Related
I have a List with Integers and anonymous variables and I try to find the index of a special values. Problem is as soon I'm using nth1/3 to find the indices Prolog assigns values to the anonymous variables and therefore I find way too indices.
Example:
List = [1,\_,1], where I want as result X = 1, X = 3 from nth1(X,List,1), but as stated before I get X = 1, X = 2, X = 3.
There is a somewhat problematic issue hidden in your requirements: They violate an important declarative property called monotonicity. By this we mean that adding constraints can at most make the solution more specific, never more general.
For example, with the solution you posted, we get:
?- list_el_index([_], 1, N).
false.
Now I add a constraint by imposing an additional requirement on the hitherto free anonymous variable:
?- Var = 1, list_el_index([Var], 1, N).
Var = 1,
N = 0 .
I mean: Come on! We have added a constraint, and as a result get more solutions than before? Such a result is unfortunate and prevents us from reasoning in a logical way about this program.
The program also fails us in other respects. For example, let us ask: Which solutions are there at all?
?- list_el_index(Ls, El, I).
nontermination
Ideally, we would like the program to generate solutions in such cases! This generality is one of the foremost attractions of logic programming, and distinguishes it from more low-level paradigms.
One way to solve such issues is to symbolically distinguish the different kinds of elements that appear in your list.
For example, let us use:
u for an unknown value.
i(I) for an integer I.
With this new representation, your solution becomes:
list_el_index([i(I)|_], I, 0).
list_el_index([_|Tail], Element, Index) :-
list_el_index(Tail, Element, Index0),
Index #= Index0+1.
I have also taken the liberty to replace (is)/2 by (#=)/2, to advertise and stick to more general integer arithmetic that lets us more freely reorder the goals, if necessary. Depending on your Prolog implementation, you may have to import a library to benefit from (#=)/2.
With this representation, your initial case becomes:
?- list_el_index([i(1),u,i(1)], 1, Index).
Index = 0 ;
Index = 2 ;
false.
This works as desired!
Importantly, we can use the predicate also more generally, namely to generate possible answers:
?- list_el_index(Ls, El, I).
Ls = [i(El)|_2994],
I = 0 ;
Ls = [_2992, i(El)|_3000],
I = 1 ;
Ls = [_2992, _2998, i(El)|_3006],
I = 2 ;
Ls = [_2992, _2998, _3004, i(El)|_3012],
I = 3 .
Due to the program's monotonicity, we can fairly enumerate solutions by iterative deepening:
?- length(Ls, _), list_el_index(Ls, El, I).
Ls = [i(El)],
I = 0 ;
Ls = [i(El), _4812],
I = 0 ;
Ls = [_4806, i(El)],
I = 1 ;
Ls = [i(El), _4812, _4818],
I = 0 ;
etc.
This has become possible by using a representation that lets us distinguish the cases by pattern matching. Consider using this approach to make your programs usable in all directions, and to make logical reasoning applicable. It is quite easy to apply by using the appropriate wrapper or constant, and greatly increases the generality of your programs.
This works :
- L = [1,_,1], nth1(X, L, Y), ground(Y), Y= 1.
L = [1,_310914,1],
X = Y, Y = 1 ;
L = [1,_310914,1],
X = 3,
Y = 1.
Thanks to lurkers hint, I came up with this solution.
list_el_index([El1|_], El2, 0) :-
El1 == El2.
list_el_index([_|Tail], Element, Index) :-
list_el_index(Tail, Element, Index1),
Index is Index1+1.
I am currently on the verge of getting mad trying to solve a simple "multiply peano integers" problem in Prolog.
Basic rules
A peano integer is defined as follows: 0 -> 0; 1 -> s(0); 2 -> s(s(0)) s(s(s(0) -> 3 etc.
The relation is to be defined as follows: multiply(N1,N2,R)
Where
N1 is the first peano integer (i.e. something like s(s(0)))
N2 is the second peano integer (i.e. something like s(s(0)))
R is the resulting new peano integer (like s(s(s(s(0))))
I am aware of the fact that Prolog provides basic arithmetic logic by default, but I am trying to implement basic arithmetic logic using peano integers.
As a multiplication is basically a repeated addition, I think it could look something like this:
Prolog attempts
%Addition
% Adds two peano integers 3+2: add(s(s(s(0))),s(s(0)),X). --> X = s(s(s(s(s(0)))))
add(X,0,X).
add(X,s(Y),s(Z)) :- add(X,Y,Z).
%Loop
%Loop by N
loop(0).
loop(N) :- N>0, NewN is N-1, loop(NewN).
The problem is that I am out of ideas how I can get prolog to run the loop N times based on the coefficient, adding the peano integers and building up the correct result. I'm confident that this is rather easy to achieve and that the resulting code probably won't be longer than a few lines of code. I've been trying to achieve this for hours now and it's starting to make me mad.
Thank you so much for your help, and ... Merry Christmas!
Mike
thanks #false for the hint to this post:
Prolog successor notation yields incomplete result and infinite loop
The referenced PDF doc in this post helps clarifying a number of features regarding peano integers and how to get simple arithmetic to work - pages 11 and 12 are particularly interesing: http://ssdi.di.fct.unl.pt/flcp/foundations/0910/files/class_02.pdf
The code could be set up like this - please note the two approaches for multiplying the integers:
%Basic assumptions
int(0). %0 is an integer
int(s(M)) :- int(M). %the successor of an integer is an integer
%Addition
sum(0,M,M). %the sum of an integer M and 0 is M.
sum(s(N),M,s(K)) :- sum(N,M,K). %The sum of the successor of N and M is the successor of the sum of N and M.
%Product
%Will work for prod(s(s(0)),s(s(0)),X) but not terminate for prod(X,Y,s(s(0)))
prod(0,M,0). %The product of 0 with any integer is 0
prod(s(N),M,P) :-
prod(N,M,K),
sum(K,M,P).%The product of the successor of N and M is the sum of M with the product of M and N. --> (N+1)*M = N*M + M
%Product #2
%Will work in both forward and backward direction, note the order of the calls for sum() and prod2()
prod2(0,_,0). %The product of 0 with any given integer is 0
prod2(s(N), M, P) :- % implements (N+1)*M = M + N*M
sum(M, K, P),
prod2(M,N,K).
Which, when consulting the database will give you something like this:
?- prod(s(s(s(0))),s(s(s(0))),Result).
Result = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))))).
?- prod2(s(s(s(0))),s(s(s(0))),Result).
Result = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0))))))))).
Please note the different behavior of prod() and prod2() when consulting Prolog in reverse direction - when tracing, please pay attention to the way Prolog binds its variables during the recursive calls:
?- prod(F1,F2,s(s(s(s(0))))).
F1 = s(0),
F2 = s(s(s(s(0)))) ;
F1 = F2, F2 = s(s(0)) ;
ERROR: Out of global stack
?- prod2(F1,F2,s(s(s(s(0))))).
F1 = s(s(s(s(0)))),
F2 = s(0) ;
F1 = F2, F2 = s(s(0)) ;
F1 = s(0),
F2 = s(s(s(s(0)))) ;
false.
I would therefore discourage from the use of prod() as it doesn't reliably terminate in all thinkable scenarios and use prod2() instead.
I'm really excited by the people here at StackOverflow. I got so much useful feedback, which really helped me in getting a deeper understanding of how Prolog works. Thanks a ton everyone!
Mike
Edit: Had another look at this issue thanks to #false and the following post: Prolog successor notation yields incomplete result and infinite loop
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.
I'm pretty new to Prolog but I'm trying to get this program to give me the first set of twin primes that appears either at or above N.
twins(M) :-
M2 is M + 2,
twin_prime(M, M2),
write(M),
write(' '),
write(M2).
M3 is M + 1,
twins(M3).
However, I'm not completely sure how to go about getting it to loop and repeat until it's true. I've tried using the repeat/0 predicate but I just get stuck in an infinite loop. Does anyone have any tips I could try? I'm pretty new to Prolog.
You're on the right track using tail recursion and #Jake Mitchell's solution works swell. But here are some tips that might help clarify a few basic concepts in Prolog:
First, it seems like your predicate twins/1 is actually defining a relationship between 2 numbers, namely, the two twin primes. Since Prolog is great for writing very clear, declarative, relational programs, you might make the predicate more precise and explicit by making it twin_primes/2. (That this should be a binary predicate is also pretty clear from your name for the predicate, since one thing cannot be twins...)
One nice bonus of explicitly working with a binary predicate when describing binary relations is that we no longer have to fuss with IO operations to display our results. We'll simply be able to query twin_primes(X,Y) and have the results returned as Prolog reports back on viable values of X and Y.
Second, and more importantly, your current definition of twins/1 wants to describe a disjunction: "twins(M) is true if M and M + 2 are both prime or if M3 is M + 3 and twins(M3) is true". The basic way of expressing disjunctions like this is by writing multiple clauses. A single clause of the form <Head> :- <Body> declares that the Head is true if all the statements composing the Body are true. Several clauses with the same head, like <Head> :- <Body1>. <Head> :- <Body2>. ..., declare that Head is true if Body1 is true or if Body2 is true. (Note that a series of clauses defining rules for a predicate are evaluated sequentially, from top to bottom. This is pretty important, since it introduces non-declarative elements into the foundations of our programs, and it can be exploited to achieve certain results.)
In fact, you are only a small step from declaring a second rule for twins/1. You just tried putting both clause-bodies under the same head instance. Prolog requires the redundant measure of declaring two different rules in cases like this. Your code should be fine (assuming your definition of twin_prime/2 works), if you just change it like so:
twins(M) :-
M2 is M + 2,
twin_prime(M, M2),
write(M),
write(' '),
write(M2).
twins(M) :-
\+twin_prime(M, M2), %% `\+` means "not"
M3 is M + 1,
twins(M3).
Note that if you take advantage of Prolog's back-tracking, you often don't actually need to effect loops through tail recursion. For example, here's an alternative approach, taking into account some of what I advised previously and using a quick (but not as in "efficient" or "fast") and dirty predicate for generating primes:
prime(2).
prime(P) :-
between(2,inf,P),
N is (P // 2 + 1),
forall(between(2,N,Divisor), \+(0 is P mod Divisor)).
twin_primes(P1, P2) :-
prime(P1),
P2 is P1 + 2,
prime(P2).
twin_primes/2 gets a prime number from prime/1, then calculates P2 and checks if it is prime. Since prime/1 will generate an infinite number of primes on backtracking, twin_primes/2 will just keep asking it for numbers until it finds a satisfactory solution. Note that, if called with two free variables, this twin_primes/2 will generate twin primes:
?- twin_primes(P1, P2).
P1 = 3,
P2 = 5 ;
P1 = 5,
P2 = 7 ;
P1 = 11,
P2 = 13 ;
P1 = 17,
P2 = 19 ;
P1 = 29,
P2 = 31 ;
But it will also verify if two numbers are twin primes if queried with specific values, or give you the twin of a prime, if it exists, if you give a value for P1 but leave P2 free:
?- twin_primes(3,Y). Y = 5.
There's a handy if-then-else operator that works well for this.
twin_prime(3,5).
twin_prime(5,7).
twin_prime(11,13).
next_twin(N) :-
A is N+1,
B is N+2,
(twin_prime(N,B) ->
write(N),
write(' '),
write(B)
;
next_twin(A)).
And a quick test:
?- next_twin(5).
5 7
true.
?- next_twin(6).
11 13
true.
Alright so I am coding a parser for arithmetic equations. I get the input in a list, e.g. "10+20" = [49,48,43,50,48] and then I convert all the digits to there corresponding numbers e.g. [49,48,43,50,48] = [1,0,43,2,0] and from there I want to put integers > 10 back together.
Converting from ascii -> digits I use a maplist and number_codes to convert.
One approach I had was to just traverse the list and if it's 0-9 store it in a variable and then check the next number, 0-9 append it to the other variable and so on until I hit an operator. I can't seem to simply append digits as it were. Here's my current code.
expression(L) :-
maplist(chars, L, Ls).
chars(C, N) :-
(
C >= "0", "9" >= C -> number_codes(N, [C]);
N is C
).
Not sure if there's a simple way to add to my code (as far as I know, maplist only gives back a list of equal length to the list passed in but I could be mistaken).
Any help is appreciated :)
Yes, maplist only 'gives back' a list of equal length. Moreover, maplist applies a predicate only to one element (basically it's context-free). Therefore, it is not possible to do what you want (combine digits between operators to a single number) with maplist and you would have to write the recursion yourself.
However, you can do something way easier than all this converting back and forth:
expression(L, E):-
string_to_atom(L,A),
atom_to_term(A,E,[]).
Which works like this:
2 ?- expression("1+2",E).
E = 1+2.
3 ?- expression("1+2",E), X is E.
E = 1+2, X = 3.
4 ?- expression("1+2",E), X+Y = E.
E = 1+2, X = 1, Y = 2.
5 ?- expression("1+2+3",E), X+Y = E.
E = 1+2+3, X = 1+2, Y = 3.
Naturally, if you want a list with all the numbers involved you will have to do something recursive but this is kinda trivial imho.
If however you still want to do the converting, I suggest checking Definite Clause Grammars; it will simplify the task a lot.
I answered some time ago with an expression parser.
It will show you how to use DCG for practical tasks, and I hope you will appreciate the generality and simplicity of such approach.
Just a library predicate is required from SWI-Prolog, number//1, easily implemented in Sicstus. Let me know if you need more help on that.