Related
Let's say I have this Prolog program:
loves(vincent, mia).
loves(marcellus, mia).
jealous(A, B) :- loves(A, C), loves(B, C).
With query jealous(A,B). I'm very new to Prolog and I'd like to know how is it possible to see the exact order the program will be running and taking its ways for this query? I have tried using trace, jealous(A,B). command but it has only given me that:
Isn't there any more detailed solution for that? :/
Have you seen the Prolog Visualizer?
When you get to the page be sure to click on the icons in the upper right to learn more.
Enjoy.
Screenshot after step 10 of 49.
Screenshot for example given after all steps.
The Prolog Visualizer uses a slightly nonstandard way to enter a query by ending the query with a question mark (?), e.g.
jealous(A,B)?
If you do not post a query in the input area on the left you will receive an error, e.g.
The input for the Prolog Visualizer for your example is
loves(vincent, mia).
loves(marcellus, mia).
jealous(A, B) :- loves(A, C), loves(B, C).
jealous(A,B)?
When the Prolog Visualizer completes your example, notice the four results in green on the right
If you are using SWI-Prolog and after you understand syntactic unification, backtracking and write more advanced code you will find this of use:
Overview of the SWI Prolog Graphical Debugger
For other useful Prolog references see: Useful Prolog references
If the Prolog system has callable_property/2 and sys_rule/3, then one can code
a smart "unify" port as follows, showing most general unifiers (mgu's`):
:- op(1200, fx, ?-).
% solve(+Goal, +Assoc, +Integer, -Assoc)
solve(true, L, _, L) :- !.
solve((A, B), L, P, R) :- !, solve(A, L, P, H), solve(B, H, P, R).
solve(H, L, P, R) :- functor(H, F, A), sys_rule(F/A, J, B),
callable_property(J, sys_variable_names(N)),
number_codes(P, U), atom_codes(V, [0'_|U]), shift(N, V, W),
append(L, W, M), H = J, reverse(M, Z), triage(M, Z, I, K),
offset(P), write_term(I, [variable_names(Z)]), nl,
O is P+1, solve(B, K, O, R).
% triage(+Assoc, +Assoc, -Assoc, -Assoc)
triage([V=T|L], M, R, [V=T|S]) :- var(T), once((member(W=U, M), U==T)), W==V, !,
triage(L, M, R, S).
triage([V=T|L], M, [V=T|R], S) :-
triage(L, M, R, S).
triage([], _, [], []).
% shift(+Assoc, +Atom, -Assoc)
shift([V=T|L], N, [W=T|R]) :-
atom_concat(V, N, W),
shift(L, N, R).
shift([], _, []).
% offset(+Integer)
offset(1) :- !.
offset(N) :- write('\t'), M is N-1, offset(M).
% ?- Goal
(?- G) :-
callable_property(G, sys_variable_names(N)),
shift(N, '_0', M),
solve(G, M, 1, _).
Its not necessary to modify mgu's retrospectively, since a solution to a
Prolog query is the sequential composition of mgu's. Here is an example run:
?- ?- jealous(A,B).
[A_0 = X_1, B_0 = Y_1]
[H_1 = mia, X_1 = vincent]
[Y_1 = vincent]
A = vincent,
B = vincent ;
[Y_1 = marcellus]
A = vincent,
B = marcellus ;
Etc..
This is a preview of Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.0 the new
predicate sys_rule/3, its inspired by the new
predicate rule/2 of SWI-Prolog, but keeps the
clause/2 argument of head and body and uses a predicate
indicator.
My code does perfect with numbers, but error with single quotation. I'm trying to write a foldl function. When i do foldl1(concat, ['a','b'], X), it reports like "ERROR: Arithmetic: 'ab/0' is not a function". what is the problem? prolog does not allow using is with string?
foldl1(P, [H], X) :-
X is H.
foldl1(P, [H|T], X) :-
foldl1(P, T, Y),
call(P, H, Y, Z),
X is Z.
is/2 evaluates the arithmetic expression to the right, and unifies the result with the term to the left. Unification is also performed against the head' arguments, so you can write a simplified foldl1/3 like
foldl1(_, [H], H).
foldl1(P, [H|T], Z) :-
foldl1(P, T, Y),
call(P, H, Y, Z).
test:
?- foldl1(plus,[1,2,3],R).
R = 6 ;
false.
?- foldl1(concat,[1,2,3],R).
R = '123' ;
false.
I would place a cut after the recursion base, since [H] and [H|T] where T=[] overlap, to avoid any last call - that would anyway fail - on eventual backtracking, like the redo induced by me, inputting ; after the expected first answer while the interpreter waits for my choices.
After the cut (hope you can easily spot where to place it) we get:
?- foldl1(plus,[1,2,3],R).
R = 6.
?- foldl1(concat,[1,2,3],R).
R = '123'.
Now the interpreter 'knows' there are no more answers after the first...
It's also possible to implement a foldl1/3 predicate using first-argument indexing to avoid spurious choice-points without cuts and that is also tail-recursive. From the Logtalk library meta object:
:- meta_predicate(foldl1(3, *, *)).
foldl1(Closure, [Head| Tail], Result) :-
fold_left_(Tail, Closure, Head, Result).
fold_left_([], _, Result, Result).
fold_left_([Arg| Args], Closure, Acc, Result) :-
call(Closure, Acc, Arg, Acc2),
fold_left_(Args, Closure, Acc2, Result).
Sample calls:
?- meta::foldl1(plus,[1,2,3],R).
R = 6.
?- meta::foldl1(concat,[1,2,3],R).
R = '123'.
I'm learning Prolog for about a week, so I'm a newbie.
I'm trying to do a function, that appends, the elements of a list of lists.
So the input would be: [ [[a,b,c],[g,h,i]], [[j,k,l],[m,n,o]], [[s,t,u],[v,w,x]] ].
And the output would be : [ [a,b,c,j,k,l,s,t,u], [g,h,i,m,n,o,v,w,x] ].
Or
Input: [ [[a,b], [c,d]], [[e,f], [g,h]], [[i,j],[k,l]] ].
Output: [ [a,b,e,f,i,j], [c,d,g,h,k,l] ].
It would be important, that it has to work with a lot of elements, not only 3.
I wrote this, but it only works with 2 elements, so i can only do it, with pairs.
merge([],[],[]).
merge(L1,[],L1).
merge([H1|T1],[H2|T2],LL):-
append(H1, H2, HE),
merge(T1,T2,TE),
append([HE], TE, LL).
If I understand your question correctly...
First, if you know that your input has exactly two levels of nesting in it, and if your Prolog had higher-order predicates for mapping and for folding, and if you could compose them, you could simply write:
merge_foldl([], []).
merge_foldl([X|Xs], R) :-
reverse([X|Xs], [Y|Ys]),
foldl(maplist(append), Ys, Y, R).
This works as expected for SWI-Prolog.
Here it is with your two examples:
?- merge_foldl([ [[a,b,c],[g,h,i]], [[j,k,l],[m,n,o]], [[s,t,u],[v,w,x]] ], R).
R = [[a, b, c, j, k, l, s, t, u], [g, h, i, m, n, o, v, w, x]].
?- merge_foldl([ [[a,b], [c,d], [e,f]], [[g,h], [i,j], [k,l]] ], R).
R = [[a, b, g, h], [c, d, i, j], [e, f, k, l]].
If you don't have access to neither foldr nor foldl, you would have to hardcode the folding:
merge([], []).
merge([X|Xs], Result) :-
merge_maplist(Xs, X, Result).
merge_maplist([], Result, Result).
This is not all, but it says that if you are at the end of the list of lists, the last element is the result.
Now you have to define the step where you append to the front of each sublist. This is easier with maplist:
merge_maplist([X|Xs], Prev, Result) :-
merge_maplist(Xs, X, Result0),
maplist(append, Prev, Result0, Result).
Note that here we are "emulating" a right fold by using a non-tail-recursive definition: we are doing the appending in reverse, after the recursive step. For a tail-recursive definition (identical to hard-coded left fold), you would have to reverse the original list first!
So you keep on peeling off one list of lists from your input until you are done. Then, you use maplist to apply append/3 to each pair of lists from the previous element and the result so far, to get the final result.
If you don't have access to maplist either, you'd have to hardcode the mapping as well. For the three arguments that append/3 takes:
map_append([], [], []).
map_append([X|Xs], [Y|Ys], [Z|Zs]) :-
append(X, Y, Z),
map_append(Xs, Ys, Zs).
and your merge/2 and merge_/3 become:
merge([], []).
merge([X|Xs], Result) :-
merge_(Xs, X, Result).
merge_([], Result, Result).
merge_([X|Xs], Prev, Result) :-
merge_(Xs, X, Result0),
map_append(Prev, Result0, Result).
This is a lot of code for something that can be solved quite nicely if you have higher-order predicates.
Prolog predicate next(X, List,List1), that returns in List1 the next element(s) from List that follows X, e.g., next(a,[a,b,c,a,d],List1), will return List1=[b,d].
I have tried following:
next(X, [X,Y|List], [Y|List1]) :- % X is the head of the list
next(X, [Y|List], List1).
next(X, [Y|List], List1) :- % X is not the head of the list
X \== Y,
next(X, List, List1).
next(_,[], []).
First, whenever possible, use prolog-dif for expressing term inequality!
Second, the question you asked is vague about corner cases: In particular, it is not clear how next(E,Xs,Ys) should behave if there are multiple neighboring Es in Xs or if Xs ends with E.
That being said, here's my shot at your problem:
next(E,Xs,Ys) :-
list_item_nexts(Xs,E,Ys).
list_item_nexts([],_,[]).
list_item_nexts([E],E,[]).
list_item_nexts([I|Xs],E,Ys) :-
dif(E,I),
list_item_nexts(Xs,E,Ys).
list_item_nexts([E,X|Xs],E,[X|Ys]) :-
list_item_nexts(Xs,E,Ys).
Let's see some queries!
?- next(a,[a,b,c,a,d],List1).
List1 = [b,d] ;
false.
?- next(a,[a,a,b,c,a,d],List1).
List1 = [a,d] ;
false.
?- next(a,[a,a,b,c,a,d,a],List1).
List1 = [a,d] ;
false.
Note that above queries succeed, but leave behind useless choicepoints.
This inefficiency can be dealt with, but I suggest figuring out more complete specs first:)
This version is deterministic for the cases given by #repeat using if_/3 and (=)/3. It shows how purity and efficiency can coexist in one and the same Prolog program.
next(E, Xs, Ys) :-
xs_e_(Xs, E, Ys).
xs_e_([], _E, []).
xs_e_([X|Xs], E, Ys) :-
if_(X = E, xs_e_xys(Xs, E, Ys), xs_e_(Xs, E, Ys)).
xs_e_xys([], _E, []).
xs_e_xys([X|Xs], E, [X|Ys]) :-
xs_e_(Xs, E, Ys).
%xs_e_xys([X|Xs], E, [X|Ys]) :- % alternate interpretation
% xs_e_([X|Xs], E, Ys).
I can easily write a predicate to get unique elements from a given list in Prolog e.g.
no_doubles( [], [] ).
no_doubles( [H|T], F ) :-
member( H, T ),
no_doubles( T, F ).
no_doubles( [H|T], [H|F] ) :-
\+ member( H, T ),
no_doubles( T, F ).
However, how can you do the same thing but for something other than a normal list i.e. not something like [a,b,c...]? So in my case, I want to extract unique atoms for a propositional formula e.g. unique_atoms(and(x,and(x,y),z),[x,y,z]). is satisfied. Do you use recursion just like in my no_doubles example but for a formula like this?
Any ideas are welcomed :). Thanks.
So you need to process a general term (i.e. a tree structure) and get a list of its atomic leaf nodes, without duplicates. Does the result list have to have a specific order (e.g. depth-first left-to-right), or is this not important?
If you have an option to use variables instead of atoms in your formulas then you can use the (SWI-Prolog) builtin term_variables/2, e.g.
?- term_variables(and(X, and(X, Y), Z), Vars).
Vars = [X, Y, Z].
Otherwise you have to go with a solution similar to:
term_atoms(Term, AtomSet) :-
term_to_atomlist(Term, AtomList),
list_to_set(AtomList, AtomSet).
term_to_atomlist(Atom, [Atom]) :-
atom(Atom),
!.
term_to_atomlist(Term, AtomList) :-
compound(Term),
Term =.. [_ | SubTerms],
terms_to_atomlist(SubTerms, AtomList).
terms_to_atomlist([], []).
terms_to_atomlist([Term | Terms], AtomList) :-
term_to_atomlist(Term, AtomList1),
terms_to_atomlist(Terms, AtomList2),
append(AtomList1, AtomList2, AtomList).
Usage example:
?- term_atoms(f(x^a1+a3*a3/a4)='P'-l, Atoms).
Atoms = [x, a1, a3, a4, 'P', l].
You might want to extend it to deal with numbers and variables in the leaf nodes.
?- setof(X, member(X,[a,b,c,a,b,c]), L).
L = [a, b, c].
?- sort([a,b,c,a,b,c], L).
L = [a, b, c].
Propositional formulas:
get_atoms(X,[X]) :-
atom(X).
get_atoms(and(P,Q),Atoms) :-
get_atoms(P,Left),
get_atoms(Q,Right),
append(Left,Right,Atoms).
etc. Optimize using difference lists if necessary.
unique_atoms(P,UniqueAtoms) :- get_atoms(P,Atoms), sort(Atoms,UniqueAtoms).
A more direct way is to use sets.