Related
So, my goal is to make a map colourer in Prolog. Here's the map I'm using:
And this are my colouring constraints:
colouring([A,B,C,D,E,F]) :-
maplist( #\=(A), [B,C,D,E] ),
maplist( #\=(B), [C,D,F]),
C #\= D,
maplist( #\=(D), [E,F]),
E #\= F.
Where [A,B,C,D,E,F] is a list of numbers(colors) from 1 to n.
So I want my solver to, given a List of 6 colors and a natural number N, determine the colors and N constraints both ways, in a way that even the most general query could yield results:
regions_ncolors(L,N) :- colouring(L), L ins 1..N, label(L).
Where the most general query is regions_ncolors(L,N).
However, the operator ins doesn't seem to accept a variable N, it instead yields an argument not sufficiently instantiated error. I've tried using this solution instead:
int_cset_(N,Acc,Acc) :- N #= 0.
int_cset_(N,Acc,Cs) :- N_1 #= N-1, int_cset_(N_1,[N|Acc],Cs).
int_cset(N,Cs) :- int_cset_(N,[],Cs).
% most general solver
regions_ncolors(L,N) :- colouring(L), int_cset(N,Cs), subset(L,Cs), label(L).
Where the arguments in int_cset(N,Cs) is a natural number(N) and the counting set Sn = {1,2,...,N}
But this solution is buggy as regions_ncolors(L,N). only returns the same(one) solution for all N, and when I try to add a constraint to N, it goes in an infinite loop.
So what can I do to make the most general query work both ways(for not-instantiated variables)?
Thanks in advance!
Btw, I added a swi-prolog tag in my last post although it was removed by moderation. I don't know if this question is specific to swi-prolog which is why I'm keeping the tag, just in case :)
Your colouring is too specific, you encode the topology of your map into it. Not a problem as is, but it defeats of the purpose of then having a "most general query" solution for just any list.
If you want to avoid the problem of having a free variable instead of a list, you could first instantiate the list with length/2. Compare:
?- L ins 1..3.
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
ERROR: In:
ERROR: [16] throw(error(instantiation_error,_86828))
ERROR: [10] clpfd:(_86858 ins 1..3) ...
Is that the same problem as you see?
If you first make a list and a corresponding set:
?- length(L, N), L ins 1..N.
L = [],
N = 0 ;
L = [1],
N = 1 ;
L = [_A, _B],
N = 2,
_A in 1..2,
_B in 1..2 ;
L = [_A, _B, _C],
N = 3,
_A in 1..3,
_B in 1..3,
_C in 1..3 .
If you use length/2 like this you will enumerate the possible lists and integer sets completely outside of the CLP(FD) labeling. You can then add more constraints on the variables on the list and if necessary, use labeling.
Does that help you get any further with your problem? I am not sure how it helps for the colouring problem. You would need a different representation of the map topology so that you don't have to manually define it within a predicate like your colouring/1 you have in your question.
There are several issues in your program.
subset/2 is impure
SWI's (by default) built-in predicate subset/2 is not the pure relation you are hoping for. Instead, it expects that both arguments are already sufficiently instantiated. And if not, it takes a guess and sticks to it:
?- colouring(L), subset(L,[1,2,3,4,5]).
L = [1,2,3,4,2,1].
?- colouring(L), subset(L,[1,2,3,4,5]), L = [2|_].
false.
?- L = [2|_], colouring(L), subset(L,[1,2,3,4,5]), L = [2|_].
L = [2,1,3,4,1,2].
With a pure definition it is impossible that adding a further goal as L = [2|_] in the third query makes a failing query succeed.
In general it is a good idea to not interfere with labeling/2 except for the order of variables and the options argument. The internal implementation is often much faster than manual instantiations.
Also, your map is far too simple to expose subset/2s weakness. Not sure what the minimal failing graph is, but here is one such example from
R. Janczewski et al. The smallest hard-to-color graph for algorithm DSATUR, Discrete Mathematics 236 (2001) p.164.
colouring_m13([K1,K2,K3,K6,K5,K7,K4]):-
maplist(#\=(K1), [K2,K3,K4,K7]),
maplist(#\=(K2), [K3,K5,K6]),
maplist(#\=(K3), [K4,K5]),
maplist(#\=(K4), [K5,K7]),
maplist(#\=(K5), [K6,K7]),
maplist(#\=(K6), [K7]).
?- colouring_m13(L), subset(L,[1,2,3,4]).
false. % incomplete
?- L = [3|_], colouring_m13(L), subset(L,[1,2,3,4]).
L = [3,1,2,2,3,1,4].
int_cset/2 never terminates
... (except for some error cases like int_cset(non_integer, _).). As an example consider:
?- int_cset(1,Cs).
Cs = [1]
; loops.
And don't get fooled by the fact that an actual solution was found! It still does not terminate.
#Luis: But how come? I'm getting baffled by this, the same thing is happening on ...
To see this, you need the notion of a failure-slice which helps to identify the responsible part in your program. With some falsework consisting of goals false the responsible part is exposed.
All unnecessary parts have been removed by false. What remains has to be changed somehow.
int_cset_(N,Acc,Acc) :- false, N #= 0.
int_cset_(N,Acc,Cs) :- N1 #= N-1, int_cset_(N1,[N|Acc],Cs), false.
int_cset(N,Cs) :- int_cset_(N,[],Cs), false.
?- int_cset(1, Cs), false.
loops.
Adding the redundant goal N1 #> 0
will avoid unnecessary non-termination.
This alone will not solve your problem since if N is not given, you will still encounter non-termination due to the following failure slice:
regions_ncolors(L,N) :-
colouring(L),
int_cset(N,Cs), false,
subset(L,Cs),
label(L).
In int_cset(N,Cs), Cs occurs for the first time and thus cannot influence termination (there is another reason too, its definition would ignore it as well..) and therefore only N has a chance to induce termination.
The actual solution has been already suggested by #TA_intern using length/2 which liberates one of such mode-infested chores.
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.
Boolo's curious inference has been originally formulated with equations here. It is a recursive definition of a function f and a predicate d via the syntax of N+, the natural numbers without zero, generated from 1 and s(.).
But it can also be formulated with Horn Clauses. The logical content is not exactly the same, the predicate f captures only the positive aspect of the function, but the problem type is the same. Take the following Prolog program:
f(_, 1, s(1)).
f(1, s(X), s(s(Y))) :- f(1, X, Y).
f(s(X), s(Y), T) :- f(s(X), Y, Z), f(X, Z, T).
d(1).
d(s(X)) :- d(X).
Whats the theoretical logical outcome of the last query, and can you demonstrably have a computer program in our time and space that produces the outcome, i.e. post the program on gist and everybody can run it?
?- f(X,X,Y).
X = 1,
Y = s(1)
X = s(1),
Y = s(s(s(1)))
X = s(s(1)),
Y = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...))))))))))
ERROR: Out of global stack
?- f(s(s(s(s(1)))), s(s(s(s(1)))), X), d(X).
If the program that does the job of certifying the result is not a Prolog interpreter itself like here, what would do the job especially suited for this Prologish problem formulation?
One solution: Abstract interpretation
Preliminaries
In this answer, I use an interpreter to show that this holds. However, it is not a Prolog interpreter, because it does not interpret the program in exactly the same way Prolog interprets the program.
Instead, it interprets the program in a more abstract way. Such interpreters are therefore called abstract interpreters.
Program representation
Critically, I work directly with the source program, using only modifications that we, by purely algebraic reasoning, know can be safely applied. It helps tremendously for such reasoning that your source program is completely pure by construction, since it only uses pure predicates.
To simplify reasoning about the program, I now make all unifications explicit. It is easy to see that this does not change the meaning of the program, and can be easily automated. I obtain:
f(_, X, Y) :-
X = 1,
Y = s(1).
f(Arg, X, Y) :-
Arg = 1,
X = s(X0),
Y = s(s(Y0)),
f(Arg, X0, Y0).
f(X, Y, T) :-
X = s(X0),
Y = s(Y0),
f(X, Y0, Z),
f(X0, Z, T).
I leave it as an easy exercise to show that this is declaratively equivalent to the original program.
The abstraction
The abstraction I use is the following: Instead of reasoning over the concrete terms 1, s(1), s(s(1)) etc., I use the atom d for each term T for which I can prove that d(T) holds.
Let me show you what I mean by the following interpretation of unification:
interpret(d = N) :- d(N).
This says:
If d(N) holds, then N is to be regarded identical to the atom d, which, as we said, shall denote any term for which d/1 holds.
Note that this differs significantly from what an actual unification between concrete terms d and N means! For example, we obtain:
?- interpret(X = s(s(1))).
X = d.
Pretty strange, but I hope you can get used to it.
Extending the abstraction
Of course, interpreting a single unification is not enough to reason about this program, since it also contains additional language elements.
I therefore extend the abstract interpretation to:
conjunction
calls of f/3.
Interpreting conjunctions is easy, but what about f/3?
Incremental derivations
If, during abstract interpretation, we encounter the goal f(X, Y, Z), then we know the following: In principle, the arguments can of course be unified with any terms for which the goal succeeds. So we keep track of those arguments for which we know the query can succeed in principle.
We thus equip the predicate with an additional argument: A list of f/3 goals that are logical consequences of the program.
In addition, we implement the following very important provision: If we encounter a unification that cannot be safely interpreted in abstract terms, then we throw an error instead of failing silently. This may for example happen if the unification would fail when regarded as an abstract interpretation although it would succeed as a concrete unification, or if we cannot fully determine whether the arguments are of the intended domain. The primary purpose of this provision is to avoid unintentional elimination of actual solutions due to oversights in the abstract interpreter. This is the most critical aspect in the interpreter, and any proof-theoretic mechanism will face closely related questions (how can we ensure that no proofs are missed?).
Here it is:
interpret(Var = N, _) :-
must_be(var, Var),
must_be(ground, N),
d(N),
Var = d.
interpret((A,B), Ds) :-
interpret(A, Ds),
interpret(B, Ds).
interpret(f(A, B, C), Ds) :-
member(f(A, B, C), Ds).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
How can we tell whether this is actually correct? That's the tough part! In fact, it turns out that the above is not sufficient to be certain to catch all cases, because it may simply fail if d(N) does not hold. It is obviously not acceptable for the abstract interpreter to fail silently for cases it cannot handle. So we need at least one more clause:
interpret(Var = N, _) :-
must_be(var, Var),
must_be(ground, N),
\+ d(N),
domain_error(d, N).
In fact, an abstract interpreter becomes a lot less error-prone when we reason about ground terms, and so I will use the atom any to represent "any term at all" in derived answers.
Over this domain, the interpretation of unification becomes:
interpret(Var = N, _) :-
must_be(ground, N),
( var(Var) ->
( d(N) -> Var = d
; N = s(d) -> Var = d
; N = s(s(d)) -> Var = d
; domain_error(d, N)
)
; Var == any -> true
; domain_error(any, Var)
).
In addition, I have implemented further cases of the unification over this abstract domain. I leave it as an exercise to ponder whether this correctly models the intended semantics, and to implement further cases.
As it will turn out, this definition suffices to answer the posted question. However, it clearly leaves a lot to be desired: It is more complex than we would like, and it becomes increasingly harder to tell whether we have covered all cases. Note though that any proof-theoretic approach will face closely corresponding issues: The more complex and powerful it becomes, the harder it is to tell whether it is still correct.
All derivations: See you at the fixpoint!
It now remains to deduce everything that follows from the original program.
Here it is, a simple fixpoint computation:
derivables(Ds) :-
functor(Head, f, 3),
findall(Head-Body, clause(Head, Body), Clauses),
derivables_fixpoint(Clauses, [], Ds).
derivables_fixpoint(Clauses, Ds0, Ds) :-
findall(D, clauses_derivable(Clauses, Ds0, D), Ds1, Ds0),
term_variables(Ds1, Vs),
maplist(=(any), Vs),
sort(Ds1, Ds2),
( same_length(Ds2, Ds0) -> Ds = Ds0
; derivables_fixpoint(Clauses, Ds2, Ds)
).
clauses_derivable(Clauses, Ds0, Head) :-
member(Head-Body, Clauses),
interpret(Body, Ds0).
Since we are deriving ground terms, sort/2 removes duplicates.
Example query:
?- derivables(Ds).
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Somewhat anticlimactically, the abstract interpreter is unable to process this program!
Commutativity to the rescue
In a proof-theoretic approach, we search for, well, proofs. In an interpreter-based approach, we can either improve the interpreter or apply algebraic laws to transform the source program in a way that preserves essential properties.
In this case, I will do the latter, and leave the former as an exercise. Instead of searching for proofs, we are searching for equivalent ways to write the program so that our interpreter can derive the desired properties. For example, I now use commutativity of conjunction to obtain:
f(_, X, Y) :-
X = 1,
Y = s(1).
f(Arg, X, Y) :-
Arg = 1,
f(Arg, X0, Y0),
X = s(X0),
Y = s(s(Y0)).
f(X, Y, T) :-
f(X, Y0, Z),
f(X0, Z, T),
X = s(X0),
Y = s(Y0).
Again, I leave it as an exercise to carefully check that this program is declaratively equivalent to your original program.
iamque opus exegi, because:
?- derivables(Ds).
Ds = [f(any, d, d)].
This shows that in each solution of f/3, the last two arguments are always terms for which d/1 holds! In particular, it also holds for the sample arguments you posted, even if there is no hope to ever actually compute the concrete terms!
Conclusion
By abstract interpretation, we have shown:
for all X where f(_, _, X) holds, d(X) also holds
beyond that, for all Y where f(_, Y, _) holds, d(Y) also holds.
The question only asked for a special case of the first property. We have shown significantly more!
In summary:
If f(_, Y, X) holds, then d(X) holds and d(Y) holds.
Prolog makes it comparatively easy and convenient to reason about Prolog programs. This often allows us to derive interesting properties of Prolog programs, such as termination properties and type information.
Please see Reasoning about programs for references and more explanation.
+1 for a great question and reference.
min_member(-Min, +List)
True when Min is the smallest member in the standard order of terms. Fails if List is empty.
?- min_member(3, [1,2,X]).
X = 3.
The explanation is of course that variables come before all other terms in the standard order of terms, and unification is used. However, the reported solution feels somehow wrong.
How can it be justified? How should I interpret this solution?
EDIT:
One way to prevent min_member/2 from succeeding with this solution is to change the standard library (SWI-Prolog) implementation as follows:
xmin_member(Min, [H|T]) :-
xmin_member_(T, H, Min).
xmin_member_([], Min0, Min) :-
( var(Min0), nonvar(Min)
-> fail
; Min = Min0
).
xmin_member_([H|T], Min0, Min) :-
( H #>= Min0
-> xmin_member_(T, Min0, Min)
; xmin_member_(T, H, Min)
).
The rationale behind failing instead of throwing an instantiation error (what #mat suggests in his answer, if I understood correctly) is that this is a clear question:
"Is 3 the minimum member of [1,2,X], when X is a free variable?"
and the answer to this is (to me at least) a clear "No", rather than "I can't really tell."
This is the same class of behavior as sort/2:
?- sort([A,B,C], [3,1,2]).
A = 3,
B = 1,
C = 2.
And the same tricks apply:
?- min_member(3, [1,2,A,B]).
A = 3.
?- var(B), min_member(3, [1,2,A,B]).
B = 3.
The actual source of confusion is a common problem with general Prolog code. There is no clean, generally accepted classification of the kind of purity or impurity of a Prolog predicate. In a manual, and similarly in the standard, pure and impure built-ins are happily mixed together. For this reason, things are often confused, and talking about what should be the case and what not, often leads to unfruitful discussions.
How can it be justified? How should I interpret this solution?
First, look at the "mode declaration" or "mode indicator":
min_member(-Min, +List)
In the SWI documentation, this describes the way how a programmer shall use this predicate. Thus, the first argument should be uninstantiated (and probably also unaliased within the goal), the second argument should be instantiated to a list of some sort. For all other uses you are on your own. The system assumes that you are able to check that for yourself. Are you really able to do so? I, for my part, have quite some difficulties with this. ISO has a different system which also originates in DEC10.
Further, the implementation tries to be "reasonable" for unspecified cases. In particular, it tries to be steadfast in the first argument. So the minimum is first computed independently of the value of Min. Then, the resulting value is unified with Min. This robustness against misuses comes often at a price. In this case, min_member/2 always has to visit the entire list. No matter if this is useful or not. Consider
?- length(L, 1000000), maplist(=(1),L), min_member(2, L).
Clearly, 2 is not the minimum of L. This could be detected by considering the first element of the list only. Due to the generality of the definition, the entire list has to be visited.
This way of handling output unification is similarly handled in the standard. You can spot those cases when the (otherwise) declarative description (which is the first of a built-in) explicitly refers to unification, like
8.5.4 copy_term/2
8.5.4.1 Description
copy_term(Term_1, Term_2) is true iff Term_2 unifies
with a term T which is a renamed copy (7.1.6.2) of
Term_1.
or
8.4.3 sort/2
8.4.3.1 Description
sort(List, Sorted) is true iff Sorted unifies with
the sorted list of List (7.1.6.5).
Here are those arguments (in brackets) of built-ins that can only be understood as being output arguments. Note that there are many more which effectively are output arguments, but that do not need the process of unification after some operation. Think of 8.5.2 arg/3 (3) or 8.2.1 (=)/2 (2) or (1).
8.5.4 1 copy_term/2 (2),
8.4.2 compare/3 (1),
8.4.3 sort/2 (2),
8.4.4 keysort/2 (2),
8.10.1 findall/3 (3),
8.10.2 bagof/3 (3),
8.10.3 setof/3 (3).
So much for your direct questions, there are some more fundamental problems behind:
Term order
Historically, "standard" term order1 has been defined to permit the definition of setof/3 and sort/2 about 1982. (Prior to it, as in 1978, it was not mentioned in the DEC10 manual user's guide.)
From 1982 on, term order was frequently (erm, ab-) used to implement other orders, particularly, because DEC10 did not offer higher-order predicates directly. call/N was to be invented two years later (1984) ; but needed some more decades to be generally accepted. It is for this reason that Prolog programmers have a somewhat nonchalant attitude towards sorting. Often they intend to sort terms of a certain kind, but prefer to use sort/2 for this purpose — without any additional error checking. A further reason for this was the excellent performance of sort/2 beating various "efficient" libraries in other programming languages decades later (I believe STL had a bug to this end, too). Also the complete magic in the code - I remember one variable was named Omniumgatherum - did not invite copying and modifying the code.
Term order has two problems: variables (which can be further instantiated to invalidate the current ordering) and infinite terms. Both are handled in current implementations without producing an error, but with still undefined results. Yet, programmers assume that everything will work out. Ideally, there would be comparison predicates that produce
instantiation errors for unclear cases like this suggestion. And another error for incomparable infinite terms.
Both SICStus and SWI have min_member/2, but only SICStus has min_member/3 with an additional argument to specify the order employed. So the goal
?- min_member(=<, M, Ms).
behaves more to your expectations, but only for numbers (plus arithmetic expressions).
Footnotes:
1 I quote standard, in standard term order, for this notion existed since about 1982 whereas the standard was published 1995.
Clearly min_member/2 is not a true relation:
?- min_member(X, [X,0]), X = 1.
X = 1.
yet, after simply exchanging the two goals by (highly desirable) commutativity of conjunction, we get:
?- X = 1, min_member(X, [X,0]).
false.
This is clearly quite bad, as you correctly observe.
Constraints are a declarative solution for such problems. In the case of integers, finite domain constraints are a completely declarative solution for such problems.
Without constraints, it is best to throw an instantiation error when we know too little to give a sound answer.
This is a common property of many (all?) predicates that depend on the standard order of terms, while the order between two terms can change after unification. Baseline is the conjunction below, which cannot be reverted either:
?- X #< 2, X = 3.
X = 3.
Most predicates using a -Value annotation for an argument say that pred(Value) is the same
as pred(Var), Value = Var. Here is another example:
?- sort([2,X], [3,2]).
X = 3.
These predicates only represent clean relations if the input is ground. It is too much to demand the input to be ground though because they can be meaningfully used with variables, as long as the user is aware that s/he should not further instantiate any of the ordered terms. In that sense, I disagree with #mat. I do agree that constraints can surely make some of these relations sound.
This is how min_member/2 is implemented:
min_member(Min, [H|T]) :-
min_member_(T, H, Min).
min_member_([], Min, Min).
min_member_([H|T], Min0, Min) :-
( H #>= Min0
-> min_member_(T, Min0, Min)
; min_member_(T, H, Min)
).
So it seems that min_member/2 actually tries to unify Min (the first argument) with the smallest element in List in the standard order of terms.
I hope I am not off-topic with this third answer. I did not edit one of the previous two as I think it's a totally different idea. I was wondering if this undesired behaviour:
?- min_member(X, [A, B]), A = 3, B = 2.
X = A, A = 3,
B = 2.
can be avoided if some conditions can be postponed for the moment when A and B get instantiated.
promise_relation(Rel_2, X, Y):-
call(Rel_2, X, Y),
when(ground(X), call(Rel_2, X, Y)),
when(ground(Y), call(Rel_2, X, Y)).
min_member_1(Min, Lst):-
member(Min, Lst),
maplist(promise_relation(#=<, Min), Lst).
What I want from min_member_1(?Min, ?Lst) is to expresses a relation that says Min will always be lower (in the standard order of terms) than any of the elements in Lst.
?- min_member_1(X, L), L = [_,2,3,4], X = 1.
X = 1,
L = [1, 2, 3, 4] .
If variables get instantiated at a later time, the order in which they get bound becomes important as a comparison between a free variable and an instantiated one might be made.
?- min_member_1(X, [A,B,C]), B is 3, C is 4, A is 1.
X = A, A = 1,
B = 3,
C = 4 ;
false.
?- min_member_1(X, [A,B,C]), A is 1, B is 3, C is 4.
false.
But this can be avoided by unifying all of them in the same goal:
?- min_member_1(X, [A,B,C]), [A, B, C] = [1, 3, 4].
X = A, A = 1,
B = 3,
C = 4 ;
false.
Versions
If the comparisons are intended only for instantiated variables, promise_relation/3 can be changed to check the relation only when both variables get instantiated:
promise_relation(Rel_2, X, Y):-
when((ground(X), ground(Y)), call(Rel_2, X, Y)).
A simple test:
?- L = [_, _, _, _], min_member_1(X, L), L = [3,4,1,2].
L = [3, 4, 1, 2],
X = 1 ;
false.
! Edits were made to improve the initial post thanks to false's comments and suggestions.
I have an observation regarding your xmin_member implementation. It fails on this query:
?- xmin_member(1, [X, 2, 3]).
false.
I tried to include the case when the list might include free variables. So, I came up with this:
ymin_member(Min, Lst):-
member(Min, Lst),
maplist(#=<(Min), Lst).
Of course it's worse in terms of efficiency, but it works on that case:
?- ymin_member(1, [X, 2, 3]).
X = 1 ;
false.
?- ymin_member(X, [X, 2, 3]).
true ;
X = 2 ;
false.
This is a cube, the edges of which are directional; It can only go left to right, back to front and top to bottom.
edge(a,b).
edge(a,c).
edge(a,e).
edge(b,d).
edge(b,f).
edge(c,d).
edge(c,g).
edge(d,h).
edge(e,f).
edge(e,g).
edge(f,h).
edge(g,h).
With the method below we can check if we can go from A-H for example: cango(A,H).
move(X,Y):- edge(X,Y).
move(X,Y):- edge(X,Z), move(Z,Y).
With move2, I'm trying to impalement counting of steps required.
move2(X,Y,N):- N is N+1, edge(X,Y).
move2(X,Y,N):- N is N+1, edge(X,Z), move2(Z,Y,N).
How would I implement this?
arithmetic evaluation is carried out as usual in Prolog, but assignment doesn't work as usual. Then you need to introduce a new variable to increment value:
move2(X,Y,N,T):- T is N+1, edge(X,Y).
move2(X,Y,N,T):- M is N+1, edge(X,Z), move2(Z,Y,M,T).
and initialize N to 0 at first call. Such added variables (T in our case) are often called accumulators.
move2(X,Y,1):- edge(X,Y), ! .
move2(X,Y,NN):- edge(X,Z), move2(Z,Y,N), NN is N+1 .
(is)/2 is very sensitive to instantiations in its second argument. That means that you cannot use it in an entirely relational manner. You can ask X is 1+1., you can even ask 2 is 1+1. but you cannot ask: 2 is X+1.
So when you are programming with predicates like (is)/2, you have to imagine what modes a predicate will be used with. Such considerations easily lead to errors, in particular, if you just started. But don't worry, also more proficient programmers still fall prey to such problems.
There is a clean alternative in several Prolog systems: In SICStus, YAP, SWI there is a library(clpfd) which permits you to express relations between integers. Usually this library is used for constraint programming, but you can also use it as a safe and clean replacement for (is)/2 on the integers. Even more so, this library is often very efficiently compiled such that the resulting code is comparable in speed to (is)/2.
?- use_module(library(clpfd)).
true.
?- X #= 1+1.
X = 2.
?- 2 #= 1+1.
true.
?- 2 #= X+1.
X = 1.
So now back to your program, you can simply write:
move2(X,Y,1):- edge(X,Y).
move2(X,Y,N0):- N0 #>= 1, N0 #= N1+1, edge(X,Z), move2(Z,Y,N1).
You get now all distances as required.
But there is more to it ...
To make sure that move2/3 actually terminates, try:
?- move2(A, B, N), false.
false.
Now we can be sure that move2/3 always terminates. Always?
Assume you have added a further edge:
edge(f, f).
Now above query loops. But still you can use your program to your advantage!
Determine the number of nodes:
?- setof(C,A^B^(edge(A,B),member(C,[A,B])),Cs), length(Cs, N).
Cs = [a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h], N = 8.
So the longest path will take just 7 steps!
Now you can ask the query again, but now by constraining N to a value less than or equal to7:
?- 7 #>= N, move2(A,B, N), false.
false.
With this additional constraint, you have again a terminating definition! No more loops.