prolog - sublist of list - alternative approach - prolog

Question

I implemented function to get sublist of list, for example:
sublist([1,2,4], [1,2,3,4,5,1,2,4,6]).
true
sublist([1,2,4], [1,2,3,4,5,1,2,6]).
false
look at my solution:
my_equals([], _).
my_equals([H1|T1], [H1|T2]) :- my_equals(T1, T2).
sublist([], _).
sublist(L1, [H2|T2]) :- my_equals(L1, [H2|T2]); sublist(L1, T2).
Could you give me another solution ? Maybe there is exists some predefined predicate as my_equals ?

Answer 1

You can unify a sublist using append/3, like this:
sublist(SubList, List):-
append(_, Tail, List),
append(SubList, _, Tail).
The first call to append/3 will split List into two parts (i.e. dismiss the some "leading" items from List.
The second call to append/3 will check whether SubList is itself a sublist of Tail.
As #false's suggests it would be better, at least for ground terms, to exchange goals,
sublist(SubList, List):-
append(SubList, _, Tail),
append(_, Tail, List).

Answer 2

There's also a DCG approach to the problem:
substr(Sub) --> seq(_), seq(Sub), seq(_).
seq([]) --> [].
seq([Next|Rest]) --> [Next], seq(Rest).
Which you would call with:
phrase(substr([1,2,4]), [1,2,3,4,5,1,2,4,6]).
You can define:
sublist(Sub, List) :-
phrase(substr(Sub), List).
So you could call it by, sublist([1,2,4], [1,2,3,4,5,1,2,4,6])..
Per #mat's suggestion:
substr(Sub) --> ..., seq(Sub), ... .
... --> [] | [_], ... .
Yes, you can have a predicate named .... :)
Per suggestions from #repeat and #false, I changed the name from subseq (subsequence) to substr (substring) since the meaning of "subsequence" embraces non-contiguous sequences.

Answer 3

This is an alternative solution to Lurkers, which is slightly faster,
assuming S is much shorter than L in length and thus the phrase/3 DCG
translation time is negligible:
sublist(S, L) :-
phrase((..., S), L, _).
If S=[X1,..,Xn] it will DCG translate this into a match I=[X1,..,Xn|O]
before execution, thus delegating my_equals/2 completely to Prolog
unification. Here is an example run:
?- phrase((..., [a,b]), [a,c,a,b,a,c,a,b,a,c], X).
X = [a, c, a, b, a, c] ;
X = [a, c] ;
false.
Bye
P.S.: Works also for other patterns S than only terminals.

Answer 4

Maybe there is exists some predefined predicate
If your Prolog has append/2 from library(lists):
sublist(S, L) :- append([_,S,_], L).
Another fairly compact definition, available in every (I guess) Prolog out there:
sublist(S, L) :- append(S, _, L).
sublist(S, [_|L]) :- sublist(S, L).

Answer 5

Solution in the original question is valid just, as has been said, remark that "my_equals" can be replaced by "append" and "sublist" loop by another append providing slices of the original list.
However, prolog is (or it was) about artificial intelligence. Any person can answer immediately "no" to this example:
sublist([1,1,1,2], [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] ).
because a person, with simple observation of the list, infers some characteristics of it, like that there are no a "2".
Instead, the proposals are really inefficient on this case. By example, in the area of DNA analysis, where long sequences of only four elements are studied, this kind of algorithms are not applicable.
Some easy changes can be done, with the objective of look first for the most strongest condition. By example:
/* common( X, Y, C, QX, QY ) => X=C+QX, Y=C+QY */
common( [H|S2], [H|L2], [H|C2], DS, DL ) :- !,
common( S2, L2, C2, DS, DL ).
common( S, L, [], S, L ).
sublist( S, L ) :-
sublist( [], S, L ).
sublist( P, Q, L ) :- /* S=P+Q */
writeln( Q ),
length( P, N ),
length( PD, N ), /* PD is P with all unbound */
append( PD, T, L ), /* L=PD+T */
common( Q, T, C, Q2, _DL ), /* S=P+C+Q2; L=PD+C+_DL */
analysis( L, P, PD, C, Q2 ).
analysis( _L, P, P, _C, [] ) :- !. /* found sublist */
analysis( [_|L2], P, _PD, C, [] ) :- !,
sublist( P, C, L2 ).
analysis( [_|L2], P, _PD, C, Q2 ) :-
append( P, C, P2 ),
sublist( P2, Q2, L2 ).
Lets us try it:
?- sublist([1,1,1,2], [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1]).
[1,1,1,2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
[2]
false.
see how "analysis" has decided that is better look for the "2".
Obviously, this is a strongly simplified solution, in a real situation better "analysis" can be done and patterns to find must be more flexible (the proposal is restricted to patterns at the tail of the original S pattern).