Related
I'm running some Prolog rule which uses the subtract function and in the stack trace, I found the source of error to be this:
lists:subtract([b, d | _], [b, d] , [r]) ? creep
ERROR: Out of local stack
The original call was:
member(b, X), member(d, X), subtract(X, [b, d], [r]).
and the expected output is [b, d, r].
I'm new to Prolog and unable to understand the source of error and how to fix it. Please help.
unable to understand the source of error and how to fix it.
Just take your query and look at the first two goals alone:
?- member(b, X), member(d, X).
X = [b,d|_A]
; X = [b,_A,d|_B]
; X = [b,_A,_B,d|_C]
; X = [b,_A,_B,_C,d|_D]
; X = [b,_A,_B,_C,_D,d|_E]
; ... .
Just these two goals produce already infinitely many answers. So no matter what follows, your query will never terminate. By chance, you may happen to get a solution, but more often than not you will end in some loop.
So first of all you need to fix this somehow.
Then consider the meaning of subtract/3 in SWI:
?- subtract([b,d,r], [b,d], [r]).
true.
?- subtract([b,d,X], [b,d], [r]).
false. % ?? why not X = r?
From this alone you can see that subtract/3 is not a relation. So you cannot use it as a relation like, say, append/3.
To fix this and keep as close to your original query, use library(reif) and library(lambda):
?- S1=[b,d,X], S2 = [b,d], tpartition(S2+\E^memberd_t(E,S2),S1,_,[r]).
S1 = [b,d,r], X = r, S2 = [b,d].
From SWI Prolog manual :
The library(lists) contains a number of old predicates for manipulating sets represented as unordered lists, notably intersection/3, union/3, subset/2 and subtract/3. These predicates all use memberchk/2 to find equivalent elements. As a result these are not logical while unification can easily lead to dubious results.
You are having this problem because subtract isn't pure and needs it's first two Arguments to be instantiated hence the + sign in it's documentation .
subtract(+Set, +Delete, -Result)
you can instead use union/3
union(+Set1, +Set2, -Set3)
you can know more about other mode indicators in here.
I am new to Prolog and I am trying to write a function that finds a list that follows some rules.
More specifically, given two numbers, N and K, I want my function to find a list with K powers of two that their sum is N. The list must not contain each power but the total sum of each power. For example if N=13 and K=5, I want my list to be [2,2,1] where the first 2 means two 4, the second 2 means two 2, and the third 1 means one 1 (4+4+2+2+1=13). Consider that beginning from the end of the list each position i represents the 2^i power of 2. So I wrote this code:
sum2(List, SUM, N) :-
List = [] -> N=SUM;
List = [H|T],
length(T, L),
NewSUM is SUM + (H * 2**L),
sum2(T, NewSUM, N).
powers2(N,K,X):-
sum2(X,0,N),
sum_list(X, L),
K = L.
The problem is:
?- sum2([2,2,1],0,13).
true.
?- sum2([2,2,1],0,X).
X = 13.
?- sum2(X,0,13).
false.
?- powers2(X,5,[2,2,1]).
X = 13.
?- powers2(13,5,[2,2,1]).
true.
?- powers2(13,X,[2,2,1]).
X = 5.
?- powers2(13,5,X).
false.
In the cases, X represents the list I expected the output to be a list that follows the rules and not false. Could you help me to find how can I solve this and have a list for output in these cases?
The immediate reason for the failure of your predicate with an unbound list is due to your use of the -> construct for control flow.
Here is a simplified version of what you are trying to do, a small predicate for checking whether a list is empty or not:
empty_or_not(List, Answer) :-
( List = []
-> Answer = empty
; List = [H|T],
Answer = head_tail(H, T) ).
(Side note: The exact layout is a matter of taste, but you should always use parentheses to enclose code if you use the ; operator. I also urge you to never put ; at the end of a line but rather in a position where it really sticks out. Using ; is really an exceptional case in Prolog, and if it's formatted too similarly to ,, it can be hard to see that it's even there, and what parts of the clause it applies to.)
And this seems to work, right?
?- empty_or_not([], Answer).
Answer = empty.
?- empty_or_not([1, 2, 3], Answer).
Answer = head_tail(1, [2, 3]).
OK so far, but what if we call this with an unbound list?
?- empty_or_not(List, Answer).
List = [],
Answer = empty.
Suddenly only the empty list is accepted, although we know from above that non-empty lists are fine as well.
This is because -> cuts away any alternatives once it has found that its condition is satisfied. In the last example, List is a variable, so it is unifiable with []. The condition List = [] will succeed (binding List to []), and the alternative List = [H|T] will not be tried. It seems simple, but -> is really an advanced feature of Prolog. It should only be used by more experienced users who know that they really really will not need to explore alternatives.
The usual, and usually correct, way of implementing a disjunction in Prolog is to use separate clauses for the separate cases:
empty_or_not([], empty).
empty_or_not([H|T], head_tail(H, T)).
This now behaves logically:
?- empty_or_not([], Answer).
Answer = empty.
?- empty_or_not([1, 2, 3], Answer).
Answer = head_tail(1, [2, 3]).
?- empty_or_not(List, Answer).
List = [],
Answer = empty ;
List = [_2040|_2042],
Answer = head_tail(_2040, _2042).
And accordingly, your definition of sum2 should look more like this:
sum2([], SUM, N) :-
N = SUM.
sum2([H|T], SUM, N) :-
length(T, L),
NewSUM is SUM + (H * 2**L),
sum2(T, NewSUM, N).
This is just a small step, however:
?- sum2(X, 0, 13).
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
ERROR: In:
ERROR: [9] _2416 is 0+_2428* ...
ERROR: [8] sum2([_2462],0,13) at /home/gergo/sum.pl:5
ERROR: [7] <user>
You are trying to do arithmetic on H, which has no value. If you want to use "plain" Prolog arithmetic, you will need to enumerate appropriate values that H might have before you try to do arithmetic on it. Alternatively, you could use arithmetic constraints. See possible implementations of both at Arithmetics in Prolog, represent a number using powers of 2.
I have a simple program I'm trying to write in Prolog. Essentially, as I learning exercise, I'm trying to write a program that takes two sorted lists as input, and returns the merged list that is also sorted. I have dubbed the predicate "merge2" as to no be confused with the included predicate "merge" that seems to do this already.
I am using recursion. My implementation is below
merge2([],[],[]).
merge2([X],[],[X]).
merge2([],[Y],[Y]).
merge2([X|List1],[Y|List2],[X|List]):- X =< Y,merge2(List1,[Y|List2],List).
merge2([X|List1],[Y|List2],[Y|List]):- merge2([X|List1],List2,List).
When I run this, I get X = [1,2,4,5,3,6] which is obviously incorrect. I've been able to code multiple times and tried to draw out the recursion. To the best of my knowledge, this should be returning the correct result. I'm not sure why the actualy result is so strange.
Thank you.
QuickCheck is your friend. In this case, the property that you want to verify can be expressed using the following predicate:
sorted(L1, L2) :-
sort(L1, S1),
sort(L2, S2),
merge2(S1, S2, L),
sort(L, S),
L == S.
Note that sort/2 is a standard Prolog built-in predicate. Using the QuickCheck implementation provided by Logtalk's lgtunit tool, which you can run using most Prolog systems, we get:
?- lgtunit::quick_check(sorted(+list(integer),+list(integer))).
* quick check test failure (at test 2 after 0 shrinks):
* sorted([0],[0])
false.
I.e. you code fails for L1 = [0] and L2 = [0]:
?- merge2([0], [0], L).
L = [0, 0] ;
L = [0, 0] ;
false.
Tracing this specific query should allow you to quickly find at least one of the bugs in your merge2/4 predicate definition. In most Prolog systems, you can simply type:
?- trace, merge2([0], [0], L).
If you want to keep duplicates in the merged list, you can use the de facto standard predicates msort/2 in the definition of the property:
sorted(L1, L2) :-
sort(L1, S1),
sort(L2, S2),
merge2(S1, S2, L),
msort(L, S),
L == S.
In this case, running QuickCheck again:
?- lgtunit::quick_check(sorted(+list(integer),+list(integer))).
* quick check test failure (at test 3 after 8 shrinks):
* sorted([],[475,768,402])
false.
This failure is more informative if you compare the query with your clauses that handle the case where the first list is empty...
This is done using difference list and since you are learning it uses reveals, AKA spoiler, which are the empty boxes that you have to mouse over to ravel the contents. Note that the reveals don't allow for nice formatting of code. At the end is the final version of the code with nice formatting but not hidden by a reveal so don't peek at the visible code at the very end if you want to try it for yourself.
This answer takes it that you have read my Difference List wiki.
Your basic idea was sound and the basis for this answer using difference list. So obviously the big change is to just change from closed list to open list.
As your code is recursive, the base case can be used to set up the pattern for the rest of the clauses in the predicate.
Your simplest base case is
merge2([],[],[]).
but a predicate using difference list can use various means to represent a difference list with the use of L-H being very common but not one I chose to use. Instead this answer will follow the pattern in the wiki of using two variables, the first for the open list and the second for the hole at the end of the open list.
Try to create the simple base case on your own.
merge2_prime([],[],Hole,Hole).
Next is needed the two base cases when one of the list is empty.
merge2_prime([X],[],Hole0,Hole) :-
Hole0 = [X|Hole].
merge2_prime([],[Y],Hole0,Hole) :-
Hole0 = [Y|Hole].
Then the cases that select an item from one or the other list.
merge2_prime([X|List1],[Y|List2],Hole0,Hole) :-
X =< Y,
Hole0 = [X|Hole1],
merge2_prime(List1,[Y|List2],Hole1,Hole).
merge2_prime(List1,[Y|List2],Hole0,Hole) :-
Hole0 = [Y|Hole1],
merge2_prime(List1,List2,Hole1,Hole).
Lastly a helper predicate is needed so that the query merge2(L1,L2,L3) can be used.
merge2(L1,L2,L3) :-
merge2_prime(L1,L2,Hole0,Hole),
Hole = [],
L3 = Hole0.
If you run the code as listed it will produce multiple answer because of backtracking. A few cuts will solve the problem.
merge2(L1,L2,L3) :-
merge2_prime(L1,L2,Hole0,Hole),
Hole = [],
L3 = Hole0.
merge2_prime([],[],Hole,Hole) :- !.
merge2_prime([X],[],Hole0,Hole) :-
!,
Hole0 = [X|Hole].
merge2_prime([],[Y],Hole0,Hole) :-
!,
Hole0 = [Y|Hole].
merge2_prime([X|List1],[Y|List2],Hole0,Hole) :-
X =< Y,
!,
Hole0 = [X|Hole1],
merge2_prime(List1,[Y|List2],Hole1,Hole).
merge2_prime(List1,[Y|List2],Hole0,Hole) :-
Hole0 = [Y|Hole1],
merge2_prime(List1,List2,Hole1,Hole).
Example run:
?- merge2([1,3,4],[2,5,6],L).
L = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
?- merge2([0],[0],L).
L = [0, 0].
I didn't check this with lots of examples as this was just to demonstrate that an answer can be found using difference list.
I am new to Prolog and for the following program:
place(Store,2,a).
place(Store,1,b).
place(Store,3,d).
place(Store,4,c).
placeSort(S,List):- findall(L,place(S,N,L),List).
output: List = [a, b, d, c].
By using placeSort(S,List) , I can find all the elements(a,b,c,d) that contains S (Store).
However what I want to achieve here is to sort the Position of a,b,c,d by using N, however I dont know how to do so as using sort will just sort it out by alphabetical order
placeSort(S,NewList):- findall(L,place(S,N,L),List),sort(List,NewList).
output: List = [a, b, c, d].
what I want to achieve : List = [b,a,d,c]
**I know by using placeSort(S,NewList):- findall([N,L],place(S,N,L),List),sort(List,NewList).
it will return a list of lists sorted by numbers.
output : List = [[1, b], [2, a], [3, d], [4, c]].
but im not sure how to take away the numbers and just take the alphabets instead.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
SWI-Prolog offers the interesting builtin order_by/2, filling the gap traditional Prolog suffers when compared to SQL, with library(solutionsequences):
?- order_by([asc(X)],place(P,X,W)).
X = 1,
W = b ;
X = 2,
W = a ;
...
So you can avoid full list construction.
The easiest way to do this is to use setof/3 (which sorts by term) and pick a term form that works for you on your sort. In this case, you can collect terms of the form N-X where they satisfy, place(_, N, X):
setof(N-X, place(S,N,X), OrderedList). % Assuming `S` is bound
This will result in:
OrderedList = [1-b, 2-a, 3-d, 4-c]
Then you can use maplist/3 to get your list by defining a simple mapping:
foo(_-X, X).
maplist(foo, OrderedList, List).
This will then give you just the elements you want.
Your complete predicate would look like:
foo(_-X, X).
placeSort(S, List) :-
setof(N-X, place(S,N,X), OrderedList),
maplist(foo, OrderedList, List).
Obviously, you'd choose sensible names for your facts, predicates, and variables. My names (foo, List, OrderedList, S, N, X) are not sufficient, in my opinion, for an application but I am not familiar with your actual problem domain, so this is just for illustration purposes.
As an aside, note that in your facts Store is a variable, so that's not particularly meaningful in the facts. I kept your use of S in your predicate, but it's unclear to me how you really intend to use it.
I have been given a question in my assignment that asks to write a Prolog program that takes as input a list of numbers and succeeds if the list
contains only 0s.
I am having trouble on how to make the program search for zeroes. For example, a query like:
?- zero([0,0,0,0]).
Should give us true and it should return false whenever there's a number other than zero in it.
Usually, one would not define a proper predicate for this, but rather use maplist/2 for the purpose:
..., maplist(=(0), Zs), ...
To give a concrete example:
?- Zs =[A,B,C], maplist(=(0), Zs).
This query corresponds to:
?- Zs = [A,B,C], call(=(0), A), call(=(0), B), call(=(0), C).
or even simpler:
?- Zs = [A,B,C], 0 = A, 0 = B, 0 = C.
If you want to define this as a separate predicate, remember to use a good name for it. Each element of the list is a zero, and the relation describes the entire list of such zeros. The convention for lists in this case is to use the plural word. Thus zeros/1:
zeros([]).
zeros([0|Zs]) :-
zeros(Zs).
why are you asking us to do your homework for you?
anyway, it's very simple recursion. something like:
zero([]).
zero([0|T]) :- zero(T).
just keep peeling of zero's until your list is empty. it isn't so hard ;)