I could not find division (/) symbol on this page of CLP(FD): http://www.swi-prolog.org/man/clpfd.html
Also this simple code give error:
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
afn(A,B,C):-
C #= B / A.
?- afn(23, 56, C).
ERROR: Domain error: `clpfd_expression' expected, found `56/23'
Where is the problem and how can this be solved? Thanks.
In ISO Prolog (/)/2 yields a float result. SWI-Prolog is not ISO compliant here, it casts to an integer where possible. But basically (/)/2 is viewed as an operation between machine real numbers, that gives a new approximated machine real number.
On the other hand CLP(FD) works only with integers. Therefore, I guess, this is the reason that CLP(FD) usually don't support the (/)/2 operator. On the otherhand the div operator (//)/2 from ISO Prolog, works also for CLP(FD). Supported are:
Expr // Expr Truncated integer division
Expr div Expr Floored integer division
Here is an example run:
Welcome to SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 8.1.4)
?- use_module(library(clpfd)).
true.
?- X #= 100 // Y, Y = 7.
X = 14,
Y = 7.
?- X #= Z // 7, X = 14.
X = 14,
Z in 98..104.
If you have a CLP(FD) without the (//)/2 operator, you can simulate it. Instead of X #= Y//Z, you can write X*Z+R #= Y, 0 #=< R, R #< Z. When negative arguments are involved you need a more complex formula.
Here are some example runs that show that this approach also works:
?- X*Y+R #= 100, 0 #=< R, R #< Y, Y = 7.
X = 14,
Y = 7,
R = 2.
?- X*7+R #= Z, 0 #=< R, R #< 7, X = 14.
X = 14,
R in 0..6,
-98+Z#=R,
Z in 98..104.
Let's say we have two variables X and Y. X is 53 and Y is 52. What I want to do is compare them by adding 1 to the Y, so that it would be 53 - therefore X would be equal to Y + 1.
I am trying to do it by simply using equal operator and addition for Y variables, like so:
X == Y + 1
Even though this looks simple enough, I am getting false as the result. What am I missing?
?- X = 50+2, Y = 50+1, X =:= Y + 1.
as you can see, (=:=)/2 evaluates both sides, as do (>)/2, etc
If you are reasoning over integers, use your Prolog system's CLP(FD) constraints to compare and evaluate arithmetic integer expressions.
For example, in SICStus, SWI and YAP, after use_module(library(clpfd):
?- 53 #= 52 + 1.
true.
This works in all directions.
Other examples:
?- X #= 52 + 1.
X = 53.
?- 53 #= Y + 1.
Y = 52.
?- 53 #= 52 + 1.
true.
In order to evaluate expression trees, the is predicate is used:
X is Y+1.
you must be careful however, this will only work as a test if both X and Y are grounded. And will always error if variables on the right hand side (Y in this case) is not grounded.
swipl demo:
?- X = 53, Y = 52, X is Y+1.
X = 53,
Y = 52.
?- X = 53, Y = 52, X is Y.
false.
?- X = 53, X is Y+1.
ERROR: is/2: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
?- Y = 52, X is Y+1.
Y = 52,
X = 53.
I want to write the equivalent psudo-function in prolog:
function underhundred(X){
if (X >= 0 && X <=100) return 1;
else return 0;
}
I tried writing this but it does not compile:
underhundred(X,L) :- L is (X => 0, X =< 100 -> L = 1; L = 0) .
What would be the proper way of writing this without using prolog between predicate?
If you indeed want to use the goals L=1 and L=0 and X is an integer, use clpfd!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
Reification works like a charm!
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L.
L in 0..1, X in 0..100#<==>L.
What if X gets instantiated?
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L, X=(-7).
L = 0, X = -7. % out of bounds: -7 < 0 =< 100
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L, X=55.
L = 1, X = 55. % within bounds: 0 =< 55 =< 100
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L, X=111.
L = 0, X = 111. % out of bounds: 0 =< 100 < 111
A Prolog query succeeds or fails. If it succeeds it will return the bindings it made to be true.
You can write this predicate using clpfd as:
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
under_hundred_clpfd(X):-
X in 0..100.
(You might prefer a name such as between_0_100?, if you literally want under 100 then you can use X in inf..99).
Some queries:
?-under_hundred_clpfd(5).
true.
?-under_hundred_clpfd(101).
false.
?-under_hundred_clpfd(X).
X in 0..100.
A traditional way to write this is:
under_hundred(X):-
X>=0,
X=<100.
But this way does not work for uninstantiated variables.
?-under_hundred(X).
ERROR: >/2: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
So like you say you might have to put a between/3 or length/2 goal to get a solution or similar construct.
underhundred(X):-
length(_,X),
X>=0,
X=<100.
This is not a very good solution as on back tracking it will get into an infinite loop. between/3 behaves better but you don't want it :).
If the main point of the question is how to write an if-then-else construct in Prolog, then a reasonable answer along the lines of the proposed definition is:
underhundred(X,L) :-
( X >= 0, X =< 100 )
-> L = 1
; L = 0.
This will only be useful if underhundred(X,L) is called after X has been sufficiently instantiated.
I am very new to prolog and I am trying to code a simple program which will display the first 100 integers.
is_integer(0).
is_integer(X) :-
is_integer(Y),
( Y >= 100, ! ; X is Y + 1 ).
It works well but when we ask if 2.1 is an integer then it replies "true". This is because 2.1 is between 0 and 100.
But I want a program which will strictly display the first 100 Integers only.Could someone help me with this please.
Thanks!
I think this matches your style in the question if you don't want to use predefined functions like between(0, 100, X):
between0_100(X) :-
(var(X) -> true ; X >= 0), % either X is unbound or >= 0.
between0_100(0, X).
between0_100(X, X).
between0_100(X, Y) :-
Z is X + 1, % increment X
Z =< 100, % and test if it is <= 100
between0_100(Z, Y). % recurse
?- between0_100(X).
X = 0 ;
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
…
X = 98 ;
X = 99 ;
X = 100 ;
false.
?- between0_100(2.1).
false
What do you mean by "display"?
The (very standard) predicate between/3 is defined along the lines of:
between(Lower, Upper, N) is true when N >= Lower and N =< Upper. If N is an integer, it will succeed or fail, and throw an error if it is not an integer. If N is a free variable it will enumerate solutions by backtracking. I am quite certain you can find reasonable implementations of between/3 elsewhere on StackOverflow.
Or do you mean that you type in:
?- first_100_ints.
And you get:
0
1
2
3
4
...
99
?
You could do this as follows:
first_100_ints :-
next_int(0, 100).
next_int(X, Upper) :-
( X < Upper
-> format('~d~n', [X]),
succ(X, X1),
next_int(X1, Upper)
; true
).
This is one "cheap" way to do it. But keep in mind that this is not how you would want to write a Prolog program, normally. One somewhat better way would be to use the built-ins between/3 and forall/3:
?- forall(between(0, 99, X), format('~d~n', [X])).
This is equvalent to:
?- \+ (between(0, 99, X), \+ format('~d~n', [X])).
which reads something along the lines of, "There is no number between 0 and 99 (inclusive) for which you cannot print out the number". See here.
There are other things you can do, depending on what your exact goal is.
I second #Kay's answer. If it is possible, don't use side-effects and use the prolog-toplevel instead!
If your Prolog implementation offers clpfd, you could do it like this:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
?- X in 0..100, indomain(X).
X = 0. ;
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
% % ... lots of more answers ...
X = 99 ;
X = 100 ;
false. % query terminates universally
I have this code that uses an upper bound variable N that is supposed to terminate for X and Y of the pythagorean triple. However it only freezes when it reaches the upper bound. Wasn't sure how to use the cut to stop the backtracking. Code is:
is_int(0).
is_int(X) :- is_int(Y), X is Y+1.
minus(S,S,0).
minus(S,D1,D2) :- S>0, S1 is S-1, minus(S1,D1,D3), D2 is D3+1.
pythag(X,Y,Z,N) :- int_triple(X,Y,Z,N), Z*Z =:= X*X + Y*Y.
int_triple(X,Y,Z,N) :- is_int(S), minus(S,X,S1), X>0, X<N,
minus(S1,Y,Z), Y>0, Y<N.
Will be called, for example with,
?- pythag(X,Y,Z,20).
First, let us test your solution:
?- pythag(X,Y,Z,20).
X = 4, Y = 3, Z = 5
; X = 3, Y = 4, Z = 5
; X = 8, Y = 6, Z = 10
; X = 6, Y = 8, Z = 10
; X = 12, Y = 5, Z = 13
; X = 5, Y = 12, Z = 13
; X = 12, Y = 9, Z = 15
; X = 9, Y = 12, Z = 15
; X = 15, Y = 8, Z = 17
; X = 8, Y = 15, Z = 17
; X = 16, Y = 12, Z = 20
; X = 12, Y = 16, Z = 20
; loops.
Looks perfect to me! All answers are correct solutions! ... up to and including this last solution. After that, your program loops.
Before we try to identify the problem, just hold on for a moment: You must be pretty patient to go through 12 (that is: twelve) answers only to find that loop. Do you think that this method will also work for bigger cases? How many answers are you willing to look at before you give up? Isn't there a simpler way to find out about the problem?
There is one interesting observation here: The answers found have (almost) nothing to do with the looping of the program! That is: By looking at the answers, you get (frequently – as in this case) no clue about the actual cause of the loop! So why not turn off all the answers and concentrate on the relevant part! In fact, we can do this as follows:
?- pythag(X,Y,Z,20), false.
loops.
Now, all answers have been removed due to the goal false. What remains is just the final outcome: either termination, or non-termination, or some error. Nothing else. This should facilitate our observations about termination a bit - no more blinding answers scrolling over the screen. Note that this does not solve the problem in general. After all, how long are we willing to wait? 1s ? 1m?
The actual reason of non-termination can be best understood by looking at a relevant failure slice. That is a fragment of the program whose non-termination implies the non-termination of the whole program. See this answer for more details. Here is the relevant failure slice of your program for query pythag(X,Y,Z,20), false:
pythag(X,Y,Z,N) :-
int_triple(X,Y,Z,N), false,
Z*Z =:= X*X + Y*Y.
int_triple(X,Y,Z,N) :-
is_int(S), false,
minus(S,X,S1), X>0, X<N,
minus(S1,Y,Z), Y>0, Y<N.
is_int(0) :- false.
is_int(X) :-
is_int(Y), false,
X is Y+1.
Note that there are not many things left of your program. E.g., the actual equation is gone (that's more or less the logic part...). Still, this fragment is relevant. And as long as you do not change something within that fragment, the problem will persist! That is guaranteed for a pure monotonic program as this one...
Here is my preferred solution: It uses length/2 and between/3, two frequently supported predicates of the Prolog prologue.
pythag2(X,Y,Z,N) :-
length(_, N),
between(1,N,X),
between(1,N,Y),
between(1,N,Z),
Z*Z =:= X*X + Y*Y.
I was recently as well thinking about a Prolog solution to
find Pythagorean triples. I came up with a slightly different
code. Assume we have a function:
isqrt(a) = floor(sqrt(a))
It is then enough to enumerate x and y, and to check whether
x*x+y*y is the square of some z. Namely to check for:
h = x*x+y*y, z = isqrt(h), z*z = h ?
The function isqrt can be implemented via bisection. For
symmetry breaking we can enumerate y after x. Assuming
N = 99 the resulting code is:
% between(+Integer, +Integer, -Integer)
between(Lo, Hi, _) :-
Lo > Hi, !, fail.
between(Lo, _, Lo).
between(Lo, Hi, X) :-
Lo2 is Lo+1, between(Lo2, Hi, X).
% bisect(+Integer, +Integer, +Integer, -Integer)
bisect(Lo, Hi, X, Y) :-
Lo+1 < Hi, !,
M is (Lo+Hi) // 2,
S is M*M,
(S > X -> bisect(Lo, M, X, Y);
S < X -> bisect(M, Hi, X, Y);
M = Y).
bisect(Lo, _, _, Lo).
% pythago(-List)
pythago(X) :-
X = [A,B,C],
between(1, 99, A),
between(A, 99, B),
H is A*A+B*B,
bisect(0, H, H, C),
C =< 99, H =:= C*C.
There should be 50 such Pythagorean tripples, see also Sloan's A046083:
?- findall(-, pythago(_), L), length(L, N).
N = 52.
One might like to cross check with the following
CLP(FD) solution.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
% pythago3(-List)
pythago3(X) :-
X = [A,B,C],
X ins 1..99,
A*A+B*B #= C*C,
A #=< B,
label(X).
It gives the same number of solutions:
?- findall(-, pythago3(_), L), length(L, N).
N = 50.