Related
I'm trying to find a way to set the type of a variable before it has been bound to a value. Unfortunately, the integer/1 predicate cannot be used for this purpose:
%This goal fails if Int is an unbound variable.
get_first_int(Int,List) :-
integer(Int),member(Int,List),writeln(Int).
I wrote a predicate called is_int that attempts to check the type in advance, but it does not work as I expected. It allows the variable to be bound to an atom instead of an integer:
:- initialization(main).
%This prints 'a' instead of 1.
main :- get_first_int(Int,[a,b,c,1]),writeln(Int).
get_first_int(Int,List) :-
is_integer(Int),member(Int,List).
is_integer(A) :- integer(A);var(A).
Is it still possible to set the type of a variable that is not yet bound to a value?
In SWI-Prolog I have used when/2 for similar situations. I really don't know if it is a good idea, it definitely feels like a hack, but I guess it is good enough if you just want to say "this variable can only become X" where X is integer, or number, or atom and so on.
So:
will_be_integer(X) :- when(nonvar(X), integer(X)).
and then:
?- will_be_integer(X), member(X, [a,b,c,1]).
X = 1.
But I have the feeling that almost always you can figure out a less hacky way to achieve the same. For example, why not just write:
?- member(X, [a,b,c,1]), integer(X).
???
Specific constraints for integers
In addition to what Boris said, I have a recommendation for the particular case of integers: Consider using CLP(FD) constraints to express that a variable must be of type integer. To express only this quite general requirement, you can post a CLP(FD) constraint that necessarily holds for all integers.
For example:
?- X in inf..sup.
X in inf..sup.
From this point onwards, X can only be instantiated to an integer. Everything else will yield a type error.
For example:
?- X in inf..sup, X = 3.
X = 3.
?- X in inf..sup, X = a.
ERROR: Type error: `integer' expected, found `a' (an atom)
Declaratively, you can always replace a type error with silent failure, since no possible additional instantiation can make the program succeed if this error arises.
Thus, in case you prefer silent failure over this type error, you can obtain it with catch/3:
?- X in inf..sup, catch(X = a, error(type_error(integer,_),_), false).
false.
CLP(FD) constraints are tailor-made for integers, and let you express also further requirements for this specific domain in a convenient way.
Case-specific advice
Let us consider your specific example of get_first_int/2. First, let us rename it to list_first_integer/3 so that it is clear what each argument is, and also to indicate that we fully intend to use it in several directions, not just to "get", but also to test and ideally to generate lists and integers that are in this relation.
Second, note that this predicate is rather messy, since it impurely depends on the instantiation of the list and integer, a property which cannot be expressed in first-order logic but rather depends on something outside of this logic. If we accept this, then one quite straight-forward way to do what you primarily want is to write it as:
list_first_integer(Ls, I) :-
once((member(I0, Ls), integer(I0))),
I = I0.
This works as long as the list is sufficiently instantiated, which implicitly seems to be the case in your examples, but definitely need not be the case in general. For example, with fully instantiated lists, we get:
?- list_first_integer([a,b,c], I).
false.
?- list_first_integer([a,b,c,4], I).
I = 4.
?- list_first_integer([a,b,c,4], 3).
false.
In contrast, if the list is not sufficiently instantiated, then we have the following major problems:
?- list_first_integer(Ls, I).
nontermination
and further:
?- list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
false.
even though a more specific instantiation succeeds:
?- X = 0, list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
X = I, I = 0.
Core problem: Defaulty representation
The core problem is that you are reasoning here about defaulty terms: A list element that is still a variable may either be instantiated to an integer or to any other term in the future. A clean way out is to design your data representation to symbolically distinguish the possible cases. For example, let us use the wrapper i/1 to denote an integer, and o/1 to denote any other kind of term. With this representation, we can write:
list_first_integer([i(I)|_], I).
list_first_integer([o(_)|Ls], I) :-
list_first_integer(Ls, I).
Now, we get correct results:
?- list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
X = i(I) ;
X = o(_12702),
Y = i(I) ;
X = o(_12702),
Y = o(_12706),
Z = i(I) ;
false.
?- X = i(0), list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
X = i(0),
I = 0 ;
false.
And the other examples also still work, if we only use the clean data representation:
?- list_first_integer([o(a),o(b),o(c)], I).
false.
?- list_first_integer([o(a),o(b),o(c),i(4)], I).
I = 4 ;
false.
?- list_first_integer([o(a),o(b),o(c),i(4)], 3).
false.
The most general query now allows us to generate solutions:
?- list_first_integer(Ls, I).
Ls = [i(I)|_16880] ;
Ls = [o(_16884), i(I)|_16890] ;
Ls = [o(_16884), o(_16894), i(I)|_16900] ;
Ls = [o(_16884), o(_16894), o(_16904), i(I)|_16910] ;
etc.
The price you have to pay for this generality lies in these symbolic wrappers. As you seem to care about correctness and also about generality of your code, I consider this a bargain in comparison to more error prone defaulty approaches.
Synthesis
Note that CLP(FD) constraints can be naturally used together with a clean representation. For example, to benefit from more finely grained type errors as explained above, you can write:
list_first_integer([i(I)|_], I) :- I in inf..sup.
list_first_integer([o(_)|Ls], I) :-
list_first_integer(Ls, I).
Now, you get:
?- list_first_integer([i(a)], I).
ERROR: Type error: `integer' expected, found `a' (an atom)
Initially, you may be faced with a defaulty representation. In my experience, a good approach is to convert it to a clean representation as soon as you can, for the sake of the remainder of your program in which you can then distinguish all cases symbolically in such a way that no ambiguity remains.
Boolo's curious inference has been originally formulated with equations here. It is a recursive definition of a function f and a predicate d via the syntax of N+, the natural numbers without zero, generated from 1 and s(.).
But it can also be formulated with Horn Clauses. The logical content is not exactly the same, the predicate f captures only the positive aspect of the function, but the problem type is the same. Take the following Prolog program:
f(_, 1, s(1)).
f(1, s(X), s(s(Y))) :- f(1, X, Y).
f(s(X), s(Y), T) :- f(s(X), Y, Z), f(X, Z, T).
d(1).
d(s(X)) :- d(X).
Whats the theoretical logical outcome of the last query, and can you demonstrably have a computer program in our time and space that produces the outcome, i.e. post the program on gist and everybody can run it?
?- f(X,X,Y).
X = 1,
Y = s(1)
X = s(1),
Y = s(s(s(1)))
X = s(s(1)),
Y = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...))))))))))
ERROR: Out of global stack
?- f(s(s(s(s(1)))), s(s(s(s(1)))), X), d(X).
If the program that does the job of certifying the result is not a Prolog interpreter itself like here, what would do the job especially suited for this Prologish problem formulation?
One solution: Abstract interpretation
Preliminaries
In this answer, I use an interpreter to show that this holds. However, it is not a Prolog interpreter, because it does not interpret the program in exactly the same way Prolog interprets the program.
Instead, it interprets the program in a more abstract way. Such interpreters are therefore called abstract interpreters.
Program representation
Critically, I work directly with the source program, using only modifications that we, by purely algebraic reasoning, know can be safely applied. It helps tremendously for such reasoning that your source program is completely pure by construction, since it only uses pure predicates.
To simplify reasoning about the program, I now make all unifications explicit. It is easy to see that this does not change the meaning of the program, and can be easily automated. I obtain:
f(_, X, Y) :-
X = 1,
Y = s(1).
f(Arg, X, Y) :-
Arg = 1,
X = s(X0),
Y = s(s(Y0)),
f(Arg, X0, Y0).
f(X, Y, T) :-
X = s(X0),
Y = s(Y0),
f(X, Y0, Z),
f(X0, Z, T).
I leave it as an easy exercise to show that this is declaratively equivalent to the original program.
The abstraction
The abstraction I use is the following: Instead of reasoning over the concrete terms 1, s(1), s(s(1)) etc., I use the atom d for each term T for which I can prove that d(T) holds.
Let me show you what I mean by the following interpretation of unification:
interpret(d = N) :- d(N).
This says:
If d(N) holds, then N is to be regarded identical to the atom d, which, as we said, shall denote any term for which d/1 holds.
Note that this differs significantly from what an actual unification between concrete terms d and N means! For example, we obtain:
?- interpret(X = s(s(1))).
X = d.
Pretty strange, but I hope you can get used to it.
Extending the abstraction
Of course, interpreting a single unification is not enough to reason about this program, since it also contains additional language elements.
I therefore extend the abstract interpretation to:
conjunction
calls of f/3.
Interpreting conjunctions is easy, but what about f/3?
Incremental derivations
If, during abstract interpretation, we encounter the goal f(X, Y, Z), then we know the following: In principle, the arguments can of course be unified with any terms for which the goal succeeds. So we keep track of those arguments for which we know the query can succeed in principle.
We thus equip the predicate with an additional argument: A list of f/3 goals that are logical consequences of the program.
In addition, we implement the following very important provision: If we encounter a unification that cannot be safely interpreted in abstract terms, then we throw an error instead of failing silently. This may for example happen if the unification would fail when regarded as an abstract interpretation although it would succeed as a concrete unification, or if we cannot fully determine whether the arguments are of the intended domain. The primary purpose of this provision is to avoid unintentional elimination of actual solutions due to oversights in the abstract interpreter. This is the most critical aspect in the interpreter, and any proof-theoretic mechanism will face closely related questions (how can we ensure that no proofs are missed?).
Here it is:
interpret(Var = N, _) :-
must_be(var, Var),
must_be(ground, N),
d(N),
Var = d.
interpret((A,B), Ds) :-
interpret(A, Ds),
interpret(B, Ds).
interpret(f(A, B, C), Ds) :-
member(f(A, B, C), Ds).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How can we tell whether this is actually correct? That's the tough part! In fact, it turns out that the above is not sufficient to be certain to catch all cases, because it may simply fail if d(N) does not hold. It is obviously not acceptable for the abstract interpreter to fail silently for cases it cannot handle. So we need at least one more clause:
interpret(Var = N, _) :-
must_be(var, Var),
must_be(ground, N),
\+ d(N),
domain_error(d, N).
In fact, an abstract interpreter becomes a lot less error-prone when we reason about ground terms, and so I will use the atom any to represent "any term at all" in derived answers.
Over this domain, the interpretation of unification becomes:
interpret(Var = N, _) :-
must_be(ground, N),
( var(Var) ->
( d(N) -> Var = d
; N = s(d) -> Var = d
; N = s(s(d)) -> Var = d
; domain_error(d, N)
)
; Var == any -> true
; domain_error(any, Var)
).
In addition, I have implemented further cases of the unification over this abstract domain. I leave it as an exercise to ponder whether this correctly models the intended semantics, and to implement further cases.
As it will turn out, this definition suffices to answer the posted question. However, it clearly leaves a lot to be desired: It is more complex than we would like, and it becomes increasingly harder to tell whether we have covered all cases. Note though that any proof-theoretic approach will face closely corresponding issues: The more complex and powerful it becomes, the harder it is to tell whether it is still correct.
All derivations: See you at the fixpoint!
It now remains to deduce everything that follows from the original program.
Here it is, a simple fixpoint computation:
derivables(Ds) :-
functor(Head, f, 3),
findall(Head-Body, clause(Head, Body), Clauses),
derivables_fixpoint(Clauses, [], Ds).
derivables_fixpoint(Clauses, Ds0, Ds) :-
findall(D, clauses_derivable(Clauses, Ds0, D), Ds1, Ds0),
term_variables(Ds1, Vs),
maplist(=(any), Vs),
sort(Ds1, Ds2),
( same_length(Ds2, Ds0) -> Ds = Ds0
; derivables_fixpoint(Clauses, Ds2, Ds)
).
clauses_derivable(Clauses, Ds0, Head) :-
member(Head-Body, Clauses),
interpret(Body, Ds0).
Since we are deriving ground terms, sort/2 removes duplicates.
Example query:
?- derivables(Ds).
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Somewhat anticlimactically, the abstract interpreter is unable to process this program!
Commutativity to the rescue
In a proof-theoretic approach, we search for, well, proofs. In an interpreter-based approach, we can either improve the interpreter or apply algebraic laws to transform the source program in a way that preserves essential properties.
In this case, I will do the latter, and leave the former as an exercise. Instead of searching for proofs, we are searching for equivalent ways to write the program so that our interpreter can derive the desired properties. For example, I now use commutativity of conjunction to obtain:
f(_, X, Y) :-
X = 1,
Y = s(1).
f(Arg, X, Y) :-
Arg = 1,
f(Arg, X0, Y0),
X = s(X0),
Y = s(s(Y0)).
f(X, Y, T) :-
f(X, Y0, Z),
f(X0, Z, T),
X = s(X0),
Y = s(Y0).
Again, I leave it as an exercise to carefully check that this program is declaratively equivalent to your original program.
iamque opus exegi, because:
?- derivables(Ds).
Ds = [f(any, d, d)].
This shows that in each solution of f/3, the last two arguments are always terms for which d/1 holds! In particular, it also holds for the sample arguments you posted, even if there is no hope to ever actually compute the concrete terms!
Conclusion
By abstract interpretation, we have shown:
for all X where f(_, _, X) holds, d(X) also holds
beyond that, for all Y where f(_, Y, _) holds, d(Y) also holds.
The question only asked for a special case of the first property. We have shown significantly more!
In summary:
If f(_, Y, X) holds, then d(X) holds and d(Y) holds.
Prolog makes it comparatively easy and convenient to reason about Prolog programs. This often allows us to derive interesting properties of Prolog programs, such as termination properties and type information.
Please see Reasoning about programs for references and more explanation.
+1 for a great question and reference.
This is a question provoked by an already deleted answer to this question. The issue could be summarized as follows:
Is it possible to fold over a list, with the tail of the list generated while folding?
Here is what I mean. Say I want to calculate the factorial (this is a silly example but it is just for demonstration), and decide to do it like this:
fac_a(N, F) :-
must_be(nonneg, N),
( N =< 1
-> F = 1
; numlist(2, N, [H|T]),
foldl(multiplication, T, H, F)
).
multiplication(X, Y, Z) :-
Z is Y * X.
Here, I need to generate the list that I give to foldl. However, I could do the same in constant memory (without generating the list and without using foldl):
fac_b(N, F) :-
must_be(nonneg, N),
( N =< 1
-> F = 1
; fac_b_1(2, N, 2, F)
).
fac_b_1(X, N, Acc, F) :-
( X < N
-> succ(X, X1),
Acc1 is X1 * Acc,
fac_b_1(X1, N, Acc1, F)
; Acc = F
).
The point here is that unlike the solution that uses foldl, this uses constant memory: no need for generating a list with all values!
Calculating a factorial is not the best example, but it is easier to follow for the stupidity that comes next.
Let's say that I am really afraid of loops (and recursion), and insist on calculating the factorial using a fold. I still would need a list, though. So here is what I might try:
fac_c(N, F) :-
must_be(nonneg, N),
( N =< 1
-> F = 1
; foldl(fac_foldl(N), [2|Back], 2-Back, F-[])
).
fac_foldl(N, X, Acc-Back, F-Rest) :-
( X < N
-> succ(X, X1),
F is Acc * X1,
Back = [X1|Rest]
; Acc = F,
Back = []
).
To my surprise, this works as intended. I can "seed" the fold with an initial value at the head of a partial list, and keep on adding the next element as I consume the current head. The definition of fac_foldl/4 is almost identical to the definition of fac_b_1/4 above: the only difference is that the state is maintained differently. My assumption here is that this should use constant memory: is that assumption wrong?
I know this is silly, but it could however be useful for folding over a list that cannot be known when the fold starts. In the original question we had to find a connected region, given a list of x-y coordinates. It is not enough to fold over the list of x-y coordinates once (you can however do it in two passes; note that there is at least one better way to do it, referenced in the same Wikipedia article, but this also uses multiple passes; altogether, the multiple-pass algorithms assume constant-time access to neighboring pixels!).
My own solution to the original "regions" question looks something like this:
set_region_rest([A|As], Region, Rest) :-
sort([A|As], [B|Bs]),
open_set_closed_rest([B], Bs, Region0, Rest),
sort(Region0, Region).
open_set_closed_rest([], Rest, [], Rest).
open_set_closed_rest([X-Y|As], Set, [X-Y|Closed0], Rest) :-
X0 is X-1, X1 is X + 1,
Y0 is Y-1, Y1 is Y + 1,
ord_intersection([X0-Y,X-Y0,X-Y1,X1-Y], Set, New, Set0),
append(New, As, Open),
open_set_closed_rest(Open, Set0, Closed0, Rest).
Using the same "technique" as above, we can twist this into a fold:
set_region_rest_foldl([A|As], Region, Rest) :-
sort([A|As], [B|Bs]),
foldl(region_foldl, [B|Back],
closed_rest(Region0, Bs)-Back,
closed_rest([], Rest)-[]),
!,
sort(Region0, Region).
region_foldl(X-Y,
closed_rest([X-Y|Closed0], Set)-Back,
closed_rest(Closed0, Set0)-Back0) :-
X0 is X-1, X1 is X + 1,
Y0 is Y-1, Y1 is Y + 1,
ord_intersection([X0-Y,X-Y0,X-Y1,X1-Y], Set, New, Set0),
append(New, Back0, Back).
This also "works". The fold leaves behind a choice point, because I haven't articulated the end condition as in fac_foldl/4 above, so I need a cut right after it (ugly).
The Questions
Is there a clean way of closing the list and removing the cut? In the factorial example, we know when to stop because we have additional information; however, in the second example, how do we notice that the back of the list should be the empty list?
Is there a hidden problem I am missing?
This looks like its somehow similar to the Implicit State with DCGs, but I have to admit I never quite got how that works; are these connected?
You are touching on several extremely interesting aspects of Prolog, each well worth several separate questions on its own. I will provide a high-level answer to your actual questions, and hope that you post follow-up questions on the points that are most interesting to you.
First, I will trim down the fragment to its essence:
essence(N) :-
foldl(essence_(N), [2|Back], Back, _).
essence_(N, X0, Back, Rest) :-
( X0 #< N ->
X1 #= X0 + 1,
Back = [X1|Rest]
; Back = []
).
Note that this prevents the creation of extremely large integers, so that we can really study the memory behaviour of this pattern.
To your first question: Yes, this runs in O(1) space (assuming constant space for arising integers).
Why? Because although you continuously create lists in Back = [X1|Rest], these lists can all be readily garbage collected because you are not referencing them anywhere.
To test memory aspects of your program, consider for example the following query, and limit the global stack of your Prolog system so that you can quickly detect growing memory by running out of (global) stack:
?- length(_, E),
N #= 2^E,
portray_clause(N),
essence(N),
false.
This yields:
1.
2.
...
8388608.
16777216.
etc.
It would be completely different if you referenced the list somewhere. For example:
essence(N) :-
foldl(essence_(N), [2|Back], Back, _),
Back = [].
With this very small change, the above query yields:
?- length(_, E),
N #= 2^E,
portray_clause(N),
essence(N),
false.
1.
2.
...
1048576.
ERROR: Out of global stack
Thus, whether a term is referenced somewhere can significantly influence the memory requirements of your program. This sounds quite frightening, but really is hardly an issue in practice: You either need the term, in which case you need to represent it in memory anyway, or you don't need the term, in which case it is simply no longer referenced in your program and becomes amenable to garbage collection. In fact, the amazing thing is rather that GC works so well in Prolog also for quite complex programs that not much needs to be said about it in many situations.
On to your second question: Clearly, using (->)/2 is almost always highly problematic in that it limits you to a particular direction of use, destroying the generality we expect from logical relations.
There are several solutions for this. If your CLP(FD) system supports zcompare/3 or a similar feature, you can write essence_/3 as follows:
essence_(N, X0, Back, Rest) :-
zcompare(C, X0, N),
closing(C, X0, Back, Rest).
closing(<, X0, [X1|Rest], Rest) :- X1 #= X0 + 1.
closing(=, _, [], _).
Another very nice meta-predicate called if_/3 was recently introduced in Indexing dif/2 by Ulrich Neumerkel and Stefan Kral. I leave implementing this with if_/3 as a very worthwhile and instructive exercise. Discussing this is well worth its own question!
On to the third question: How do states with DCGs relate to this? DCG notation is definitely useful if you want to pass around a global state to several predicates, where only a few of them need to access or modify the state, and most of them simply pass the state through. This is completely analogous to monads in Haskell.
The "normal" Prolog solution would be to extend each predicate with 2 arguments to describe the relation between the state before the call of the predicate, and the state after it. DCG notation lets you avoid this hassle.
Importantly, using DCG notation, you can copy imperative algorithms almost verbatim to Prolog, without the hassle of introducing many auxiliary arguments, even if you need global states. As an example for this, consider a fragment of Tarjan's strongly connected components algorithm in imperative terms:
function strongconnect(v)
// Set the depth index for v to the smallest unused index
v.index := index
v.lowlink := index
index := index + 1
S.push(v)
This clearly makes use of a global stack and index, which ordinarily would become new arguments that you need to pass around in all your predicates. Not so with DCG notation! For the moment, assume that the global entities are simply easily accessible, and so you can code the whole fragment in Prolog as:
scc_(V) -->
vindex_is_index(V),
vlowlink_is_index(V),
index_plus_one,
s_push(V),
This is a very good candidate for its own question, so consider this a teaser.
At last, I have a general remark: In my view, we are only at the beginning of finding a series of very powerful and general meta-predicates, and the solution space is still largely unexplored. call/N, maplist/[3,4], foldl/4 and other meta-predicates are definitely a good start. if_/3 has the potential to combine good performance with the generality we expect from Prolog predicates.
If your Prolog implementation supports freeze/2 or similar predicate (e.g. Swi-Prolog), then you can use following approach:
fac_list(L, N, Max) :-
(N >= Max, L = [Max], !)
;
freeze(L, (
L = [N|Rest],
N2 is N + 1,
fac_list(Rest, N2, Max)
)).
multiplication(X, Y, Z) :-
Z is Y * X.
factorial(N, Factorial) :-
fac_list(L, 1, N),
foldl(multiplication, L, 1, Factorial).
Example above first defines a predicate (fac_list) which creates a "lazy" list of increasing integer values starting from N up to maximum value (Max), where next list element is generated only after previous one was "accessed" (more on that below). Then, factorial just folds multiplication over lazy list, resulting in constant memory usage.
The key to understanding how this example works is remembering that Prolog lists are, in fact, just terms of arity 2 with name '.' (actually, in Swi-Prolog 7 the name was changed, but this is not important for this discussion), where first element represents list item and the second element represents tail (or terminating element - empty list, []). For example. [1, 2, 3] can be represented as:
.(1, .(2, .(3, [])))
Then, freeze is defined as follows:
freeze(+Var, :Goal)
Delay the execution of Goal until Var is bound
This means if we call:
freeze(L, L=[1|Tail]), L = [A|Rest].
then following steps will happen:
freeze(L, L=[1|Tail]) is called
Prolog "remembers" that when L will be unified with "anything", it needs to call L=[1|Tail]
L = [A|Rest] is called
Prolog unifies L with .(A, Rest)
This unification triggers execution of L=[1|Tail]
This, obviously, unifies L, which at this point is bound to .(A, Rest), with .(1, Tail)
As a result, A gets unified with 1.
We can extend this example as follows:
freeze(L1, L1=[1|L2]),
freeze(L2, L2=[2|L3]),
freeze(L3, L3=[3]),
L1 = [A|R2], % L1=[1|L2] is called at this point
R2 = [B|R3], % L2=[2|L3] is called at this point
R3 = [C]. % L3=[3] is called at this point
This works exactly like the previous example, except that it gradually generates 3 elements, instead of 1.
As per Boris's request, the second example implemented using freeze. Honestly, I'm not quite sure whether this answers the question, as the code (and, IMO, the problem) is rather contrived, but here it is. At least I hope this will give other people the idea what freeze might be useful for. For simplicity, I am using 1D problem instead of 2D, but changing the code to use 2 coordinates should be rather trivial.
The general idea is to have (1) function that generates new Open/Closed/Rest/etc. state based on previous one, (2) "infinite" list generator which can be told to "stop" generating new elements from the "outside", and (3) fold_step function which folds over "infinite" list, generating new state on each list item and, if that state is considered to be the last one, tells generator to halt.
It is worth to note that list's elements are used for no other reason but to inform generator to stop. All calculation state is stored inside accumulator.
Boris, please clarify whether this gives a solution to your problem. More precisely, what kind of data you were trying to pass to fold step handler (Item, Accumulator, Next Accumulator)?
adjacent(X, Y) :-
succ(X, Y) ;
succ(Y, X).
state_seq(State, L) :-
(State == halt -> L = [], !)
;
freeze(L, (
L = [H|T],
freeze(H, state_seq(H, T))
)).
fold_step(Item, Acc, NewAcc) :-
next_state(Acc, NewAcc),
NewAcc = _:_:_:NewRest,
(var(NewRest) ->
Item = next ;
Item = halt
).
next_state(Open:Set:Region:_Rest, NewOpen:NewSet:NewRegion:NewRest) :-
Open = [],
NewOpen = Open,
NewSet = Set,
NewRegion = Region,
NewRest = Set.
next_state(Open:Set:Region:Rest, NewOpen:NewSet:NewRegion:NewRest) :-
Open = [H|T],
partition(adjacent(H), Set, Adjacent, NotAdjacent),
append(Adjacent, T, NewOpen),
NewSet = NotAdjacent,
NewRegion = [H|Region],
NewRest = Rest.
set_region_rest(Ns, Region, Rest) :-
Ns = [H|T],
state_seq(next, L),
foldl(fold_step, L, [H]:T:[]:_, _:_:Region:Rest).
One fine improvement to the code above would be making fold_step a higher order function, passing it next_state as the first argument.
I have a manually made DCG rule to select idiomatic phrases
over single words. The DCG rule reads as follows:
seq(cons(X,Y), I, O) :- noun(X, I, H), seq(Y, H, O), \+ noun(_, I, O).
seq(X) --> noun(X).
The first clause is manually made, since (:-)/2 is used instead
of (-->)/2. Can I replace this manually made clause by
some clause that uses standard DCG?
Best Regards
P.S.: Here is some test data:
noun(n1) --> ['trojan'].
noun(n2) --> ['horse'].
noun(n3) --> ['trojan', 'horse'].
noun(n4) --> ['war'].
And here are some test cases, the important test case is the first test case, since it does only
deliver n3 and not cons(n1,n2). The behaviour of the first test case is what is especially desired:
?- phrase(seq(X),['trojan','horse']).
X = n3 ;
No
?- phrase(seq(X),['war','horse']).
X = cons(n4,n2) ;
No
?- phrase(seq(X),['trojan','war']).
X = cons(n1,n4) ;
No
(To avoid collisions with other non-terminals I renamed your seq//1 to nounseq//1)
Can I replace this manually made clause by some clause that uses standard DCG?
No, because it is not steadfast and it is STO (details below).
Intended meaning
But let me start with the intended meaning of your program. You say you want to select idiomatic phrases over single words. Is your program really doing this? Or, to put it differently, is your definition really unique? I could now construct a counterexample, but let Prolog do the thinking:
nouns --> [] | noun(_), nouns.
?- length(Ph, N), phrase(nouns,Ph),
dif(X,Y), phrase(nounseq(X),Ph), phrase(nounseq(Y),Ph).
Ph = [trojan,horse,trojan], N = 3, X = cons(n1,cons(n2,n1)), Y = cons(n3,n1)
; ...
; Ph = [trojan,horse,war], N = 3, X = cons(n3,n4), Y = cons(n1,cons(n2,n4))
; ... .
So your definition is ambiguous. What you essentially want (probably) is some kind of rewrite system. But those are rarely defined in a determinate manner. What, if two words overlap like an additional noun(n5) --> [horse, war]. etc.
Conformance
A disclaimer up-front: Currently, the DCG document is still being developed — and comments are very welcome! You find all material in this place. So strictly speaking, there is at the current point in time no notion of conformance for DCG.
Steadfastness
One central property a conforming definition must maintain is the property of steadfastness. So before looking into your definition, I will compare two goals of phrase/3 (running SWI in default mode).
?- Ph = [], phrase(nounseq(cons(n4,n4)),Ph0,Ph).
Ph = [], Ph0 = [war,war]
; false.
?- phrase(nounseq(cons(n4,n4)),Ph0,Ph), Ph = [].
false.
?- phrase(nounseq(cons(n4,n4)),Ph0,Ph).
false.
Moving the goal Ph = [] at the end, removes the only solution. Therefore, your definition is not steadfast. This is due to the way how you handle (\+)/1: The variable O must not occur within the (\+)/1. But on the other hand, if it does not occur within (\+)/1 you can only inspect the beginning of a sentence. And not the entire sentence.
Subject to occurs-check property
But the situation is worse:
?- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check,error).
true.
?- phrase(nounseq(cons(n4,n4)),Ph0,Ph).
ERROR: noun/3: Cannot unify _G968 with [war|_G968]: would create an infinite tree
So your program relies on STO-unifications (subject-to-occurs-check unifications) whose outcome is explicitly undefined in
ISO/IEC 13211-1 Subclause 7.3.3 Subject to occurs-check (STO) and not subject to occurs-check (NSTO)
This is rather due to your intention to define the intersection of two non-terminals. Consider the following way to express it:
:- op( 950, xfx, //\\). % ASCII approximation for ∩ - 2229;INTERSECTION
(NT1 //\\ NT2) -->
call(Xs0^Xs^(phrase(NT1,Xs0,Xs),phrase(NT2,Xs0,Xs))).
% The following is predefined in library(lambda):
^(V0, Goal, V0, V) :-
call(Goal,V).
^(V, Goal, V) :-
call(Goal).
Already with this definition we can get into STO situations:
?- phrase(([a]//\\[a,b]), Ph0,Ph).
ERROR: =/2: Cannot unify _G3449 with [b|_G3449]: would create an infinite tree
In fact, when using rational trees we get:
?- set_prolog_flag(occurs_check,false).
true.
?- phrase(([a]//\\[a,b]), Ph0,Ph).
Ph0 = [a|_S1], % where
_S1 = [b|_S1],
Ph = [b|_S1].
So there is an infinite list which certainly has not much meaning for natural language sentences (except for persons of infinite resource and capacity...).
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...