I'm trying to write Prolog logic for the first time, but I'm having trouble. I am to write logic that takes two lists and checks for like elements between the two. For example, consider the predicate similarity/2 :
?- similarity([2,4,5,6,8], [1,3,5,6,9]).
true.
?- similarity([1,2,3], [5,6,8]).
false.
The first query will return true as those two lists have 5 and 6 in common. The second returns false as there are no common elements between the two lists in that query.
I CANNOT use built in logic, such as member, disjoint, intersection, etc. I am thinking of iterating through the first list provided, and checking to see if it matches each element in the second list. Is this an efficient approach to this problem? I will appreciate any advice and help. Thank you so much.
Writing Prolog for the first time can be really daunting, since it is unlike many traditional programming languages that you will most likely encounter; however it is a very rewarding experience once you've got a grasp on this new style of programming! Since you mention that you are writing Prolog for the first time I'll give some general tips and tricks about writing Prolog, and then move onto some hints to your problem, and then provide what I believe to be a solution.
Think Recursively
You can think of every Prolog program that you write to be intrinsically recursive in nature. i.e. you can provide it with a series of "base-cases" which take the following form:
human(John). or wildling(Ygritte) In my opinion, these rules should always be the first ones that you write. Try to break down the problem into its simplest case and then work from there.
On the other hand, you can also provide it with more complex rules which will look something like this: contains(X, [H|T]):- contains(X, T) The key bit is that writing a rule like this is very much equivalent to writing a recursive function in say, Python. This rule does a lot of the heavy lifting in looking to see whether a value is contained in a list, but it isn't complete without a "base-case". A complete contains rule would actually be two rules put together: contains(X, [X|_]).
contains(X, [H|T]):-contains(X, T).
The big takeaway from this is to try and identify the simple cases of your problem, which can act like base cases in a recursive function, and then try to identify how you want to "recurse" and actually do work on the problem at hand.
Pattern Matching
Part of the great thing about Prolog is the pattern matching system that it has in place. You should 100% use this to your advantage whenever you can -- it is especially helpful when trying to do anything with lists. For example:
head(X, [X|T]).
Will evaluate to true when called thusly: head(1, [1, 2, 3]) because intrinsic in the rule is the matching of X. This sort of pattern matching on the first element of a list is incredibly important and really the key way that you will do any work on lists in Prolog. In my experience, pattern matching on the head of a list will often be one of the "base-cases" that I mentioned beforehand.
Understand The Flow of the Program
Another key component of how Prolog works is that it takes a "top-down" approach to reading code. What I mean by that is that every time a rule is called (except for definitions of the form king(James).), Prolog starts at line 1 and continues until it reaches a rule that is true or the end of the file. Therefore, the ordering of your rules is incredibly important. I'm assuming that you know that you can combine rules together via a comma to indicate logical AND, but what is maybe more subtle is that if you order one rule above another, it can act as a logical OR, simply because it will be evaluated before another rule, and can potentially cause the program to recurse.
Specific Example
Now that I've gotten all of my general advice out of the way, I'll actually reference the given problem. First, I'd write my "base-case". What would happen if you are given two lists whose first elements are the same? If the first element in each list is not the same, then they have to be different. So, you have to look through the second list to see if this element is contained anywhere in the rest of the list. What kind of rule would this produce? OR it could be the case that the first element of the first list is not contained within the second at all, in which case you have to advance once in the first list, and start again with the second list. What kind of rule would this produce?
In the end, I would say that your approach is the correct one to take, and I have provided my own solution below:
similarity([H|_], [H|_]).
similarity(H1|T1], [_|T2]):- similarity([H1|T1], T2).
similarity([_|T1], [H2|T2]):- similarity(T1, [H2|T2]).
Hope all of this helps in some way!
I'm reading a note about the definition of algorithm, it has two requirements that I don't know what's the differences between them
Definiteness: Every instruction should be clear and unambiguous. (I found a source with exactly the same statement)
From the resource I have there are 5 requirements: Input, Output, Definiteness, Finiteness, Effectiveness. I can understand the other 4 except the Definiteness. Can anyone provide some better definition if the above is not precise?
From the above I only suspect that there are at least two subtleties should be considered...
For conclusion from answers below: definiteness = defined(clear) + only_one(unambiguous).
Algorithm should be clear and unambiguous. Each of its steps (or phases), and their inputs/outputs should be clear and must lead to only one meaning.
For example, if one step is to add two integers, we must define both “integers” as well as the “add” operation: we cannot for example use the same symbol to mean addition in one place and multiplication somewhere else.
If presented to an educated human, the text should allow him to simulate execution by hand in exactly the way you had in mind (same steps taken, same results obtained).
When you don't quite understand the definition of a term provided by some author, it's often helpful to look for other definitions of it. I especially like the one for "definite" from wiktionary.org:
Free from any doubt.
In this context, clear becomes understandable, and unambiguous becomes with a single meaning.
It just means that instructions in an algorithm should have one and only one interpretation. Moreover, the interpretation should be obvious.
A statement like "Repeat steps 1 to 4 a few times" does not fit the criteria as "few times" can mean different number of tries to different people.
On the other hand, a statement like "Repeat steps 1 to 4 until x is equal to y" where x and y are some parameters in the algorithm is indeed clear and unambiguous.
I want to ask pros and cons of different Prolog representations in arguments of predicates.
For example in Exercise 4.3: Write a predicate second(X,List) which checks whether X is the second element of List. The solution can be:
second(X,List):- [_,X|_]=List.
Or,
second(X,[_,X|_]).
The both predicates would behave similarly. The first one would be more readable than the second, at least to me. But the second one uses more stacks during the execution (I checked this with trace).
A more complicated example is Exercise 3.5: Binary trees are trees where all internal nodes have exactly two children. The smallest binary trees consist of only one leaf node. We will represent leaf nodes as leaf(Label) . For instance, leaf(3) and leaf(7) are leaf nodes, and therefore small binary trees. Given two binary trees B1 and B2 we can combine them into one binary tree using the functor tree/2 as follows: tree(B1,B2) . So, from the leaves leaf(1) and leaf(2) we can build the binary tree tree(leaf(1),leaf(2)) . And from the binary trees tree(leaf(1),leaf(2)) and leaf(4) we can build the binary tree tree(tree(leaf(1), leaf(2)),leaf(4)). Now, define a predicate swap/2 , which produces the mirror image of the binary tree that is its first argument. The solution would be:
A2.1:
swap(T1,T2):- T1=tree(leaf(L1),leaf(L2)), T2=tree(leaf(L2),leaf(L1)).
swap(T1,T2):- T1=tree(tree(B1,B2),leaf(L3)), T2=tree(leaf(L3),T3), swap(tree(B1,B2),T3).
swap(T1,T2):- T1=tree(leaf(L1),tree(B2,B3)), T2=tree(T3,leaf(L1)), swap(tree(B2,B3),T3).
swap(T1,T2):- T1=tree(tree(B1,B2),tree(B3,B4)), T2=tree(T4,T3), swap(tree(B1,B2),T3),swap(tree(B3,B4),T4).
Alternatively,
A2.2:
swap(tree(leaf(L1),leaf(L2)), tree(leaf(L2),leaf(L1))).
swap(tree(tree(B1,B2),leaf(L3)), tree(leaf(L3),T3)):- swap(tree(B1,B2),T3).
swap(tree(leaf(L1),tree(B2,B3)), tree(T3,leaf(L1))):- swap(tree(B2,B3),T3).
swap(tree(tree(B1,B2),tree(B3,B4)), tree(T4,T3)):- swap(tree(B1,B2),T3),swap(tree(B3,B4),T4).
The number of steps of the second solution was much less than the first one (again, I checked with trace). But regarding the readability, the first one would be easier to understand, I think.
Probably the readability depends on the level of one's Prolog skill. I am a learner level of Prolog, and am used to programming with C++, Python, etc. So I wonder if skillful Prolog programmers agree with the above readability.
Also, I wonder if the number of steps can be a good measurement of the computational efficiency.
Could you give me your opinions or guidelines to design predicate arguments?
EDITED.
According to the advice from #coder, I made a third version that consists of a single rule:
A2.3:
swap(T1,T2):-
( T1=tree(leaf(L1),leaf(L2)), T2=tree(leaf(L2),leaf(L1)) );
( T1=tree(tree(B1,B2),leaf(L3)), T2=tree(leaf(L3),T3), swap(tree(B1,B2),T3) );
( T1=tree(leaf(L1),tree(B2,B3)), T2=tree(T3,leaf(L1)), swap(tree(B2,B3),T3) );
( T1=tree(tree(B1,B2),tree(B3,B4)), T2=tree(T4,T3), swap(tree(B1,B2),T3),swap(tree(B3,B4),T4) ).
I compared the number of steps in trace of each solution:
A2.1: 36 steps
A2.2: 8 steps
A2.3: 32 steps
A2.3 (readable single-rule version) seems to be better than A2.1 (readable four-rule version), but A2.2 (non-readable four-rule version) still outperforms.
I'm not sure if the number of steps in trace is reflecting the actual computation efficiency.
There are less steps in A2.2 but it uses more computation cost in pattern matching of the arguments.
So, I compared the execution time for 40000 queries (each query is a complicated one, swap(tree(tree(tree(tree(leaf(3),leaf(4)),leaf(5)),tree(tree(tree(tree(leaf(3),leaf(4)),leaf(5)),leaf(4)),leaf(5))),tree(tree(leaf(3),tree(tree(leaf(3),leaf(4)),leaf(5))),tree(tree(tree(tree(leaf(3),leaf(4)),leaf(5)),leaf(4)),leaf(5)))), _). ). The results were almost the same (0.954 sec, 0.944 sec, 0.960 sec respectively). This is showing that the three reresentations A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 have close computational efficiency.
Do you agree with this result? (Probably this is a case specific; I need to vary the experimental setup).
This question is a very good example of a bad question for a forum like Stackoverflow. I am writing an answer because I feel you might use some advice, which, again, is very subjective. I wouldn't be surprised if the question gets closed as "opinion based". But first, an opinion on the exercises and the solutions:
Second element of list
Definitely, second(X, [_,X|_]). is to be preferred. It just looks more familiar. But you should be using the standard library anyway: nth1(2, List, Element).
Mirroring a binary tree
The tree representation that the textbook suggests is a bit... unorthodox? A binary tree is almost invariably represented as a nested term, using two functors, for example:
t/3 which is a non-empty tree, with t(Value_at_node, Left_subtree, Right_subtree)
nil/0 which is an empty tree
Here are some binary trees:
The empty tree: nil
A binary search tree holding {1,2,3}: t(2, t(1, nil, nil), t(3, nil, nil))
A degenerate left-leaning binary tree holding the list [1,2,3] (if you traversed it pre-order): t(1, t(2, t(3, nil, nil), nil), nil)
So, to "mirror" a tree, you would write:
mirror(nil, nil).
mirror(t(X, L, R), t(X, MR, ML)) :-
mirror(L, ML),
mirror(R, MR).
The empty tree, mirrored, is the empty tree.
A non-empty tree, mirrored, has its left and right sub-trees swapped, and mirrored.
That's all. No need for swapping, really, or anything else. It is also efficient: for any argument, only one of the two clauses will be evaluated because the first arguments are different functors, nil/0 and t/3 (Look-up "first argument indexing" for more information on this). If you would have instead written:
mirror_x(T, MT) :-
( T = nil
-> MT = nil
; T = t(X, L, R),
MT = t(X, MR, ML),
mirror_x(L, ML),
mirror_x(R, MR)
).
Than not only is this less readable (well...) but probably less efficient, too.
On readability and efficiency
Code is read by people and evaluated by machines. If you want to write readable code, you still might want to address it to other programmers and not to the machines that are going to evaluate it. Prolog implementations have gotten better and better at being efficient at evaluating code that is also more readable to people who have read and written a lot of Prolog code (do you recognize the feedback loop?). You might want to take a look at Coding Guidelines for Prolog if you are really interested in readability.
A first step towards getting used to Prolog is trying to solve the 99 Prolog Problems (there are other sites with the same content). Follow the suggestion to avoid using built-ins. Then, look at the solutions and study them. Then, study the documentation of a Prolog implementation to see how much of these problems have been solved with built-in predicates or standard libraries. Then, study the implementations. You might find some real gems there: one of my favorite examples is the library definition of nth0/3. Just look at this beauty ;-).
There is also a whole book written on the subject of good Prolog code: "The Craft of Prolog" by Richard O'Keefe. The efficiency measurements are quite outdated though. Basically, if you want to know how efficient your code is, you end up with a matrix with at least three dimensions:
Prolog implementation (SWI-Prolog, SICSTUS, YAP, Gnu-Prolog...)
Data structure and algorithm used
Facilities provided by the implementation
You will end up having some wholes in the matrix. Example: what is the best way to read line-based input, do something with each line, and output it? Read line by line, do the thing, output? Read all at once, do everything in memory, output at once? Use a DCG? In SWI-Prolog, since version 7, you can do:
read_string(In_stream, _, Input),
split_string(Input, "\n", "", Lines),
maplist(do_x, Lines, Xs),
atomics_to_string(Xs, "\n", Output),
format(Out_stream, "~s\n", Output)
This is concise and very efficient. Caveats:
The available memory might be a bottle neck
Strings are not standard Prolog, so you are stuck with implementations that have them
This is a very basic example, but it demonstrates at least the following difficulties in answering your question:
Differences between implementations
Opinions on what is readable or idiomatic Prolog
Opinions on the importance of standards
The example above doesn't even go into details about your problem, as for example what you do with each line. Is it just text? Do you need to parse the lines? Why are you not using a stream of Prolog terms instead? and so on.
On efficiency measurements
Don't use the number of steps in the tracer, or even the reported number of inferences. You really need to measure time, with a realistic input. Sorting with sort/2, for example, always counts as exactly one inference, no matter what is the length of the list being sorted. On the other hand, sort/2 in any Prolog is about as efficient as a sort on your machine would ever get, so is that an issue? You can't know until you have measured the performance.
And of course, as long as you make an informed choice of an algorithm and a data structure, you can at the very least know the complexity of your solution. Doing an efficiency measurement is interesting only if you notice a discrepancy between what you expect and what you measure: obviously, there is a mistake. Either your complexity analysis is wrong, or your implementation is wrong, or even the Prolog implementation you are using is doing something unexpected.
On top of this, there is the inherent problem of high-level libraries. With some of the more complex approaches, you might not be able to easily judge what the complexity of a given solution might be (constraint logic programming, as in CHR and CLPFD, is a prime example). Most real problems that fit nicely to the approach will be much easier to write, and more efficient than you could ever do without considerable effort and very specific code. But get fancy enough, and your CHR program might not even want to compile any more.
Unification in the head of the predicate
This is not opinion-based any more. Just do the unifications in the head if you can. It is more readable to a Prolog programmer, and it is more efficient.
PS
"Learn Prolog Now!" is a good starting point, but nothing more. Just work your way through it and move on.
In the first way for example for Exercise 3.5 you use the rule swap(T1,T2) four times ,which means that prolog will examine all these four rules and will return true or fail for every of these four calls .Because these rules can't all be true together (each time one of them will return true) ,for every input you waste three calls that will not succeed (that's why it demands more steps and more time ). The only advantage in the above case is that by writing with the first way ,it is more readable. In generally when you have such cases of pattern matching it's better to write the rules in a way that are well defined and not two(or more) rules match a input ,if of course you require only one answer ,as for example the second way of writing the above example .
Finally one example where it is required that more than one rules match an input is the predicate member where it is written:
member(H,[H|_]).
member(H,[_|T]):- member(H,T).
where in this case you require more than one answers.
In the third way you just write the first way without pattern matching .It has the form (condition1);...;(condition4) and if the condition1 does not return true it examines the next condition .Most of the times the fourth condition returns true ,but it has called and tested condition1-3 which returned false .So it is almost as the first way of writing the solution ,except the fact that in third solution if it finds true condition1 it will not test other conditions so you will save some wasted calls (compared to solution1).
As for the running time ,it was expected to be almost the same because in worst case solution 1 and 3 does four times the tests/calls that solution 2 does .So if solution2 is O(g) complexity (for some function g) ,then solution 1 and 3 are O(4g) which is O(g) complexity so running times will be very close.
So from what I understand about deterministic predicates:
Deterministic predicate = 1 solution
Non-deterministic predicate = multiple solutions
Are there any type of rules as to how you can detect if the predicate is one or the other? Like looking at the search tree, etc.
There is no clear, generally accepted consensus about these notions. However, they are usually based rather on the observed answers and not based on the number of solutions. In certain contexts the notions are very implementation related. Non-determinate may mean: leaves a choice point open. And sometimes determinate means: never even creates a choice point.
Answers vs. solutions
To see the difference, consider the goal length(L, 1). How many solutions does it have? L = [a] is one, L = [23] another... but all of these solutions are compactly represented with a single answer substitution: L = [_] which thus contains infinitely many solutions.
In any case, in all implementations I know of, length(L, 1) is a determinate goal.
Now consider the goal repeat which has exactly one solution, but infinitely many answers. This goal is considered non-determinate.
In case you are interested in constraints, things become even more evolved. In library(clpfd), the goal X #> Y, Y #> X has no solution, but still one answer. Combine this with repeat: infinitely many answers and no solution.
Further, the goal append(Xs, Ys, []) has exactly one solution and also exactly one answer, nevertheless it is considered non-determinate in many implementations, since in those implementations it leaves a choice point open.
In an ideal implementation, there would be no answers without solutions (except false), and there would be non-determinism only when there is more than one answer. But then, all of this is mostly undecidable in the general case.
So, whenever you are using these notions make sure on what level things are meant. Rather explicitly say: multiple answers, multiple solutions, leaves no (unnecessary) choice point open.
You need understand the difference between det, semidet and undet, it is more than just number of solutions.
Because there is no loop control operator in Prolog, looping (not recursion) is constructed as a 'sequence generating' predicate (undet) followed by the loop body. Also you can store solutions with some of findall-group predicates as a list and loop later with the member/2 predicate.
So, any piece of your program is either part of loop construction or part of usual flow. So, there is a difference in designing det and undet predicates almost in the intended usage. If you can work with a sequence you always do undet and comment it as so. There is a nice unit-test extension in swi-prolog which can check wheter your predicate always the same in mean of det/semidet/undet (semidet is for usage the same way as undet but as a head of 'if' construction).
So, the difference is pre-design, and this question should not be arised with already existing predicates. It is a good practice always comment the intended usage in a comment like.
% member(?El, ?List) is undet.
Deterministic: Always succeeds with a single answer that is always the same for the same input. Think a of a static list of three items, and you tell your function to return value one. You will get the same answer every time. Additionally, arithmetic functions. 1 + 1 = 2. X + Y = Z.
Semi-deterministic: Succeeds with a single answer that is always the same for the same input, but it can fail. Think of a function that takes a list of numbers, and you ask your function if some number exists in the list. It either does, or it doesn't, based on the contents of the list given and the number asked.
Non-deterministic: Succeeds with a single answer, but can exhibit different behaviors on different runs, even for the same input. Think any kind of math.random(min,max) function like random/3
In essence, this is entirely separate from the concept of choice points, as choice points are a function of Prolog. Where I think the Prolog confusion of these terms comes from is that Prolog can find a single answer, then go back and try for another solution, and you have to use the cut operator ! to tell it that you want to discard your choice points explicitly.
This is very useful to know when working with Prolog Unit Testing