Related
I have two, slightly different, implementations of a predicate, unique_element/2, in Prolog. The predicate succeeds when given an element X and a list L, the element X appears only once in the list. Below are the implementations and the results:
Implementation 1:
%%% unique_element/2
unique_element(Elem, [Elem|T]) :-
not(member(Elem, T)).
unique_element(Elem, [H|T]) :-
member(Elem, T),
H\==Elem,
unique_element(Elem, T),
!.
Results:
?- unique_element(X, [a, a, b, c, c, b]).
false.
?- unique_element(X, [a, b, c, c, b, d]).
X = a ;
X = d.
Implementation 2:
%%% unique_element/2
unique_element(Elem, [Elem|T]) :-
not(member(Elem, T)).
unique_element(Elem, [H|T]) :-
H\==Elem,
member(Elem, T),
unique_element(Elem, T),
!.
In case you didn't notice at first sight: H\==Elem and member(Elem, T) are flipped on the 2nd impl, rule 2.
Results:
?- unique_element(X, [a, a, b, c, c, b]).
X = a.
?- unique_element(X, [a, b, c, c, b, d]).
X = a ;
X = d.
Question: How does the order, in this case, affect the result? I realize that the order of the rules/facts/etc matters. The two specific rules that are flipped though, don't seem to be "connected" or affect each other somehow (e.g. a cut in the wrong place/order).
Note: We are talking about SWI-Prolog here.
Note 2: I am aware of, probably different and better implementations. My question here is about the order of sub-goals being changed.
H\==Elem is testing for syntactic inequality at the point in time when the goal is executed. But later unification might make variables identical:
?- H\==Elem, H = Elem.
H = Elem.
?- H\==Elem, H = Elem, H\==Elem.
false.
So here we test if they are (syntactically) different, and then they are unified nevertheless and thus are no longer different. It is thus just a temporary test.
The goal member(Elem, T) on the other hand is true if that Elem is actually an element of T. Consider:
?- member(Elem, [X]).
Elem = X.
Which can be read as
(When) does it hold that Elem is an element of the list [X]?
and the answer is
It holds under certain circumstances, namely when Elem = X.
If you now mix those different kinds of goals in your programs you get odd results that can only explained by inspecting your program in detail.
As a beginner, it is best to stick to the pure parts of Prolog only. In your case:
use dif/2 in place of \==
do not use cuts - in your case it limits the number of answers to two. As in
unique_element(X, [a,b,c])
do not use not/1 nor (\+)/1. It produces even more incorrectness. Consider unique_element(a,[a,X]),X=b. which incorrectly fails while X=b,unique_element(a,[a,X]) correctly succeeds.
Here is a directly purified version of your program. There is still room for improvement!
non_member(_X, []).
non_member(X, [E|Es]) :-
dif(X, E),
non_member(X, Es).
unique_element(Elem, [Elem|T]) :-
non_member(Elem, T).
unique_element(Elem, [H|T]) :-
dif(H,Elem),
% member(Elem, T), % makes unique_element(a,[b,a,a|Xs]) loop
unique_element(Elem, T).
?- unique_element(a,[a,X]).
dif(X, a)
; false. % superfluous
?- unique_element(X,[E1,E2,E3]).
X = E1, dif(E1, E3), dif(E1, E2)
; X = E2, dif(E2, E3), dif(E1, E2)
; X = E3, dif(E2, E3), dif(E1, E3)
; false.
Note how the last query reads?
When is X a unique element of (any) list [E1,E2,E3]?
The answer is threefold. Considering one element after the other:
X is E1 but only if it is different to E2 and E3
etc.
TL;DR: Read the documentation and figure out why:
?- X = a, X \== a.
false.
?- X \== a, X = a.
X = a.
I wonder why you stop so close from figuring it out yourself ;-)
There are too many ways to compare things in Prolog. At the very least, you have unification, which sometimes can compare, and sometimes does more; than you have equvalence, and its negation, the one you are using. So what does it do:
?- a \== b. % two different ground terms
true.
?- a \== a. % the same ground term
false.
Now it gets interesting:
?- X \== a. % a free variable and a ground term
true.
?- X \== X. % the same free variable
false.
?- X \== Y. % two different free variables
true.
I would suggest that you do the following: figure out how member/2 does its thing (does it use unification? equivalence? something else?) then replace whatever member/2 is using in all the examples above and see if the results are any different.
And since you are trying to make sure that things are different, try out what dif/2 does. As in:
?- dif(a, b).
or
?- dif(X, X).
or
?- dif(X, a).
and so on.
See also this question and answers: I think the answers are relevant to your question.
Hope that helps.
Here is another possibility do define unique_element/2 using if_/3 and maplist/2:
:- use_module(library(apply)).
unique_element(Y,[X|Xs]) :-
if_(Y=X,maplist(dif(Y),Xs),unique_element(Y,Xs)).
In contrast to #user27815's very elegant solution (+s(0)) this version does not build on clpfd (used by tcount/3). The example queries given by the OP work as expected:
?- unique_element(a,[a, a, b, c, c, b]).
no
?- unique_element(X,[a, b, c, c, b, d]).
X = a ? ;
X = d ? ;
no
The example provided by #false now succeeds without leaving a superfluous choicepoint:
?- unique_element(a,[a,X]).
dif(a,X)
The other more general query yields the same results:
?- unique_element(X,[E1,E2,E3]).
E1 = X,
dif(X,E3),
dif(X,E2) ? ;
E2 = X,
dif(X,E3),
dif(X,E1) ? ;
E3 = X,
dif(X,E2),
dif(X,E1) ? ;
no
Can you not define unique_element like tcount Prolog - count repetitions in list
unique_element(X, List):- tcount(=(X),List,1).
I'm trying to figure out a way to check if two lists are equal regardless of their order of elements.
My first attempt was:
areq([],[]).
areq([],[_|_]).
areq([H1|T1], L):- member(H1, L), areq(T1, L).
However, this only checks if all elements of the list on the left exist in the list on the right; meaning areq([1,2,3],[1,2,3,4]) => true. At this point, I need to find a way to be able to test thing in a bi-directional sense. My second attempt was the following:
areq([],[]).
areq([],[_|_]).
areq([H1|T1], L):- member(H1, L), areq(T1, L), append([H1], T1, U), areq(U, L).
Where I would try to rebuild the lest on the left and swap lists in the end; but this failed miserably.
My sense of recursion is extremely poor and simply don't know how to improve it, especially with Prolog. Any hints or suggestions would be appreciated at this point.
As a starting point, let's take the second implementation of equal_elements/2 by #CapelliC:
equal_elements([], []).
equal_elements([X|Xs], Ys) :-
select(X, Ys, Zs),
equal_elements(Xs, Zs).
Above implementation leaves useless choicepoints for queries like this one:
?- equal_elements([1,2,3],[3,2,1]).
true ; % succeeds, but leaves choicepoint
false.
What could we do? We could fix the efficiency issue by using
selectchk/3 instead of
select/3, but by doing so we would lose logical-purity! Can we do better?
We can!
Introducing selectd/3, a logically pure predicate that combines the determinism of selectchk/3 and the purity of select/3. selectd/3 is based on
if_/3 and (=)/3:
selectd(E,[A|As],Bs1) :-
if_(A = E, As = Bs1,
(Bs1 = [A|Bs], selectd(E,As,Bs))).
selectd/3 can be used a drop-in replacement for select/3, so putting it to use is easy!
equal_elementsB([], []).
equal_elementsB([X|Xs], Ys) :-
selectd(X, Ys, Zs),
equal_elementsB(Xs, Zs).
Let's see it in action!
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3],[3,2,1]).
true. % succeeds deterministically
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3],[A,B,C]), C=3,B=2,A=1.
A = 1, B = 2, C = 3 ; % still logically pure
false.
Edit 2015-05-14
The OP wasn't specific if the predicate
should enforce that items occur on both sides with
the same multiplicities.
equal_elementsB/2 does it like that, as shown by these two queries:
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2]).
true.
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2,3]).
false.
If we wanted the second query to succeed, we could relax the definition in a logically pure way by using meta-predicate
tfilter/3 and
reified inequality dif/3:
equal_elementsC([],[]).
equal_elementsC([X|Xs],Ys2) :-
selectd(X,Ys2,Ys1),
tfilter(dif(X),Ys1,Ys0),
tfilter(dif(X),Xs ,Xs0),
equal_elementsC(Xs0,Ys0).
Let's run two queries like the ones above, this time using equal_elementsC/2:
?- equal_elementsC([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2]).
true.
?- equal_elementsC([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2,3]).
true.
Edit 2015-05-17
As it is, equal_elementsB/2 does not universally terminate in cases like the following:
?- equal_elementsB([],Xs), false. % terminates universally
false.
?- equal_elementsB([_],Xs), false. % gives a single answer, but ...
%%% wait forever % ... does not terminate universally
If we flip the first and second argument, however, we get termination!
?- equal_elementsB(Xs,[]), false. % terminates universally
false.
?- equal_elementsB(Xs,[_]), false. % terminates universally
false.
Inspired by an answer given by #AmiTavory, we can improve the implementation of equal_elementsB/2 by "sharpening" the solution set like so:
equal_elementsBB(Xs,Ys) :-
same_length(Xs,Ys),
equal_elementsB(Xs,Ys).
To check if non-termination is gone, we put queries using both predicates head to head:
?- equal_elementsB([_],Xs), false.
%%% wait forever % does not terminate universally
?- equal_elementsBB([_],Xs), false.
false. % terminates universally
Note that the same "trick" does not work with equal_elementsC/2,
because of the size of solution set is infinite (for all but the most trivial instances of interest).
A simple solution using the sort/2 ISO standard built-in predicate, assuming that neither list contains duplicated elements:
equal_elements(List1, List2) :-
sort(List1, Sorted1),
sort(List2, Sorted2),
Sorted1 == Sorted2.
Some sample queries:
| ?- equal_elements([1,2,3],[1,2,3,4]).
no
| ?- equal_elements([1,2,3],[3,1,2]).
yes
| ?- equal_elements([a(X),a(Y),a(Z)],[a(1),a(2),a(3)]).
no
| ?- equal_elements([a(X),a(Y),a(Z)],[a(Z),a(X),a(Y)]).
yes
In Prolog you often can do exactly what you say
areq([],_).
areq([H1|T1], L):- member(H1, L), areq(T1, L).
bi_areq(L1, L2) :- areq(L1, L2), areq(L2, L1).
Rename if necessary.
a compact form:
member_(Ys, X) :- member(X, Ys).
equal_elements(Xs, Xs) :- maplist(member_(Ys), Xs).
but, using member/2 seems inefficient, and leave space to ambiguity about duplicates (on both sides). Instead, I would use select/3
?- [user].
equal_elements([], []).
equal_elements([X|Xs], Ys) :-
select(X, Ys, Zs),
equal_elements(Xs, Zs).
^D here
1 ?- equal_elements(X, [1,2,3]).
X = [1, 2, 3] ;
X = [1, 3, 2] ;
X = [2, 1, 3] ;
X = [2, 3, 1] ;
X = [3, 1, 2] ;
X = [3, 2, 1] ;
false.
2 ?- equal_elements([1,2,3,3], [1,2,3]).
false.
or, better,
equal_elements(Xs, Ys) :- permutation(Xs, Ys).
The other answers are all elegant (way above my own Prolog level), but it struck me that the question stated
efficient for the regular uses.
The accepted answer is O(max(|A| log(|A|), |B|log(|B|)), irrespective of whether the lists are equal (up to permutation) or not.
At the very least, it would pay to check the lengths before bothering to sort, which would decrease the runtime to something linear in the lengths of the lists in the case where they are not of equal length.
Expanding this, it is not difficult to modify the solution so that its runtime is effectively linear in the general case where the lists are not equal (up to permutation), using random digests.
Suppose we define
digest(L, D) :- digest(L, 1, D).
digest([], D, D) :- !.
digest([H|T], Acc, D) :-
term_hash(H, TH),
NewAcc is mod(Acc * TH, 1610612741),
digest(T, NewAcc, D).
This is the Prolog version of the mathematical function Prod_i h(a_i) | p, where h is the hash, and p is a prime. It effectively maps each list to a random (in the hashing sense) value in the range 0, ...., p - 1 (in the above, p is the large prime 1610612741).
We can now check if two lists have the same digest:
same_digests(A, B) :-
digest(A, DA),
digest(B, DB),
DA =:= DB.
If two lists have different digests, they cannot be equal. If two lists have the same digest, then there is a tiny chance that they are unequal, but this still needs to be checked. For this case I shamelessly stole Paulo Moura's excellent answer.
The final code is this:
equal_elements(A, B) :-
same_digests(A, B),
sort(A, SortedA),
sort(B, SortedB),
SortedA == SortedB.
same_digests(A, B) :-
digest(A, DA),
digest(B, DB),
DA =:= DB.
digest(L, D) :- digest(L, 1, D).
digest([], D, D) :- !.
digest([H|T], Acc, D) :-
term_hash(H, TH),
NewAcc is mod(Acc * TH, 1610612741),
digest(T, NewAcc, D).
One possibility, inspired on qsort:
split(_,[],[],[],[]) :- !.
split(X,[H|Q],S,E,G) :-
compare(R,X,H),
split(R,X,[H|Q],S,E,G).
split(<,X,[H|Q],[H|S],E,G) :-
split(X,Q,S,E,G).
split(=,X,[X|Q],S,[X|E],G) :-
split(X,Q,S,E,G).
split(>,X,[H|Q],S,E,[H|G]) :-
split(X,Q,S,E,G).
cmp([],[]).
cmp([H|Q],L2) :-
split(H,Q,S1,E1,G1),
split(H,L2,S2,[H|E1],G2),
cmp(S1,S2),
cmp(G1,G2).
A simple solution using cut.
areq(A,A):-!.
areq([A|B],[C|D]):-areq(A,C,D,E),areq(B,E).
areq(A,A,B,B):-!.
areq(A,B,[C|D],[B|E]):-areq(A,C,D,E).
Some sample queries:
?- areq([],[]).
true.
?- areq([1],[]).
false.
?- areq([],[1]).
false.
?- areq([1,2,3],[3,2,1]).
true.
?- areq([1,1,2,2],[2,1,2,1]).
true.
I have to define some more constraints for my list.
I want to split my list is separate lists.
Example:
List=[[1,1],[_,0],[_,0],[_,0],[3,1],[_,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]]
I need three Lists which i get from the main list:
[[_,0],[_,0],[_,0]] and [[_,0]] and [[2,0],[4,0]]
SO I always need a group of lists between a term with [X,1].
It would be great if u could give me a tip. Don’t want the solution, only a tip how to solve this.
Jörg
This implementation tries to preserve logical-purity without restricting the list items to be [_,_], like
#false's answer does.
I can see that imposing above restriction does make a lot of sense... still I would like to lift it---and attack the more general problem.
The following is based on if_/3, splitlistIf/3 and reified predicate, marker_truth/2.
marker_truth(M,T) reifies the "marker"-ness of M into the truth value T (true or false).
is_marker([_,1]). % non-reified
marker_truth([_,1],true). % reified: variant #1
marker_truth(Xs,false) :-
dif(Xs,[_,1]).
Easy enough! Let's try splitlistIf/3 and marker_truth/2 together in a query:
?- Ls=[[1,1],[_,0],[_,0],[_,0],[3,1],[_,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]],
splitlistIf(marker_truth,Ls,Pss).
Ls = [[1,1],[_A,0],[_B,0],[_C,0],[3,1],[_D,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]],
Pss = [ [[_A,0],[_B,0],[_C,0]], [[_D,0]], [[2,0],[4,0]]] ? ; % OK
Ls = [[1,1],[_A,0],[_B,0],[_C,0],[3,1],[_D,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]],
Pss = [ [[_A,0],[_B,0],[_C,0]], [[_D,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]]],
prolog:dif([9,1],[_E,1]) ? ; % BAD
%% query aborted (6 other BAD answers omitted)
D'oh!
The second answer shown above is certainly not what we wanted.
Clearly, splitlistIf/3 should have split Ls at that point,
as the goal is_marker([9,1]) succeeds. It didn't. Instead, we got an answer with a frozen dif/2 goal that will never be woken up, because it is waiting for the instantiation of the anonymous variable _E.
Guess who's to blame! The second clause of marker_truth/2:
marker_truth(Xs,false) :- dif(Xs,[_,1]). % BAD
What can we do about it? Use our own inequality predicate that doesn't freeze on a variable which will never be instantiated:
marker_truth(Xs,Truth) :- % variant #2
freeze(Xs, marker_truth__1(Xs,Truth)).
marker_truth__1(Xs,Truth) :-
( Xs = [_|Xs0]
-> freeze(Xs0, marker_truth__2(Xs0,Truth))
; Truth = false
).
marker_truth__2(Xs,Truth) :-
( Xs = [X|Xs0]
-> when((nonvar(X);nonvar(Xs0)), marker_truth__3(X,Xs0,Truth))
; Truth = false
).
marker_truth__3(X,Xs0,Truth) :- % X or Xs0 have become nonvar
( nonvar(X)
-> ( X == 1
-> freeze(Xs0,(Xs0 == [] -> Truth = true ; Truth = false))
; Truth = false
)
; Xs0 == []
-> freeze(X,(X == 1 -> Truth = true ; Truth = false))
; Truth = false
).
All this code, for expressing the safe logical negation of is_marker([_,1])? UGLY!
Let's see if it (at least) helped above query (the one which gave so many useless answers)!
?- Ls=[[1,1],[_,0],[_,0],[_,0],[3,1],[_,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]],
splitlistIf(marker_truth,Ls,Pss).
Ls = [[1,1],[_A,0],[_B,0],[_C,0],[3,1],[_D,0],[9,1],[2,0],[4,0]],
Pss = [[ [_A,0],[_B,0],[_C,0]], [[_D,0]], [[2,0],[4,0]]] ? ;
no
It works! When considering the coding effort required, however, it is clear that either a code generation scheme or a
variant of dif/2 (which shows above behaviour) will have to be devised.
Edit 2015-05-25
Above implementation marker_truth/2 somewhat works, but leaves a lot to be desired. Consider:
?- marker_truth(M,Truth). % most general use
freeze(M, marker_truth__1(M, Truth)).
This answer is not what we would like to get. To see why not, let's look at the answers of a comparable use of integer_truth/2:
?- integer_truth(I,Truth). % most general use
Truth = true, freeze(I, integer(I)) ;
Truth = false, freeze(I, \+integer(I)).
Two answers in the most general case---that's how a reified predicate should behave like!
Let's recode marker_truth/2 accordingly:
marker_truth(Xs,Truth) :- subsumes_term([_,1],Xs), !, Truth = true.
marker_truth(Xs,Truth) :- Xs \= [_,1], !, Truth = false.
marker_truth([_,1],true).
marker_truth(Xs ,false) :- nonMarker__1(Xs).
nonMarker__1(T) :- var(T), !, freeze(T,nonMarker__1(T)).
nonMarker__1(T) :- T = [_|Arg], !, nonMarker__2(Arg).
nonMarker__1(_).
nonMarker__2(T) :- var(T), !, freeze(T,nonMarker__2(T)).
nonMarker__2(T) :- T = [_|_], !, dif(T,[1]).
nonMarker__2(_).
Let's re-run above query with the new implementation of marker_truth/2:
?- marker_truth(M,Truth). % most general use
Truth = true, M = [_A,1] ;
Truth = false, freeze(M, nonMarker__1(M)).
It is not clear what you mean by a "group of lists". In your example you start with [1,1] which fits your criterion of [_,1]. So shouldn't there be an empty list in the beginning? Or maybe you meant that it all starts with such a marker?
And what if there are further markers around?
First you need to define the criterion for a marker element. This for both cases: When it applies and when it does not apply and thus this is an element in between.
marker([_,1]).
nonmarker([_,C]) :-
dif(1, C).
Note that with these predicates we imply that every element has to be [_,_]. You did not state it, but it does make sense.
split(Xs, As, Bs, Cs) :-
phrase(three_seqs(As, Bs, Cs), Xs).
marker -->
[E],
{marker(E)}.
three_seqs(As, Bs, Cs) -->
marker,
all_seq(nonmarker, As),
marker,
all_seq(nonmarker, Bs),
marker,
all_seq(nonmarker, Cs).
For a definition of all_seq//2 see this
In place of marker, one could write all_seq(marker,[_])
You can use a predicate like append/3. For example, to split a list on the first occurence of the atom x in it, you would say:
?- L = [a,b,c,d,x,e,f,g,x,h,i,j], once(append(Before, [x|After], L)).
L = [a, b, c, d, x, e, f, g, x|...],
Before = [a, b, c, d],
After = [e, f, g, x, h, i, j].
As #false has pointed out, putting an extra requirement might change your result, but this is what is nice about using append/3:
"Split the list on x so that the second part starts with h:
?- L = [a,b,c,d,x,e,f,g,x,h,i,j], After = [h|_], append(Before, [x|After], L).
L = [a, b, c, d, x, e, f, g, x|...],
After = [h, i, j],
Before = [a, b, c, d, x, e, f, g].
This is just the tip.
I'm new in Prolog and trying to do some programming with Lists
I want to do this :
?- count_occurrences([a,b,c,a,b,c,d], X).
X = [[d, 1], [c, 2], [b, 2], [a, 2]].
and this is my code I know it's not complete but I'm trying:
count_occurrences([],[]).
count_occurrences([X|Y],A):-
occurrences([X|Y],X,N).
occurrences([],_,0).
occurrences([X|Y],X,N):- occurrences(Y,X,W), N is W + 1.
occurrences([X|Y],Z,N):- occurrences(Y,Z,N), X\=Z.
My code is wrong so i need some hits or help plz..
Here's my solution using bagof/3 and findall/3:
count_occurrences(List, Occ):-
findall([X,L], (bagof(true,member(X,List),Xs), length(Xs,L)), Occ).
An example
?- count_occurrences([a,b,c,b,e,d,a,b,a], Occ).
Occ = [[a, 3], [b, 3], [c, 1], [d, 1], [e, 1]].
How it works
bagof(true,member(X,List),Xs) is satisfied for each distinct element of the list X with Xs being a list with its length equal to the number of occurrences of X in List:
?- bagof(true,member(X,[a,b,c,b,e,d,a,b,a]),Xs).
X = a,
Xs = [true, true, true] ;
X = b,
Xs = [true, true, true] ;
X = c,
Xs = [true] ;
X = d,
Xs = [true] ;
X = e,
Xs = [true].
The outer findall/3 collects element X and the length of the associated list Xs in a list that represents the solution.
Edit I: the original answer was improved thanks to suggestions from CapelliC and Boris.
Edit II: setof/3 can be used instead of findall/3 if there are free variables in the given list. The problem with setof/3 is that for an empty list it will fail, hence a special clause must be introduced.
count_occurrences([],[]).
count_occurrences(List, Occ):-
setof([X,L], Xs^(bagof(a,member(X,List),Xs), length(Xs,L)), Occ).
Note that so far all proposals have difficulties with lists that contain also variables. Think of the case:
?- count_occurrences([a,X], D).
There should be two different answers.
X = a, D = [a-2]
; dif(X, a), D = [a-1,X-1].
The first answer means: the list [a,a] contains a twice, and thus D = [a-2]. The second answer covers all terms X that are different to a, for those, we have one occurrence of a and one occurrence of that other term. Note that this second answer includes an infinity of possible solutions including X = b or X = c or whatever else you wish.
And if an implementation is unable to produce these answers, an instantiation error should protect the programmer from further damage. Something along:
count_occurrences(Xs, D) :-
( ground(Xs) -> true ; throw(error(instantiation_error,_)) ),
... .
Ideally, a Prolog predicate is defined as a pure relation, like this one. But often, pure definitions are quite inefficient.
Here is a version that is pure and efficient. Efficient in the sense that it does not leave open any unnecessary choice points. I took #dasblinkenlight's definition as source of inspiration.
Ideally, such definitions use some form of if-then-else. However, the traditional (;)/2 written
( If_0 -> Then_0 ; Else_0 )
is an inherently non-monotonic construct. I will use a monotonic counterpart
if_( If_1, Then_0, Else_0)
instead. The major difference is the condition. The traditional control constructs relies upon the success or failure of If_0 which destroys all purity. If you write ( X = Y -> Then_0 ; Else_0 ) the variables X and Y are unified and at that very point in time the final decision is made whether to go for Then_0 or Else_0. What, if the variables are not sufficiently instantiated? Well, then we have bad luck and get some random result by insisting on Then_0 only.
Contrast this to if_( If_1, Then_0, Else_0). Here, the first argument must be some goal that will describe in its last argument whether Then_0 or Else_0 is the case. And should the goal be undecided, it can opt for both.
count_occurrences(Xs, D) :-
foldl(el_dict, Xs, [], D).
el_dict(K, [], [K-1]).
el_dict(K, [KV0|KVs0], [KV|KVs]) :-
KV0 = K0-V0,
if_( K = K0,
( KV = K-V1, V1 is V0+1, KVs0 = KVs ),
( KV = KV0, el_dict(K, KVs0, KVs ) ) ).
=(X, Y, R) :-
equal_truth(X, Y, R).
This definition requires the following auxiliary definitions:
if_/3, equal_truth/3, foldl/4.
If you use SWI-Prolog, you can do :
:- use_module(library(lambda)).
count_occurrences(L, R) :-
foldl(\X^Y^Z^(member([X,N], Y)
-> N1 is N+1,
select([X,N], Y, [X,N1], Z)
; Z = [[X,1] | Y]),
L, [], R).
One thing that should make solving the problem easier would be to design a helper predicate to increment the count.
Imagine a predicate that takes a list of pairs [SomeAtom,Count] and an atom whose count needs to be incremented, and produces a list that has the incremented count, or [SomeAtom,1] for the first occurrence of the atom. This predicate is easy to design:
increment([], E, [[E,1]]).
increment([[H,C]|T], H, [[H,CplusOne]|T]) :-
CplusOne is C + 1.
increment([[H,C]|T], E, [[H,C]|R]) :-
H \= E,
increment(T, E, R).
The first clause serves as the base case, when we add the first occurrence. The second clause serves as another base case when the head element matches the desired element. The last case is the recursive call for the situation when the head element does not match the desired element.
With this predicate in hand, writing count_occ becomes really easy:
count_occ([], []).
count_occ([H|T], R) :-
count_occ(T, Temp),
increment(Temp, H, R).
This is Prolog's run-of-the-mill recursive predicate, with a trivial base clause and a recursive call that processes the tail, and then uses increment to account for the head element of the list.
Demo.
You have gotten answers. Prolog is a language which often offers multiple "correct" ways to approach a problem. It is not clear from your answer if you insist on any sort of order in your answers. So, ignoring order, one way to do it would be:
Sort the list using a stable sort (one that does not drop duplicates)
Apply a run-length encoding on the sorted list
The main virtue of this approach is that it deconstructs your problem to two well-defined (and solved) sub-problems.
The first is easy: msort(List, Sorted)
The second one is a bit more involved, but still straight forward if you want the predicate to only work one way, that is, List --> Encoding. One possibility (quite explicit):
list_to_rle([], []).
list_to_rle([X|Xs], RLE) :-
list_to_rle_1(Xs, [[X, 1]], RLE).
list_to_rle_1([], RLE, RLE).
list_to_rle_1([X|Xs], [[Y, N]|Rest], RLE) :-
( dif(X, Y)
-> list_to_rle_1(Xs, [[X, 1],[Y, N]|Rest], RLE)
; succ(N, N1),
list_to_rle_1(Xs, [[X, N1]|Rest], RLE)
).
So now, from the top level:
?- msort([a,b,c,a,b,c,d], Sorted), list_to_rle(Sorted, RLE).
Sorted = [a, a, b, b, c, c, d],
RLE = [[d, 1], [c, 2], [b, 2], [a, 2]].
On a side note, it is almost always better to prefer "pairs", as in X-N, instead of lists with two elements exactly, as in [X, N]. Furthermore, you should keep the original order of the elements in the list, if you want to be correct. From this answer:
rle([], []).
rle([First|Rest],Encoded):-
rle_1(Rest, First, 1, Encoded).
rle_1([], Last, N, [Last-N]).
rle_1([H|T], Prev, N, Encoded) :-
( dif(H, Prev)
-> Encoded = [Prev-N|Rest],
rle_1(T, H, 1, Rest)
; succ(N, N1),
rle_1(T, H, N1, Encoded)
).
Why is it better?
we got rid of 4 pairs of unnecessary brackets in the code
we got rid of clutter in the reported solution
we got rid of a whole lot of unnecessary nested terms: compare .(a, .(1, [])) to -(a, 1)
we made the intention of the program clearer to the reader (this is the conventional way to represent pairs in Prolog)
From the top level:
?- msort([a,b,c,a,b,c,d], Sorted), rle(Sorted, RLE).
Sorted = [a, a, b, b, c, c, d],
RLE = [a-2, b-2, c-2, d-1].
The presented run-length encoder is very explicit in its definition, which has of course its pros and cons. See this answer for a much more succinct way of doing it.
refining joel76 answer:
count_occurrences(L, R) :-
foldl(\X^Y^Z^(select([X,N], Y, [X,N1], Z)
-> N1 is N+1
; Z = [[X,1] | Y]),
L, [], R).
To calculate the hamming distance between two lists of the same length, I use foldl(hamm, A, B, 0, R). with this definition of hamm/4:
hamm(A, A, V, V) :- !.
hamm(A, B, V0, V1) :- A \= B, V1 is V0 + 1.
The cut in the first rule prevents the unnecessary backtracking. The second rule, however, could have been written differently:
hamm2(A, A, V, V) :- !.
hamm2(_, _, V0, V1) :- V1 is V0 + 1.
and hamm2/4 will still be correct together with foldl/5 or for queries where both A and B are ground.
So is there a really good reason to prefer the one over the other? Or is there a reason to keep the rules in that order or switch them around?
I know that the query
hamm(a, B, 0, 1).
is false, while
hamm2(a, B, 0, 1).
is true, but I can't quite decide which one makes more sense . . .
The OP implemented two accumulator-style predicates for calculating the Hamming distance (hamm/4 and hamm2/4), but wasn't sure which one made more sense.
Let's read the query that puzzled the OP: "Is there an X such that distance(a,X) is 1?". Here are the "answers" Prolog gives:
?- hamm(a,X,0,1).
false. % wrong: should succeed conditionally
?- hamm2(a,X,0,1). % wrong: should succeed, but not unconditionally
true.
From a logical perspective, both implementations misbehave in above test. Let's do a few tests for steadfastness:
?- hamm(a,X,0,1),X=a. % right
false.
?- hamm(a,X,0,1),X=b. % wrong: should succeed as distance(a,b) is 1
false.
?- hamm2(a,X,0,1),X=a. % wrong: should fail as distance(a,a) is 0
X = a.
?- hamm2(a,X,0,1),X=b. % right
X = b.
Note that in previous queries hamm/4 rightly fails when hamm2/4 wrongly succeeded, and vice-versa.
So both are half-right/half-wrong, and neither one
is steadfast.
What can be done?
Based on if_/3 and (=)/3 presented by #false in this answer, I implemented the following pure code for predicate hamm3/4:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
hamm3(A,B,V0,V) :-
if_(A = B, V0 = V, V #= V0+1).
Now let's repeat above queries using hamm3/4:
?- hamm3(a,X,0,1).
dif(X,a).
?- hamm3(a,X,0,1),X=a.
false.
?- hamm3(a,X,0,1),X=b.
X = b.
It works! Finally, let's ask the most general query to see the entire solution set of hamm3/4:
?- hamm3(A,B,N0,N).
A = B, N0 = N ;
dif(A,B), N0+1 #= N.
You already spotted the differences between those definitions: efficiency apart, you should decide about your requirements. Are you going to accept variables in your data structures? Such programming style introduces some of advanced Prolog features (incomplete data structures).
Anyway, I think the first form is more accurate (not really sure about, I would say steadfast on 4° argument)
?- hamm(a, B, 0, 1).
false.
?- hamm(a, B, 0, 0).
B = a.
while hamm2 is
?- hamm2(a, B, 0, 1).
true.
?- hamm2(a, B, 0, 0).
B = a.