Something like this:
decr(X, X) :-
X is X-1.
I want to use it for decrement a number in the parent rule , if this number equal 0 for example, the parent rule return false.
Prolog is declarative: one of the properties of a declarative language is that once you set a variable, you cannot give it another value anymore. In Prolog backtracking can of course "unground" a variable and furthermore you can assign a partially grounded expression to a variable (like X=f(1,_)), but when you move deeper into the call stack, each expression can only be grounded further.
As a result: you have to use another variable. Like:
decr(X,NX) :-
NX is X-1.
This is also logical: here you defined decr(X,X) and since the argument of predicates in Prolog have no input/output direction, it is unclear whether you want to call it like decr(4,3), decr(X,3), decr(4,X) or decr(X,Y). So how can Prolog "know" that your second X is supposed to be the "new X"? It is thus a "fundamental property" of Prolog you cannot use X, call a predicate, and all of a sudden X has a different value (it can however - as said before - be grounded further, but an integer cannot be grounded further).
The reason why it will always error or fail is because, either X is not instantiated: (like decr(_,_)) in which case Prolog cannot calculate X is _-1, or you have given one of the argument a number (decr(X,3), decr(4,X) or decr(3,3)), but in that case you ask that both operands can unify (since they are both X) and are off by one at the same time, which is a contradiction.
As already mentioned, you can't reassign variables in Prolog, but the closest thing available out-of-box to what you apparently want is succ/2 predicate:
?- succ(1, X).
X = 2.
?- succ(X, 5).
X = 4.
The next closest is probably plus/3:
?- plus(1, 2, X).
X = 3.
?- plus(1, X, 3).
X = 2.
?- plus(X, 2, 3).
X = 1.
Related
I've just started Prolog and truly wonder why the following lines, specifically the 'is' part, always produces false:
highest(L) :-
path(_,_,Z),
Z >= L,
L is Z.
highestWrap :-
highest(0).
highestWrap is called.
Thanks in advance and have a beautiful day!
Unless there is a path with length 0, this will not work, and even then, it will likely not yield what you want: it will just say true.
In Prolog variables can only be set once, that means that if L is set to 0, then it remains 0, unless you backtrack over that assignment.
Here it thus means that you call highest(0), next you instruct Prolog to call path(_, _, Z) and this can result in zero, one or more solutions. In case there are no path(_, _, Z)s, then the call will fail. But in case there are, then Z will (if I make correct assumptions about the predicate), have a numerical value, for example 7.
Now the condition Z >= L of course holds in that case (if Z is 7), so that is nog the problem. But now you specify L is Z. That thus means that you call 0 is 7. The is/2 [swi-doc] predicate aims to solve the expression of the second argument (that expression is 7 in the example, so there is not much to solve), and then aims to unify it with the term on the left side. But since 0 is not equal to 7 that fails.
If you want to obtain the highest path, you can for example make use of the aggregate [swi-doc] library:
:- use_module(library(aggregate)).
highest(L) :-
aggregate(Max(Z), path(_,_,Z), Max(L)).
You can then call it with higest(X) to unify X with the highest value for Z in a call to path(_, _, Z).
I am new to Prolog and can't understand predicates very well.
First question: How can I 'return' a certain variable?
We have alternate(?A, ?B). alternate(first, second) should give me back second, and alternate(second, first) should give back first.
Second question: How to check if variable is of certain type?
I have for example ispair(?Pair). I have to check if Pair is pos(X,Y).
Not sure if that's what you meant, but what about the following:
alternate(first, pair(X,_), X).
alternate(second, pair(_,X), X).
If you query without any restrictions, you get the following two answer substitutions:
?- alternate(X,Y,Z).
X = first,
Y = pair(Z, _5844) ; % hit ; to get the second answer
X = second,
Y = pair(_5842, Z). % variables _12345 are fresh ones created by prolog
You can also ask: on which side of the pair (a,b) is b?
?- alternate(Where, pair(a,b), b).
Where = second.
In the case that your pair is (b,b), you get two solutions:
?- alternate(Where, pair(b,b), b).
Where = first ;
Where = second.
Also, c is not part of the pair (a,b):
?- alternate(Where, pair(a,b), c).
false.
If you insist on picking an element from heaven, you will get no as answer:
?- alternate(heaven, X, Y).
false.
When you know that the first element of a pair is a, prolog will tell you how the pair must look like:
?- alternate(first, X, a).
X = pair(a, _5680).
Again we have a fresh variable (_5680) in there, because any second term is fine.
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.
So far, I have always taken steadfastness in Prolog programs to mean:
If, for a query Q, there is a subterm S, such that there is a term T that makes ?- S=T, Q. succeed although ?- Q, S=T. fails, then one of the predicates invoked by Q is not steadfast.
Intuitively, I thus took steadfastness to mean that we cannot use instantiations to "trick" a predicate into giving solutions that are otherwise not only never given, but rejected. Note the difference for nonterminating programs!
In particular, at least to me, logical-purity always implied steadfastness.
Example. To better understand the notion of steadfastness, consider an almost classical counterexample of this property that is frequently cited when introducing advanced students to operational aspects of Prolog, using a wrong definition of a relation between two integers and their maximum:
integer_integer_maximum(X, Y, Y) :-
Y >= X,
!.
integer_integer_maximum(X, _, X).
A glaring mistake in this—shall we say "wavering"—definition is, of course, that the following query incorrectly succeeds:
?- M = 0, integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M).
M = 0. % wrong!
whereas exchanging the goals yields the correct answer:
?- integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M), M = 0.
false.
A good solution of this problem is to rely on pure methods to describe the relation, using for example:
integer_integer_maximum(X, Y, M) :-
M #= max(X, Y).
This works correctly in both cases, and can even be used in more situations:
?- integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M), M = 0.
false.
?- M = 0, integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M).
false.
| ?- X in 0..2, Y in 3..4, integer_integer_maximum(X, Y, M).
X in 0..2,
Y in 3..4,
M in 3..4 ? ;
no
Now the paper Coding Guidelines for Prolog by Covington et al., co-authored by the very inventor of the notion, Richard O'Keefe, contains the following section:
5.1 Predicates must be steadfast.
Any decent predicate must be “steadfast,” i.e., must work correctly if its output variable already happens to be instantiated to the output value (O’Keefe 1990).
That is,
?- foo(X), X = x.
and
?- foo(x).
must succeed under exactly the same conditions and have the same side effects.
Failure to do so is only tolerable for auxiliary predicates whose call patterns are
strongly constrained by the main predicates.
Thus, the definition given in the cited paper is considerably stricter than what I stated above.
For example, consider the pure Prolog program:
nat(s(X)) :- nat(X).
nat(0).
Now we are in the following situation:
?- nat(0).
true.
?- nat(X), X = 0.
nontermination
This clearly violates the property of succeeding under exactly the same conditions, because one of the queries no longer succeeds at all.
Hence my question: Should we call the above program not steadfast? Please justify your answer with an explanation of the intention behind steadfastness and its definition in the available literature, its relation to logical-purity as well as relevant termination notions.
In 'The craft of prolog' page 96 Richard O'Keef says 'we call the property of refusing to give wrong answers even when the query has an unexpected form (typically supplying values for what we normally think of as inputs*) steadfastness'
*I am not sure if this should be outputs. i.e. in your query ?- M = 0, integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M). M = 0. % wrong! M is used as an input but the clause has been designed for it to be an output.
In nat(X), X = 0. we are using X as an output variable not an input variable, but it has not given a wrong answer, as it does not give any answer. So I think under that definition it could be steadfast.
A rule of thumb he gives is 'postpone output unification until after the cut.' Here we have not got a cut, but we still want to postpone the unification.
However I would of thought it would be sensible to have the base case first rather than the recursive case, so that nat(X), X = 0. would initially succeed .. but you would still have other problems..
we have a list of list think an example ?- solve([[40,A,B],[30,B],[60,A,B,C]]),label([A,B,C]). will succeed with replacing B=30,A=10 and C=20.
The constraint with this example is A+B=40, A+B+C=60 and generally every variable are in between 0 and 100. Every list must begin with a constant and it includes at least one variable.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
sum([],0). % if the list is empty.
sum([X|XS],Z) :-
sum(XS,Z1),
X in 0..100,
Z #= X+Z1.
solveOne([Const|Var]) :-
sum(Var,Const).
solve([]). % if the list of list is also empty
solve([First|Others]) :-
solveOne(First),
solve(Others).
I am a bit skeptic the idea of base case,facts. Because every list must include at list one variable according to constraints, on the other hand we think about the "empty list" situation.?
First, the obvious problem: you define both a solve/2 and a solve/1 predicate (solve([],0)). The ",0" is probably unwanted.
Apart from that, if you have only a constant, like [X], then solveOne succeeds only if X is zero; otherwise, it fails according to sum([],0). So, in a sense, you indirectly check that you can have at least one variable if you assume your sum is always strictly positive.
In order to explicitely check that there is effectively at least one variable, then you can modify solveOne as follows:
solveOne([Const,V1|Vars]) :-
sum([V1|Vars], Const).
#coredump answer should put you on right track. If you are interested in writing lean code, consider this more succint definition (tested in SWI-Prolog)
solve(L) :- maplist(solveOne, L).
solveOne([C|Vs]) :- Vs ins 0..100, sum(Vs, #=, C).
?- solve([[40,A,B],[30,B],[60,A,B,C]]).
A = 10,
B = 30,
C = 20.