Or you could write it as [H1,H2|T] and explicitly indicate the first two elements and understand that T would be a list of zero or more arguments. The first elements are individual elements of the list, and the tail is a list representing the rest of the list. The following forms all represent the list [a,b,c,d,e]:
[a,b,c,d,e]
[a|[b,c,d,e]]
[a,b|[c,d,e]]
[a,b,c|[d,e]]
[a,b,c,d|[e]]
[a,b,c,d,e|[]]
If you had a list, L, and wanted prolog to ensure that L had at least two arguments, you could unify L with an anonymous list of 2 elements: L = [_,_|_]. This will only succeed if L is a list of at least two elements.
Another aside: canonical form
Prolog, though, has what it calls a canonical form for terms which is its fundamental representation of a given term. You can see the canonical form of a term by calling write_canonical(Term):
| ?- write_canonical([a,b,c]).
'.'(a,'.'(b,'.'(c,[])))
yes
So that's interesting, what on earth is that? It doesn't look like a list at all! It's actually the canonical form in Prolog of what a list really looks like to Prolog (if you want to think of it that way). The fundamental term form in Prolog is a functor and zero or more arguments. The atom a is a term which could be viewed as a functor a with no arguments. The term foo(1,X) has functor foo and arguments 1 and X. The list [a,b,c] written that way is just a convenient syntax for programmers that make it easy to read. A list is actually formed by the functor '.' and two arguments: the head and the tail. So the list [H|T] in general is '.'(H,T) and the empty list [] is just itself, an atom representing the empty list. When Prolog unifies (or attempts to unify) two lists, it's really looking at a list as '.'(H, T) so it matches the '.' functor, then attempts to match arguments. In the case of multiple elements, it's a recursive match since T is itself a list.
Expressions in Prolog such as X + 3 are also a syntactic convenience for the canonical form, '+'(X, 3).
Back to our story
As we were saying, when you query output([a,b,c,d,e])., Prolog tries to unify this with heads of predicate clauses or facts that you have already asserted. Here's what you have asserted:
output([]).
output([c|R]):- output(R), !, nl.
output([X|R]) :- output(R), write(X).
Starting from the top, Prolog attempts this unification:
output([a,b,c,d,e]) = output([])
This fails since there are no variables to change the terms to make them match. It fails because the list [a,b,c,d,e] and the empty list [] cannot match.
On to the next clause:
output([a,b,c,d,e]) = output([c|R])
This can only succeed if the unification [a,b,c,d,e] = [c|R] can succeed with some binding of R. You can look at this as [a|[b,c,d,e,]] = [c|R]. Clearly, for this unification to succeed, the first element of each list must match. But a and c don't match, so this fails.
On to the next one:
output([a,b,c,d,e]) = output([X|R])
Prolog attempts then to unify [a,b,c,d,e] with [X|R], or [a|[b,c,d,e]] with [X|R]... and this succeeds since X and R are variables and they can be bound as X = a and R = [b,c,d,e]. Now the body of the clause can be executed:
output([b,c,d,e]), write(a).
Before we can get to the write(a), the call output([b,c,d,e]) must execute first and succeed. Following the same logic above, the the first and second clauses of the output/1 predicate do not match. But the 3rd clause matches again with [b,c,d,e] = [X|R] resulting in X = b and R = [c,d,e]. Now the body of this clause is executed again (and you must remember we're now one level deep in a recursive call... the above call to output([b,c,d,e]) is pending awaiting the result):
output([c,d,e]), write(b).
Now it gets more interesting. The first clause of output/1 still doesn't match since [c,d,e] = [] fails. But the second clause now does match since [c,d,e] = [c|R] succeeds with the binding R = [d,e]. So that body is executed:
output([d,e]), !, nl.
Now we need to chase down the call to output([d,e]) (we're now another level deep in recursion remember!). This one fails to match the first two clauses but matches the 3rd clause, by [d,e] = [X|R] with bindings X = d and R = [e].
I could keep going but I'm getting tired of typing and I do have a real job I work at and am running out of time. You should get the idea hear and start working through this logic yourself. The big hint moving forward is that when you finally get to output([]) in a recursive call an you match the first clause, you will start "unwinding" the recursive calls (which you need to keep track of if you're doing this by hand) and the write(X) calls will start to be executed as well as the !, nl portion of the second clause in the case where c was matched as the first element.
Have fun...
The main problem with your reasoning is that c is not a variable but an atom. It cannot be unified with any other value.
So with your example input, for the first 2 calls it will not execute output([c|R]) (since a nor b can be unified with c), but it goes on to output([X|R]) instead. Only for the third call, when the head is c, the former clause is called. After this it will call the latter clause another 2 times for d and e, and then it hits the base case.
From that point on we can easily see the output: if first writes 'e', then 'd', then a new line (for the time we matched c), ad then b and a. Finally you get true as output, indicating that the predicate call succeeded.
Also note that due to the cut we only get a single output. If the cut wasn't there, we would also get edcba, since the c case would also be able to match the last clause.
I want to append([],C,C) where C is a list containing some elements . Is it possible? I will append some list in C containing elements append (Found,C,C) if other condition is true.
And also i want to store final value in C to a variable D . How can I do that?
I want to append([],C,C) where C is a list containing some elements. Is it possible?
append([],C,C) is always true. An empty list combined with anything is that anything. Look what Prolog says when you attempt it:
?- append([],C,C).
true.
This true without any bindings tells you that Prolog established the proof but no new bindings were created as a result. This code would have the same result:
meaningless(_, _, _).
?- meaningless(everybody, X, Squant).
true.
This suggests your desire is misplaced. append([], C, C) does not do what you think it does.
I will append some list in C containing elements append (Found,C,C) if other condition is true. And also i want to store final value in C to a variable D. How can I do that?
Thinking in terms of "storing" and other operations implying mutable state is a sure sign that you are not understanding Prolog. In Prolog, you establish bindings (or assert facts into the dynamic store, which is a tar pit for beginners). Something similar could be achieved in a Prolog fashion by doing something like this:
frob(cat, List, Result) :- append([cat], List, Result).
frob(dog, List, List).
This predicate frob/3 has two in-parameters: an atom and a list. If the atom is cat then it will append [cat] to the beginning of the list. The threading you see going between the arguments in the head of the clause and their use in the body of the clause is how Prolog manages state. Basically, all state in Prolog is either in the call stack or in the dynamic store.
To give an example in Python, consider these two ways of implementing factorial:
def fac(n):
result = 1
while n > 1:
result = result * n
n = n - 1
This version has a variable, result, which is a kind of state. We mutate the state repeatedly in a loop to achieve the calculation. While the factorial function may be defined as fac(n) = n * fac(n-1), this implementation does not have fac(n-1) hiding in the code anywhere explicitly.
A recursive method would be:
def fac(n):
if n < 1:
return 1
else:
return n * fac(n-1)
There's no explicit state here, so how does the calculation work? The state is implicit, it's being carried on the stack. Procedural programmers tend to raise a skeptical eyebrow at recursion, but in Prolog, there is no such thing as an assignable so the first method cannot be used.
Back to frob/3, the condition is implicit on the first argument. The behavior is different in the body because in the first body, the third argument will be bound to the third argument of the append/3 call, which will unify with the list of the atom cat appended to the second argument List. In the second body, nothing special will happen and the third argument will be bound to the same value as the second argument. So if you were to call frob(Animal, List, Result), Result will be bound with cat at the front or not based on what Animal is.
Do not get mixed up and think that Prolog is just treating the last argument as a return value! If that were true, this would certainly not work like so:
?- frob(X, Y, [whale]).
X = dog,
Y = [whale].
What appears to have happened here is that Prolog could tell that because the list did not start with cat it was able to infer that X was dog. Good Prolog programmers aspire to maintain that illusion in their APIs, but all that really happened here is that Prolog entered the first rule, which expanded to append([cat], X, [whale]) and then unification failed because Prolog could not come up with an X which, having had [cat] prepended to it, would generate [whale]. As a result, it went to the second rule, which unifies X with dog and the second two arguments with each other. Hence Y = [whale].
I hope this helps!
Here is what I have and the error that I am getting sadly is
Error: This function has type 'a * 'a list -> 'a list
It is applied to too many arguments; maybe you forgot a `;'.
Why is that the case? I plan on passing two lists to the deleteDuplicates function, a sorted list, and an empty list, and expect the duplicates to be removed in the list r, which will be returned once the original list reaches [] condition.
will be back with updated code
let myfunc_caml_way arg0 arg1 = ...
rather than
let myfunc_java_way(arg0, arg1) = ...
Then you can call your function in this way:
myfunc_caml_way "10" 123
rather than
myfunc_java_way("10, 123)
I don't know how useful this might be, but here is some code that does what you want, written in a fairly standard OCaml style. Spend some time making sure you understand how and why it works. Maybe you should start with something simpler (eg how would you sum the elements of a list of integers ?). Actually, you should probably start with an OCaml tutorial, reading carefully and making sure you aunderstand the code examples.
let deleteDuplicates u =
(*
u : the sorted list
v : the result so far
last : the last element we read from u
*)
let rec aux u v last =
match u with
[] -> v
| x::xs when x = last -> aux xs v last
| x::xs -> aux u (x::v) x
in
(* the first element is a special case *)
match u with
[] -> []
| x::xs -> List.rev (aux xs [x] x)
This is not a direct answer to your question.
The standard way of defining an "n-ary" function is
let myfunc_caml_way arg0 arg1 = ...
rather than
let myfunc_java_way(arg0, arg1) = ...
Then you can call your function in this way:
myfunc_caml_way "10" 123
rather than
myfunc_java_way("10, 123)
See examples here:
https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/stdlib/complex.ml
By switching from myfunc_java_way to myfunc_caml_way, you will be benefited from what's called "Currying"
What is 'Currying'?
However please note that you sometimes need to enclose the whole invocation by parenthesis
myfunc_caml_way (otherfunc_caml_way "foo" "bar") 123
in order to tell the compiler not to interpret your code as
((myfunc_caml_way otherfunc_caml_way "foo") "bar" 123)
You seem to be thinking that OCaml uses tuples (a, b) to indicate arguments of function calls. This isn't the case. Whenever some expressions stand next to each other, that's a function call. The first expression is the function, and the rest of the expressions are the arguments to the function.
So, these two lines:
append(first,r)
deleteDuplicates(remaining, r)
Represent a function call with three arguments. The function is append. The first argument is (first ,r). The second argument is deleteDuplicates. The third argument is (remaining, r).
Since append has just one argument (a tuple), you're passing it too many arguments. This is what the compiler is telling you.
You also seem to be thinking that append(first, r) will change the value of r. This is not the case. Variables in OCaml are immutable. You can't do anything that will change the value of r.
Update
I think you have too many questions for SO to help you effectively at this point. You might try reading some OCaml tutorials. It will be much faster than asking a question here for every error you see :-)
Nonetheless, here's what "match failure" means. It means that somewhere you have a match that you're applying to an expression, but none of the patterns of the match matches the expression. Your deleteDuplicates code clearly has a pattern coverage error; i.e., it has a pattern that doesn't cover all cases. Your first match only works for empty lists or for lists of 2 or more elements. It doesn't work for lists of 1 element.
Can someone explain to me using substitutions how we get a number "zero" or the rest of natural numbers?
For example the value: "zero"
λf.λx.x
if I apply this expression on an another expression:
"(λf.(λx.x)) a"
then using substitution:
:=[a/f](λx.x)
:=(λx.x)
what am I missing? How should I interpret these number expressions?
The church numeral n is a function that takes another function f and returns a function that applies f to its argument n times. So 0 a (where 0 is, as you said, λf.λx.x
) returns λx.x because that applies a to x 0 times.
1 a gives you λx. a x, 2 a gives you λx. a (a x) and so on.
Below is the explanation based on paper by Erhan Bagdemir in the comment to answer by sepp2k.
Essential points to grasp:
all Church numerals are functions of two parameters;
for Church numerals, it is implied that:
f — is the 'successor' function (i.e. function which accepts a Church numeral and return church numeral next one, it's basically and increment);
x — is a (Church numeral) value representing 'zero' (the count starting point).
Keeping that in mind:
λf . λx . x
will be equal to zero, if we will pass the appropriate f (in this particular case it doesn't matter what function will be passed as f, since it never applied) and x:
λf . λx . ZERO
following:
λf . λx . fx
will be evaluated to 1:
λf . λx . INCREMENT ZERO
and this:
λf . λx . f f x
will be qual to 2:
λf . λx . INCREMENT(INCREMENT ZERO)
and so on, for all the successive numbers.
See my (broader) answer to another (but closely related) question.
A church numeral n, (say 2,) represents the "action" of applying any given function n times (here,two times) on any given parameter.
A church numeral, by definition, is a function that takes two parameters, namely
1) a function
2) a parameter or expression or value on which the supplied function is applied.
When the supplied function is the successor function, and the supplied second parameter is Zero , you get the numeral. (2, in the above example)
Church numeral 2 is by definition,
λf . λx . f( f( x))
,Which is obviously a function that takes two parameters.
On passing the successor function, i.e f(x)=x+1 as first parameter and zero as second parameter to the function, we get...
f(f(0))
=f(1)
=2
This explanation is kinda simplified as definition of successor function and zero aren't as shown, in lambda calculus..
Refer :http://www.cse.unt.edu/~tarau/teaching/GPL/docs/Church%20encoding.pdf
An excellent explanation on church encodings
Hi I'm a Haskell beginner and I'm really lost.
This is for my assignment, and it asks me to do something like below using higer order function
Main> mySort (<) [1,5,3,6,4,1,3,3,2]
[1,1,2,3,3,3,4,5,6]
Main> mySort (>) [1,5,3,6,4,1,3,3,2]
[6,5,4,3,3,3,2,1,1]
Main> mySort longerWord [“Hello”, “The”, “a”, “Daniel”, “Declarative”]
[“Declarative”, “Daniel”, “Hello”, “The”, “a”]
First of all, I thought I should make a function that distinguish whether it's < , > or longerWord
checkConditionStr::String->Int
checkConditionStr str
|str=="(<)" =1
|str=="(>)" =2
|str=="longerWord" =3
but the example doesn't have quotation mark (i.e. mysort (<) not my sort"(<)" so here is my first problem. I worte this function but it's not compiling. otherwise is for longerWord
checkCondition::Ordering->Int
checkCondition ord
|ord==(<) =1
|ord==(>) =2
|otherwise =2
secondly I still have difficulty understanding higher order function. would this make sense?
mySort::(String->Int)->[a]->[a]
mySort i list
|i==1 map (sortBy compare) list
|i==2 map (sortBy(flip compare)) list
You're not supposed to match against those functions specifically. It defeats the purpose of using a higher-order function in the first place. In fact, you can't write it like this, since there is no general way of comparing functions.
Instead, use the passed function directly for the sorting. That way, it will work for any suitable comparison function, not just the ones you've explicitly written code for.
For example, imagine the task was to combine two values using a passed operator:
combine (+) 2 3 = 5
combine (*) 3 5 = 15
combine max 10 100 = 100
You would solve it like this:
combine op x y = x `op` y
Can you use a similar approach to solving the sorting problem?
Hint: You may want to define a helper function to transform the passed comparison function into a form suitable for sortBy:
compareUsing :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> (a -> a -> Ordering)
compareUsing op x y = ...