Related
So I am currently learning prolog and I can't get my head around how this language works.
"It tries all the possible solutions until it finds one, if it doesn't it returns false" is what I've read that this language does. You just Describe the solution and it finds it for you
With that in mind, I am trying to solve the 8 queens problem ( how to place 8 queens on a chess board without anyone threatening the others).
I have this predicate, 'safe' that gets a list of pairs, the positions of all the queens and succeeds when they are not threatening each other.
When I enter in the terminal
?- safe([(1,2),(3,5)]).
true ?
| ?- safe([(1,3),(1,7)]).
no
| ?- safe([(2,2),(3,3)]).
no
| ?- safe([(2,2),(3,4),(8,7)]).
true ?
it recognizes the correct from the wrong answers, so it knows if something is a possible solution
BUT
when I enter
| ?- safe(L).
L = [] ? ;
L = [_] ? ;
it gives me the default answers, even though it recognizes a solution for 2 queens when I enter them.
here is my code
threatens((_,Row),(_,Row)).
threatens((Column,_),(Column,_)).
threatens((Column1,Row1),(Column2,Row2)) :-
Diff1 is Column1 - Row1,
Diff2 is Column2 - Row2,
abs(Diff1) =:= abs(Diff2).
safe([]).
safe([_]).
safe([A,B|T]) :-
\+ threatens(A,B),
safe([A|T]),
safe(T).
One solution I found to the problem is to create predicates 'position' and modify the 'safe' one
possition((0,0)).
possition((1,0)).
...
...
possition((6,7)).
possition((7,7)).
safe([A,B|T]) :-
possition(A),
possition(B),
\+ threatens(A,B),
safe([A|T]),
safe(T).
safe(L,X):-
length(L,X),
safe(L).
but this is just stupid, as you have to type everything explicitly and really really slow,
even for 6 queens.
My real problem here, is not with the code itself but with prolog, I am trying to think in prolog, But all I read is
Describe how the solution would look like and let it work out what is would be
Well that's what I have been doing but it does not seem to work,
Could somebody point me to some resources that don't teach you the semantics but how to think in prolog
Thank you
but this is just stupid, as you have to type everything explicitly and really really slow, even for 6 queens.
Regarding listing the positions, the two coordinates are independent, so you could write something like:
position((X, Y)) :-
coordinate(X),
coordinate(Y).
coordinate(1).
coordinate(2).
...
coordinate(8).
This is already much less typing. It's even simpler if your Prolog has a between/3 predicate:
coordinate(X) :-
between(1, 8, X).
Regarding the predicate being very slow, this is because you are asking it to do too much duplicate work:
safe([A,B|T]) :-
...
safe([A|T]),
safe(T).
Once you know that [A|T] is safe, T must be safe as well. You can remove the last goal and will get an exponential speedup.
Describe how the solution would look like and let it work out what is
would be
demands that the AI be very strong in general. We are not there yet.
You are on the right track though. Prolog essentially works by enumerating possible solutions and testing them, rejecting those that don't fit the conditions encoded in the program. The skill resides in performing a "good enumeration" (traversing the domain in certain ways, exploiting domain symmetries and overlaps etc) and subsequent "fast rejection" (quickly throwing away whole sectors of the search space as not promising). The basic pattern:
findstuff(X) :- generate(X),test(X).
And evidently the program must first generate X before it can test X, which may not be always evident to beginners.
Logic-wise,
findstuff(X) :- x_fulfills_test_conditions(X),x_fullfills_domain_conditions(X).
which is really another way of writing
findstuff(X) :- test(X),generate(X).
would be the same, but for Prolog, as a concrete implementation, there would be nothing to work with.
That X in the program always stands for a particular value (which may be uninstantiated at a given moment, but becomes more and more instantiated going "to the right"). Unlike in logic, where the X really stands for an unknown object onto which we pile constraints until -ideally- we can resolve X to a set of concrete values by applying a lot of thinking to reformulate constraints.
Which brings us the the approach of "Constraint Logic Programming (over finite domains)", aka CLP(FD) which is far more elegant and nearer what's going on when thinking mathematically or actually doing theorem proving, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_logic_programming
and the ECLiPSe logic programming system
http://eclipseclp.org/
and
https://www.metalevel.at/prolog/clpz
https://github.com/triska/clpfd/blob/master/n_queens.pl
N-Queens in Prolog on YouTube. as a must-watch
This is still technically Prolog (in fact, implemented on top of Prolog) but allows you to work on a more abstract level than raw generate-and-test.
Prolog is radically different in its approach to computing.
Arithmetic often is not required at all. But the complexity inherent in a solution to a problem show up in some place, where we control how relevant information are related.
place_queen(I,[I|_],[I|_],[I|_]).
place_queen(I,[_|Cs],[_|Us],[_|Ds]):-place_queen(I,Cs,Us,Ds).
place_queens([],_,_,_).
place_queens([I|Is],Cs,Us,[_|Ds]):-
place_queens(Is,Cs,[_|Us],Ds),
place_queen(I,Cs,Us,Ds).
gen_places([],[]).
gen_places([_|Qs],[_|Ps]):-gen_places(Qs,Ps).
qs(Qs,Ps):-gen_places(Qs,Ps),place_queens(Qs,Ps,_,_).
goal(Ps):-qs([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11],Ps).
No arithmetic at all, columns/rows are encoded in a clever choice of symbols (the numbers indeed are just that, identifiers), diagonals in two additional arguments.
The whole program just requires a (very) small subset of Prolog, namely a pure 2-clauses interpreter.
If you take the time to understand what place_queens/4 does (operationally, maybe, if you have above average attention capabilities), you'll gain a deeper understanding of what (pure) Prolog actually computes.
Here is a section of Prolog code defining numeral in a recursive way:
numeral(0).
numeral(succ(X)) :- numeral(X).
When given query numeral(X). Prolog will return:
X = 0 ;
X = succ(0) ;
X = succ(succ(0)) ;
X = succ(succ(succ(0))) ;
X = succ(succ(succ(succ(0)))) ;
X = succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(0))))) ;
X = succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(0)))))) ;
X = succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(0))))))) ;
X = succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(0))))))))
yes
Based on what I have learned, when doing the query, prolog will firstly make X into a variable like (_G42), then it will search the facts and rules to find the match.
In this case, it will find 0 (fact) as a right match. Then it will also try to match the rule. That is considering _G42 is not 0, and _G42 is the succ of another number. Thus, another variable is generated(like _G44), _G44 will match 0 and will also go further like _G42. Since _G44 matches 0, then it will go backward to _G42, getting _G42 = succ(_G44) = succ(0).
I am not sure if I am right about the understanding. I made a diagram to show my comprehension on this problem.
If the analysis is correct, I still feel difficult to design the recursive function like this. Since I am new to Prolog, I want to know if this kind of definition always used in application (say building an expert system, verifying protocols) or it is just for beginners to better understanding the basic searching procedure? If it is often used, what is the key point to design this kind of recursive definition?
My personal opinion: Especially as a beginner, you have zero chance to"understand the recursive search in Prolog". Countless beginners are trying to understand Prolog in this way, and they very consistently fail.
The sad part is that this hits hardest workers the hardest: You always think you can somehow understand it, but in the end, you cannot, because there are too many ways to invoke even the simplest predicates, with uninstantiated and (partly) instantiated arguments, and even with aliased variables.
Your graph nicely illustrates that such a procedural reading gets extremely unwieldy very quickly for even the simplest conceivable recursive definitions.
A much more tractable approach for understanding the predicate is to read it declaratively:
0 is a numeral
If X is a numeral (whatever X is!), then succ(X) of X is also a numeral.
Note that :- even means ←, i.e., an implication from right to left.
My recommendation is to focus on a clear declarative description of what ought to hold. To overcome the initial barriers with Prolog, you must let go the idea that you can trace the steps that the CPU performs in the extreme detail in which you are currently trying to follow it. Prolog is too high-level to be amenable to tracing in this low-level way. It is like trying to interpret between French and English by tracing only the neuronal activities of the speakers.
Write a clear definition and then leave the search to Prolog. There are many other and working ways to understand and break down declarative definitions without getting swamped in low-level details. See for example program-slicing and failure-slicing. They work as long as you stay in the so-called pure monotonic subset of Prolog. Focus on this area, and you will be able to make very fast progress.
?- X in 1..100.
X in 1..100.
?- X #> 0, X #< 101.
X in 1..100.
So far so good!
Now let's imagine that the sup bound of X depends on Y in 100..200.
?- Y in 100..200, X #> 0, X #=< Y.
Y in 100..200,
Y#>=X,
X in 1..200.
The domain of X propagates correctly to 1..200, with the constraint between X and Y.
But…
?- Y in 100..200, X in 1..Y.
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
I thought that in was equivalent to the inequalities declaration, but it apparently is not.
Is there any hidden reason as to why in requires that both bounds are ground?
That's a very good question. It has a straight-forward answer that may at first appear deep, yet is really easy to understand once you are familiar with declarative debugging approaches that are beginning to become more widely available.
Declarative debugging relies on properties of logic programs that we know always hold. A key property of pure logic programs (see logical-purity) is monotonicity:
Generalizing a goal can at meast increase the set of solutions.
Here is an example:
?- append([a], [b], [c]).
false.
Why does this fail? We want to find an actual cause of failure, an explanation why this does not succeed. It is tempting to think in procedural terms and trace the execution, but this quickly gets extremely complex and does not really show us the essence of the reason.
Instead, we can get to the essence by generalizing the goals systematically. For example, the following succeeds:
?- append([a], [b], Cs).
I have generalized the query by replacing the term [c] with Cs, which subsumes it.
You can do this automatically, see Ulrich Neumerkel's library(diadem) and especially the GUPU system where these ideas are fully developed and help tremendously to locate the precise location of mistakes in Prolog programs.
To apply such techniques to their utmost extent, you must aim to preserve as many interesting properties as possible in your programs, essentially by staying in the pure monotonic core of Prolog. I say "essentially" because these techniques also work somewhat beyond this subset on a class of programs that is very hard to classify formally. Note also that much of the ongoing work on logic programming is aimed towards increasing the pure monotonic subset of Prolog as far as possible, so the restriction becomes less and less severe over time.
Consider now the specifics of (in)/2: The domain argument of (in)/2 carries within it a declarative flaw in that it uses a defaulty representation of domains. There are several ways to see this, and notably from the following situation: Suppose I tell you that a domain has the form inf..High, then what is High? It can be either of:
sup
an integer.
The fact that we cannot clearly distinguish these cases tells you that this representation is defaulty.
A clean representation of boundaries would look like this:
inf, sup to denote the infinities
n(N) to denote the integer N.
With such a representation, I could tell you that the domain looks like this: inf..n(N), and you know that N must be an integer.
Now another example:
?- X in 1..0.
false.
Why does this fail? Let us again generalize the arguments to find a reason:
?- X in Low..0.
Suppose now that (in)/2 accepted this as an admissible query. Then what is Low? Again, it can be either an integer, or the atom inf. Unfortunately, there is no sensible way to constrain Low in this way: Constraining it to integers would make CLP(FD) constraints most appropriate, making it tempting to answer with:
X in Low..0,
Low in inf..0
but that is of course too much, because it precludes Low = inf:
?- Low in inf..0, Low = inf.
Type error: `integer' expected, found `inf' (an atom)
Knowing that we cannot decide the type of the term Low in such situations, and lacking a sensible way to state this, an instantiation error is raised to indicate that such a generalization is inadmissible.
From these considerations, the overall answer is really simple:
(in)/2 cannot be easily generalized due to the defaulty representation of domains.
Invariably, there are only two reasons for using such representations:
they are easier to type
they are easier to read.
The hefty drawback of course is that they stand massively in the way of declarative reasoning over your programs.
Note that internally, the CLP(FD) system of SWI-Prolog does use a clean representation of domains. This can also be carried over to the user side, so that we could write:
?- X in n(Low)..0.
with the declaratively perfectly valid answer:
X in n(Low)..0,
Low in inf..0.
Over time, such cleaner notations will definitely find their way to users. For now, it would be a bit too much to ask, at least in my experience.
In the specific examples you cite, the domain boundary is already constrained to integers, so of course we can distinguish the cases and translate this automatically to inequalitites. However, this would not remove the core problem of defaultyness, and exchanging the goals would still raise an instantiation error.
I am currently writing a solver for a floor planning problem in Prolog and have some issues with the labeling part.
The current problem is my constraints are posted but when I launch the labeling, it takes forever to find a solution. I would like to bring in some heuristics.
My question is, how do I manually label my variables ? I am afraid that after defining a clpfd variable like this :
X in Xinf..Xsup
and constraining it, If I do something like :
fd_sup(X, Xmax),
X = Xmax,
...
in my custom label, I won't be using the backtrack ability of Prolog to test the other values of X's domain. Am I wrong ?
Also, is there a smarter way to label my variables than writing custom labeling procedures ? My idea of heuristics would consist in trying extrema of a variable domain alternatively (like max(X), min(X), max(X-1), min(X-1) etc...)
Hope you can help me :)
It is not difficult to write a custom labeling procedure, and with most real problems you will eventually need one anyway in order to incorporate problem-specific heuristics.
The two main components of a labeling procedure are
variable selection: from all the remaining (i.e. not yet instantiated) problem variables, pick one to consider next.
value selection or branching: explore, via backtracking, two or more alternative sub-problems by reducing the chosen variable's domain in (usually) complementary ways.
Using this scheme, the default labeling procedure can be written as
label(Xs) :-
( select_variable(X, Xs, Xs1) ->
branch(X),
label(Xs1)
;
true % done, no variables left
).
select_variable(X, [X|Xs], Xs). % 'leftmost' strategy
branch(X) :- indomain(X).
You can now redefine select_variable/3 to implement techniques such as "first-fail", and redefine branch/1 to try domain values in different orders. As long as you make sure that branch/1 enumerates all of X's domain values on backtracking, your search remains complete.
Sometimes you want to try just one domain value first (say, one suggested by a heuristics), but, if it is no good, not commit to another value immediately.
Let's say that, as in your example, you want to try the maximum domain value first. You could write this as
branch(X) :-
fd_sup(X, Xmax),
(
X = Xmax % try the maximum
;
X #\= Xmax % otherwise exclude the maximum
).
Because the two cases are complementary and cover all possible values for X, your search is still complete. However, because of the second alternative, branch/1 can now succeed with an uninstantiated X, which means you must make sure in the labeling procedure that you don't lose this variable from your list. One possibility would be:
label(Xs) :-
( select_variable(X, Xs, Xs1) ->
branch(X),
( var(X) -> append(Xs1, [X], Xs2) ; Xs2=Xs1 ),
label(Xs2)
;
true % done, no variables left
).
First, always try built-in heuristics. ff is often a good strategy.
For custom labeling strategies, it is often easiest to first convert the domain to a list, then reorder the list, and then simply use member/2 to assign the values of the domain using the new order.
A good building black is dom_integers/2, relating a finite CLP(FD) domain to a list of integers:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
dom_integers(D, Is) :- phrase(dom_integers_(D), Is).
dom_integers_(I) --> { integer(I) }, [I].
dom_integers_(L..U) --> { numlist(L, U, Is) }, Is.
dom_integers_(D1\/D2) --> dom_integers_(D1), dom_integers_(D2).
Your specific strategy is easily expressed on a list of such ordered integers, relating these integers to a second list where the values occur in the order you describe:
outside_in([]) --> [].
outside_in([I]) --> [I].
outside_in([First|Rest0]) --> [First,Last],
{ append(Rest, [Last], Rest0) },
outside_in(Rest).
Sample query and result:
?- phrase(outside_in([1,2,3,4]), Is).
Is = [1, 4, 2, 3] ;
false.
Combining this with fd_dom/2 and dom_integers/2, we get (bindings for variables other than X omitted):
?- X in 10..20,
fd_dom(X, Dom),
dom_integers(Dom, Is0),
phrase(outside_in(Is0), Is),
member(X, Is).
X = 10 ;
X = 20 ;
X = 11 ;
X = 19 ;
X = 12 ;
X = 18 ;
etc.
Nondeterminism is preserved by member/2.
Make sure to distinguish labeling strategies from additional propagation. These two aspects are currently a bit mixed in your question.
In SWI-Prolog, there is a predicate called clpfd:contracting/1. It does what you describe: It tries values from the domain boundaries, and removes values that can be seen as inconsistent, i.e., for which it is known that no solution exists.
Therefore, if you have a list of variables Vs, you can try: clpfd:contracting(Vs), and see if this helps.
Note that this can also significantly slow down the search, though on the other hand, also help significantly to reduce the search space before even trying any labeling!
To complement the other answers (one contrasting labeling and propagation, one showing a dedicated labeling method), I now tackle a further very important aspect of this question:
Very often, when beginners complain about the speed of their code, it turns out that their code in fact doesn't even terminate! More efficiency would not help in that case.
Hence, this answer points you towards first ensuring actual termination of your relation.
The best way to ensure termination of CLP(FD) programs is to separate them into 2 parts:
the first, called the core relation, simply posts all constraints.
the second uses labeling/2 to perform the actual search.
Have you done this in your program? If not, please do. When this is done, make sure that the core relation, say solution/2 (where the arguments are: a term denoting the task instance, and the list of variables to be labeled) terminates universally by querying:
?- solution(Instance, Vs), false.
If this terminates, then the following also terminates:
?- solution(Instance, Vs), label(Vs), false.
Of course, in larger tasks, you have no chance to actually witness the termination of the latter query, but a good chance to witness the termination of the first query, because setting up the constraints is often much faster than actually obtaining even a a single solution.
Therefore, test whether your core relation terminates!
This follows up on this previous answer by #mat.
If you have got some more CPU cycles to burn, try shave_zs/1 as defined in this previous answer.
shave_zs/1 kind of works like the auxiliary library predicate clpfd:contracting/1. Unlike contracting/1, however, all values are "up for grabs"—not just the ones at the boundary. YMMV!
I often end up writing code in Prolog which involves some arithmetic calculation (or state information important throughout the program), by means of first obtaining the value stored in a predicate, then recalculating the value and finally storing the value using retractall and assert because in Prolog we cannot assign values to variable twice using is (thus making almost every variable that needs modification, global). I have come to know that this is not a good practice in Prolog. In this regard I would like to ask:
Why is it a bad practice in Prolog (though i myself don't like to go through the above mentioned steps just to have have a kind of flexible (modifiable) variable)?
What are some general ways to avoid this practice? Small examples will be greatly appreciated.
P.S. I just started learning Prolog. I do have programming experience in languages like C.
Edited for further clarification
A bad example (in win-prolog) of what I want to say is given below:
:- dynamic(value/1).
:- assert(value(0)).
adds :-
value(X),
NewX is X + 4,
retractall(value(_)),
assert(value(NewX)).
mults :-
value(Y),
NewY is Y * 2,
retractall(value(_)),
assert(value(NewY)).
start :-
retractall(value(_)),
assert(value(3)),
adds,
mults,
value(Q),
write(Q).
Then we can query like:
?- start.
Here, it is very trivial, but in real program and application, the above shown method of global variable becomes unavoidable. Sometimes the list given above like assert(value(0))... grows very long with many more assert predicates for defining more variables. This is done to make communication of the values between different functions possible and to store states of variables during the runtime of program.
Finally, I'd like to know one more thing:
When does the practice mentioned above become unavoidable in spite of various solutions suggested by you to avoid it?
The general way to avoid this is to think in terms of relations between states of your computations: You use one argument to hold the state that is relevant to your program before a calculation, and a second argument that describes the state after some calculation. For example, to describe a sequence of arithmetic operations on a value V0, you can use:
state0_state(V0, V) :-
operation1_result(V0, V1),
operation2_result(V1, V2),
operation3_result(V2, V).
Notice how the state (in your case: the arithmetic value) is threaded through the predicates. The naming convention V0 -> V1 -> ... -> V scales easily to any number of operations and helps to keep in mind that V0 is the initial value, and V is the value after the various operations have been applied. Each predicate that needs to access or modify the state will have an argument that allows you to pass it the state.
A huge advantage of threading the state through like this is that you can easily reason about each operation in isolation: You can test it, debug it, analyze it with other tools etc., without having to set up any implicit global state. As another huge benefit, you can then use your programs in more directions provided you are using sufficiently general predicates. For example, you can ask: Which initial values lead to a given outcome?
?- state0_state(V0, given_outcome).
This is of course not readily possible when using the imperative style. You should therefore use constraints instead of is/2, because is/2 only works in one direction. Constraints are much easier to use and a more general modern alternative to low-level arithmetic.
The dynamic database is also slower than threading states through in variables, because it performs indexing etc. on each assertz/1.
1 - it's bad practice because destroys the declarative model that (pure) Prolog programs exhibit.
Then the programmer must think in procedural terms, and the procedural model of Prolog is rather complicate and difficult to follow.
Specifically, we must be able to decide about the validity of asserted knowledge while the programs backtracks, i.e. follow alternative paths to those already tried, that (maybe) caused the assertions.
2 - We need additional variables to keep the state. A practical, maybe not very intuitive way, is using grammar rules (a DCG) instead of plain predicates. Grammar rules are translated adding two list arguments, normally hidden, and we can use those arguments to pass around the state implicitly, and reference/change it only where needed.
A really interesting introduction is here: DCGs in Prolog by Markus Triska. Look for Implicitly passing states around: you'll find this enlighting small example:
num_leaves(nil), [N1] --> [N0], { N1 is N0 + 1 }.
num_leaves(node(_,Left,Right)) -->
num_leaves(Left),
num_leaves(Right).
More generally, and for further practical examples, see Thinking in States, from the same author.
edit: generally, assert/retract are required only if you need to change the database, or keep track of computation result along backtracking. A simple example from my (very) old Prolog interpreter:
findall_p(X,G,_):-
asserta(found('$mark')),
call(G),
asserta(found(X)),
fail.
findall_p(_,_,N) :-
collect_found([],N),
!.
collect_found(S,L) :-
getnext(X),
!,
collect_found([X|S],L).
collect_found(L,L).
getnext(X) :-
retract(found(X)),
!,
X \= '$mark'.
findall/3 can be seen as the basic all solutions predicate. That code should be the very same from Clockins-Mellish textbook - Programming in Prolog. I used it while testing the 'real' findall/3 I implemented. You can see that it's not 'reentrant', because of the '$mark' aliased.