I'm new to Prolog and I'm trying to write fully working magic square program, but to say the truth I don't really know how to do, I have started but I feel that I'm doing it wrong. I'm sharing my code and I hope someone will help me, now when numbers are good I get true, but when they are not I get like out of stack error... (here is only checking rows and columns I know about obliquely check)
thanks for your attention!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
:- use_module(library(lists)).
magicSq(List, N) :-
Number is N * N,
belongs(Number ,List), % check if numbers are correct.
all_different(List), % check if numbers not occur.
Suma is N*(N*N + 1)/2,
checkC(List,N,N,Suma), % check column
checkR(List,1,N,Suma). % check row
belongs(0, _).
belongs(N, List) :- member(N,List) , Index is N - 1 , belongs(Index, List).
consecutiveSum(_, 0 , _,0).
consecutiveSum(List, HowMuch , From,Sum):-
Index is HowMuch - 1,
From1 is From +1,
nth1(From, List,Element),
consecutiveSum(List,Index,From1,Z),
Sum is Z + Element,!.
sumObliCol(0,_, [], _,_). % sums by columns or obliquely
sumObliCol(X,Number, [H|T], Ind, Residue) :-
Index is Ind + 1,
Y is mod(Index,Number),
Y =:= Residue,
sumObliCol(Z,Number, T, Index,Residue),
X is Z + H, !.
sumObliCol(X,Number, [_|T], Ind,Residue) :-
Index is Ind + 1,
sumObliCol(X,Number, T, Index,Residue).
checkC(_,0,_,_). % check column
checkC(List,N, Number,Answ):-
N1 is N-1,
checkC(List,N1, Number,Answ),
sumObliCol(Ats,Number,List,0,N1),Ats is Answ,!.
checkR(_,N,Number,_):- N>(Number*Number). % check row
checkR(List,N,Number,Answ):-
consecutiveSum(List,Number,N,Sum), Sum is Answ,
N1 is N + Number,
checkR(List,N1, Number,Answ),!.
In programming one often assumes that
everything is deeply intertwingled ... since the cross-connections among the myriad topics of this world/program simply cannot be divided up neatly.1
But in Prolog, sometimes, we can divide things up much more neatly. In particular, if you concentrate on a single property like non-termination. So let's consider magic squares of size one — very magic indeed! Like so using a failure-slice:
?- magicSq(Xs,1), false.
magicSq(List, N) :-
Number is N * N,
belongs(Number ,List), false,
all_different(List),
Suma is N*(N*N + 1)/2,
checkC(List,N,N,Suma),
checkR(List,1,N,Suma).
belongs(0, _) :- false.
belongs(N1, List) :-
member(N1,List), false,
N2 is N1 - 1,
belongs(N2, List).
That's all you need to understand! Evidently, the List is unconstrained and thus the goal member(N1, List) cannot terminate. That's easy to fix, adding a goal length(List, Number). And still, the program does not terminate but in a different area:
?- magicSq(Xs,1), false.
magicSq(List, N) :-
Number is N * N,
length(List, Number),
belongs(Number ,List), false,
all_different(List),
Suma is N*(N*N + 1)/2,
checkC(List,N,N,Suma),
checkR(List,1,N,Suma).
belongs(0, _) :- false.
belongs(N1, List) :-
member(N1,List),
N2 is N1 - 1,
belongs(N2, List), false.
Now this does not terminate, for N1 may be negative, too. We need to improve that adding N1 > 0.
Now, considering the program with a false in front of all_different/1, I get:
?- time(magicSq(List, 3)).
% 8,571,007 inferences
That looks like an awful lot of inferences! In fact, what you are doing is to enumerate all possible configurations first. Thus, you do not use the powers of constraint programming. Please go through tutorials on this. Start here.
However, the problems do not stop here! There is much more to it, but the remaining program is very difficult to understand, for you are using the ! in completely unrelated places.
Related
We want to build a predicate that gets a list L and a number N and is true if N is the length of the longest sequence of list L.
For example:
?- ls([1,2,2,4,4,4,2,3,2],3).
true.
?- ls([1,2,3,2,3,2,1,7,8],3).
false.
For this I built -
head([X|S],X). % head of the list
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X),H=X, NN is N-1 , ls(T,NN) . % if the head equal to his following
ls(_,0) :- !. % get seq in length N
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X) , not(H=X) ,ls(T,N). % if the head doesn't equal to his following
The concept is simply - check if the head equal to his following , if so , continue with the tail and decrement the N .
I checked my code and it works well (ignore cases which N = 1) -
ls([1,2,2,4,4,4,2,3,2],3).
true ;
false .
But the true answer isn't finite and there is more answer after that , how could I make it to return finite answer ?
Prolog-wise, you have a few problems. One is that your predicate only works when both arguments are instantiated, which is disappointing to Prolog. Another is your style—head/2 doesn't really add anything over [H|T]. I also think this algorithm is fundamentally flawed. I don't think you can be sure that no sequence of longer length exists in the tail of the list without retaining an unchanged copy of the guessed length. In other words, the second thing #Zakum points out, I don't think there will be a simple solution for it.
This is how I would have approached the problem. First a helper predicate for getting the maximum of two values:
max(X, Y, X) :- X >= Y.
max(X, Y, Y) :- Y > X.
Now most of the work sequence_length/2 does is delegated to a loop, except for the base case of the empty list:
sequence_length([], 0).
sequence_length([X|Xs], Length) :-
once(sequence_length_loop(X, Xs, 1, Length)).
The call to once/1 ensures we only get one answer. This will prevent the predicate from usefully generating lists with sequences while also making the predicate deterministic, which is something you desired. (It has the same effect as a nicely placed cut).
Loop's base case: copy the accumulator to the output parameter:
sequence_length_loop(_, [], Length, Length).
Inductive case #1: we have another copy of the same value. Increment the accumulator and recur.
sequence_length_loop(X, [X|Xs], Acc, Length) :-
succ(Acc, Acc1),
sequence_length_loop(X, Xs, Acc1, Length).
Inductive case #2: we have a different value. Calculate the sequence length of the remainder of the list; if it is larger than our accumulator, use that; otherwise, use the accumulator.
sequence_length_loop(X, [Y|Xs], Acc, Length) :-
X \= Y,
sequence_length([Y|Xs], LengthRemaining),
max(Acc, LengthRemaining, Length).
This is how I would approach this problem. I don't know if it will be useful for you or not, but I hope you can glean something from it.
How about adding a break to the last rule?
head([X|S],X). % head of the list
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X),H=X, NN is N-1 , ls(T,NN) . % if the head equal to his following
ls(_,0) :- !. % get seq in length N
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X) , not(H=X) ,ls(T,N),!. % if the head doesn't equal to his following
Works for me, though I'm no Prolog expert.
//EDIT: btw. try
14 ?- ls([1,2,2,4,4,4,2,3,2],2).
true ;
false.
Looks false to me, there is no check whether N is the longest sequence. Or did I get the requirements wrong?
Your code is checking if there is in list at least a sequence of elements of specified length. You need more arguments to keep the state of the search while visiting the list:
ls([E|Es], L) :- ls(E, 1, Es, L).
ls(X, N, [Y|Ys], L) :-
( X = Y
-> M is N+1,
ls(X, M, Ys, L)
; ls(Y, 1, Ys, M),
( M > N -> L = M ; L = N )
).
ls(_, N, [], N).
I have the following task:
Write a method that will add two polynoms. I.e 0+2*x^3 and 0+1*x^3+2*x^4 will give 0+3*x^3+2*x^4.
I also wrote the following code:
add_poly(+A1*x^B1+P1,+A2*x^B2+P2,+A3*x^B3+P3):-
(
B1=B2,
B3 = B2,
A3 is A1+A2,
add_poly(P1,P2,P3)
;
B1<B2,
B3=B1,
A3=A1,
add_poly(P1,+A2*x^B2+P2,P3)
;
B1>B2,
B3=B2,
A3=A2,
add_poly(+A1*x^B1+P1,P2,P3)
).
add_poly(X+P1,Y+P2,Z+P3):-
Z is X+Y,
add_poly(P1,P2,P3).
My problem is that I don't know how to stop. I would like to stop when one the arguments is null and than to append the second argument to the third one. But how can I check that they are null?
Thanks.
Several remarks:
Try to avoid disjunctions (;)/2 in the beginning. They need special indentation to be readable. And they make reading a single rule more complex — think of all the extra (=)/2 goals you have to write and keep track of.
Then, I am not sure what you can assume about your polynomials. Can you assume they are written in canonical form?
And for your program: Consider the head of your first rule:
add_poly(+A1*x^B1+P1,+A2*x^B2+P2,+A3*x^B3+P3):-
I will generalize away some of the arguments:
add_poly(+A1*x^B1+P1,_,_):-
and some of the subterms:
add_poly(+_+_,_,_):-
This corresponds to:
add_poly(+(+(_),_),_,_) :-
Not sure you like this.
So this rule applies only to terms starting with a prefix + followed by an infix +. At least your sample data did not contain a prefix +.
Also, please remark that the +-operator is left associative. That means that 1+2+3+4 associates to the left:
?- write_canonical(1+2+3+4).
+(+(+(1,2),3),4)
So if you have a term 0+3*x^3+2*x^4 the first thing you "see" is _+2*x^4. The terms on the left are nested deeper.
For your actual question (how to stop) - you will have to test explicitly that the leftmost subterm is an integer, use integer/1 - or maybe a term (*)/2 (that depends on your assumptions).
I assume that polynomials you are speaking of are in 1 variable and with integer exponents.
Here a procedure working on normal polynomial form: a polynomial can be represented as a list (a sum) of factors, where the (integer) exponent is implicitly represented by the position.
:- [library(clpfd)].
add_poly(P1, P2, Sum) :-
normalize(P1, N1),
normalize(P2, N2),
append(N1, N2, Nt),
aggregate_all(max(L), (member(M, Nt), length(M, L)), LMax),
maplist(rpad(LMax), Nt, Nn),
clpfd:transpose(Nn, Tn),
maplist(sumlist, Tn, NSum),
denormalize(NSum, Sum).
rpad(LMax, List, ListN) :-
length(List, L),
D is LMax - L,
zeros(D, Z),
append(List, Z, ListN).
% the hardest part is of course normalization: here a draft
normalize(Ts + T, [N|Ns]) :-
normalize_fact(T, N),
normalize(Ts, Ns).
normalize(T, [N]) :-
normalize_fact(T, N).
% build a list with 0s left before position E
normalize_fact(T, Normal) :-
fact_exp(T, F, E),
zeros(E, Zeros),
nth0(E, Normal, F, Zeros).
zeros(E, Zeros) :-
length(Zeros, E),
maplist(copy_term(0), Zeros).
fact_exp(F * x ^ E, F, E).
fact_exp(x ^ E, 1, E).
fact_exp(F * x, F, 1).
fact_exp(F, F, 0).
% TBD...
denormalize(NSum, NSum).
test:
?- add_poly(0+2*x^3, 0+1*x^3+2*x^4, P).
P = [0, 0, 0, 3, 2]
the answer is still in normal form, denormalize/2 should be written...
So here it is : I'm trying to calculate the sum of all primes below two millions (for this problem), but my program is very slow. I do know that the algorithm in itself is terribly bad and a brute force one, but it seems way slower than it should to me.
Here I limit the search to 20,000 so that the result isn't waited too long.
I don't think that this predicate is difficult to understand but I'll explain it anyway : I calculate the list of all the primes below 20,000 and then sum them. The sum part is fine, the primes part is really slow.
problem_010(R) :-
p010(3, [], Primes),
sumlist([2|Primes], R).
p010(20001, Primes, Primes) :- !.
p010(Current, Primes, Result) :-
(
prime(Current, Primes)
-> append([Primes, [Current]], NewPrimes)
; NewPrimes = Primes
),
NewCurrent is Current + 2,
p010(NewCurrent, NewPrimes, Result).
prime(_, []) :- !.
prime(N, [Prime|_Primes]) :- 0 is N mod Prime, !, fail.
prime(ToTest, [_|Primes]) :- prime(ToTest, Primes).
I'd like some insight about why it is so slow. Is it a good implementation of the stupid brute force algorithm, or is there some reason that makes Prolog fall?
EDIT : I already found something, by appending new primes instead of letting them in the head of the list, I have primes that occur more often at start so it's ~3 times faster. Still need some insight though :)
First, Prolog does not fail here.
There are very smart ways how to generate prime numbers. But as a cheap start simply accumulate the primes in reversed order! (7.9s -> 2.6s) In this manner the smaller ones are tested sooner. Then, consider to test only against primes up to 141. Larger primes cannot be a factor.
Then, instead of stepping only through numbers not divisible by 2, you might add 3, 5, 7.
There are people writing papers on this "problem". See, for example this paper, although it's a bit of a sophistic discussion what the "genuine" algorithm actually was, 22 centuries ago when the latest release of the abacus was celebrated as Salamis tablets.
Consider using for example a sieve method ("Sieve of Eratosthenes"): First create a list [2,3,4,5,6,....N], using for example numlist/3. The first number in the list is a prime, keep it. Eliminate its multiples from the rest of the list. The next number in the remaining list is again a prime. Again eliminate its multiples. And so on. The list will shrink quite rapidly, and you end up with only primes remaining.
First of all, appending at the end of a list using append/3 is quite slow. If you must, then use difference lists instead. (Personally, I try to avoid append/3 as much as possible)
Secondly, your prime/2 always iterates over the whole list when checking a prime. This is unnecessarily slow. You can instead just check id you can find an integral factor up to the square root of the number you want to check.
problem_010(R) :-
p010(3, 2, R).
p010(2000001, Primes, Primes) :- !.
p010(Current, In, Result) :-
( prime(Current) -> Out is In+Current ; Out=In ),
NewCurrent is Current + 2,
p010(NewCurrent, Out, Result).
prime(2).
prime(3).
prime(X) :-
integer(X),
X > 3,
X mod 2 =\= 0,
\+is_composite(X, 3). % was: has_factor(X, 3)
is_composite(X, F) :- % was: has_factor(X, F)
X mod F =:= 0, !.
is_composite(X, F) :-
F * F < X,
F2 is F + 2,
is_composite(X, F2).
Disclaimer: I found this implementation of prime/1 and has_factor/2 by googling.
This code gives:
?- problem_010(R).
R = 142913828922
Yes (12.87s cpu)
Here is even faster code:
problem_010(R) :-
Max = 2000001,
functor(Bools, [], Max),
Sqrt is integer(floor(sqrt(Max))),
remove_multiples(2, Sqrt, Max, Bools),
compute_sum(2, Max, 0, R, Bools).
% up to square root of Max, remove multiples by setting bool to 0
remove_multiples(I, Sqrt, _, _) :- I > Sqrt, !.
remove_multiples(I, Sqrt, Max, Bools) :-
arg(I, Bools, B),
(
B == 0
->
true % already removed: do nothing
;
J is 2*I, % start at next multiple of I
remove(J, I, Max, Bools)
),
I1 is I+1,
remove_multiples(I1, Sqrt, Max, Bools).
remove(I, _, Max, _) :- I > Max, !.
remove(I, Add, Max, Bools) :-
arg(I, Bools, 0), % remove multiple by setting bool to 0
J is I+Add,
remove(J, Add, Max, Bools).
% sum up places that are not zero
compute_sum(Max, Max, R, R, _) :- !.
compute_sum(I, Max, RI, R, Bools) :-
arg(I, Bools, B),
(B == 0 -> RO = RI ; RO is RI + I ),
I1 is I+1,
compute_sum(I1, Max, RO, R, Bools).
This runs an order of magnitude faster than the code I gave above:
?- problem_010(R).
R = 142913828922
Yes (0.82s cpu)
OK, before the edit the problem was just the algorithm (imho).
As you noticed, it's more efficient to check if the number is divided by the smaller primes first; in a finite set, there are more numbers divisible by 3 than by 32147.
Another algorithm improvement is to stop checking when the primes are greater than the square root of the number.
Now, after your change there are indeed some prolog issues:
you use append/3. append/3 is quite slow since you have to traverse the whole list to place the element at the end.
Instead, you should use difference lists, which makes placing the element at the tail really fast.
Now, what is a difference list? Instead of creating a normal list [1,2,3] you create this one [1,2,3|T]. Notice that we leave the tail uninstantiated. Then, if we want to add one element (or more) at the end of the list we can simply say T=[4|NT]. awesome?
The following solution (accumulate primes in reverse order, stop when prime>sqrt(N), difference lists to append) takes 0.063 for 20k primes and 17sec for 2m primes while your original code took 3.7sec for 20k and the append/3 version 1.3sec.
problem_010(R) :-
p010(3, Primes, Primes),
sumlist([2|Primes], R).
p010(2000001, _Primes,[]) :- !. %checking for primes till 2mil
p010(Current, Primes,PrimesTail) :-
R is sqrt(Current),
(
prime(R,Current, Primes)
-> PrimesTail = [Current|NewPrimesTail]
; NewPrimesTail = PrimesTail
),
NewCurrent is Current + 2,
p010(NewCurrent, Primes,NewPrimesTail).
prime(_,_, Tail) :- var(Tail),!.
prime(R,_N, [Prime|_Primes]):-
Prime>R.
prime(_R,N, [Prime|_Primes]) :-0 is N mod Prime, !, fail.
prime(R,ToTest, [_|Primes]) :- prime(R,ToTest, Primes).
also, considering adding the numbers while you generate them to avoid the extra o(n) because of sumlist/2
in the end, you can always implement the AKS algorithm that runs in polynomial time (XD)
I have been trying for instance to have a list [1,3] and calculate its average inside the code without inputing the least itself. I'm not sure of the correct syntax to make it work, only the first line has a problem since it works perfectly fine if I called average and input the numbers when I run prolog.
average([1,3],X).
average(List, Result) :- sum1(List, Len), sum(List, Sum), Result is Sum / Len.
sum([], 0).
sum([H|T], Sum) :- sum(T, Temp), Sum is Temp + H.
sum1([],0).
sum1([_|B],L):-sum1(B,Ln), L is Ln+1.
Well, you don't want to input list all the time. It means, that you should have predicate something like my_list/1 and use it in your program.
my_list( [1,3] ).
average_easy( List, Avg ) :-
sum_( List, Sum ),
length_( List, Length ),
Avg is Sum / Length.
sum_( [], 0 ).
sum_( [H|T], Sum ) :-
sum_( T, Temp ),
Sum is Temp + H.
length_( [], 0 ).
length_( [_|B], L ):-
length_( B, Ln ),
L is Ln+1.
main :-
my_list( X ),
average_easy( X, Ans ),
writeln((X, Ans)).
So, what we've got now, is
?- [your_program_name].
% your_program_name compiled 0.00 sec, 64 bytes
true.
?- main.
[1,3],2
true.
Btw, there are length/2 predicate, already built-in in swi-prolog.
avglist(L1,Avg):-sum(L1,0,S),length(L1,0,L),Avg is S/L.
sum([H|T],A,S):-A1 is A+H,sum(T,A1,S).
sum([],A,A).
length([H|T],A,L):-A1 is A+1,length(T,A1,L).
length([],A,A).
this is a simple method to calculate the average of a list in swi prolog
You must walk through the list, use 2 accumulators, one for the sum, one for the length and when the walk is finished compute the average.
% here the list is not finished
walk([H|T], AccTT, AccL, Average) :-
% here you write the code
.....................
% next step
walk(T, NewAccTT, NewAccL, Average).
% here the list is finished
walk([], AccTT, AccL, Average) :-
% here you compute the average .
Average is ....
I understand that I need to figure out my own homework, but seeing that noone in the class can figure it out, I need some help.
Write a Prolog program such that p(X)
is true if X is a list consisting of n
a's followed by n+1 b's, for any n >= 1.
I don't remember how to code this in Prolog, but the idea is this:
Rule 1:
If listsize is 1, return true if the element is a B.
Rule 2:
If listsize is 2, return false.
Rule 3:
Check if the first item in the list is an A and the last one is a B.
If this is true, return the solution for elements 2 to listsize-1.
If I understood your problem correctly that should be the perfect Prolog style solution.
Edit: I totally forgot about this. I edited the answer to consider the case of n = 1 and n = 2. Thanks to Heath Hunnicutt.
You should use a counter to keep track of what you have found so far. When you find an b, add one to the counter. When you find a a, subtract one. The final value of your counter after the whole list is traversed should be one, since you want the number of b's to be 1 more than the number of a's. Here's an example of how to write that in code:
% When we see an "a" at the head of a list, we decrement the counter.
validList([a|Tail], Counter) :-
NewCounter is Counter - 1,
validList(Tail, NewCounter).
% When we see an "b" at the head of a list, we increment the counter.
validList([b|Tail], Counter) :-
NewCounter is Counter + 1,
validList(Tail, NewCounter).
% When we have been through the whole list, the counter should be 1.
validList([], 1).
% Shortcut for calling the function with a single parameter.
p(X) :-
validList(X, 0).
Now, this will do almost what you want - it matches the rules for all n >= 0, while you want it for all n >= 1. In typical homework answer fashion, I've left that last bit for you to add yourself.
Here is my abstruse solution
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
n(L, N) -->
[L],
{N1 #= N-1
},
!, n(L, N1).
n(_, 0) --> [], !.
ab -->
n(a, N),
{N1 is N + 1
},
n(b, N1).
p(X) :- phrase(ab, X).
test :-
p([b]),
p([a,b,b]),
p([a,a,b,b,b]),
p([a,a,a,b,b,b,b]),
\+ p([a]),
\+ p([a,b]),
\+ p([a,a,b,b]),
\+ p([a,b,b,c]).
testing:
?- [ab].
% ab compiled 0.00 sec, -36 bytes
true.
?- test.
true.