I Tried to write a simple code in Prolog which translate a list to another list. for instance, if we call listtrans([a,b,c],L), L will become [1,2,3]. (a,b,c is replaced with 1,2,3). But i faced with a syntax error in last line. what is the problem? here is my code:
trans(a,1).
trans(b,2).
trans(c,3).
listtrans([],L).
listtrans([H|T],L1):-
trans(H,B),
append(B,L,L2),
listtrans(T,L2).
The error is very likely because in your code:
listtrans([H|T],L1):-
trans(H,B),
append(B,L,L2),
listtrans(T,L2).
the variable L1 is declared in the head, but not referenced anywhere: you mispelled something?
Anyway, your code is not going to work.
Moreover, using append/3 for this kind of tasks which are easily defined by recursion is considered terrible (also because of the bad performance you get out of it).
Applying a function to a list is straightforward. You already know that in prolog you don't write Y = f(X) but rather declare the functional relation between X and Y as: f(X, Y).. (That's basically what you did with trans(X,Y)).
Now the (easy) recursive formulation:
the transformed empty list is the empty list
the transformation of [X|Xs] is [Y|Ys] if trans(X,Y) and we recursively transform Xs into Ys
or expressed in prolog:
listtrans([],[]).
listtrans([X|Xs],[Y|Ys]) :- trans(X,Y), listtrans(Xs,Ys).
I recommend you reading the first 4 chapters of Learn Prolog Now to better understand these concepts.
There are no syntactic errors, only semantic ones. This is it, with corrections:
listtrans([],[]).
listtrans([H|T],L1):-
trans(H,B),
append([B],L2,L1),
listtrans(T,L2).
But this is not Prolog style. One writes rather:
listtrans([],[]).
listtrans([A|As],[I|Is]):-
trans(A,I),
listtrans(As,Is).
Note that in Prolog explicitly appending elements is much rarer than in languages supporting functions. As an extra bonus, you can now use the relation in both directions:
?- listtrans([a,b,c],Is).
Is = [1,2,3].
?- listtrans(As, [1,2,3]).
As = [a,b,c].
And you can write this more compactly:
listtrans(As, Is) :-
maplist(trans, As, Is).
See this for more.
Related
I am writing a Prolog predicate that cuts first three elements off a numbered list and prints the result. An example of a numbered list:
[e(f,1),e(o,2),e(o,3),e(b,4),e(a,5),e(r,6)].
The original predicate for normal list looks like this:
strim([H|T],R) :-
append(P,R,[H|T]),
length(P,3).
So, since length predicate works perfectly for numbered lists as well, I only had to write predicate that appends one numbered list to another:
compose([],L,[L]).
compose([e(F,C)|T],e(A,_),[e(F,C)|L]) :-
N is C+1,
compose(T,e(A,N),L).
napp(X,[],X).
napp(L,[e(X,Y)|T],M):-
compose(L,e(X,Y),L1),
napp(L1,T,M).
I expected the predicate for numbered list to be a slightly modified version of predicate for normal list, so I wrote this:
numstrim([e(X,Y)|T],R) :-
napp(P,R,[e(X,Y)|T]),
length(P,3).
However, I'm getting this error:
ERROR: compose/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Could somebody please explain what's causing the error and how to avoid it? I'm new to Prolog.
Instantiation errors are a common phenomenon in Prolog programs that use moded predicates: These are predicates that can only be used in special circumstances, requiring for example that some arguments are fully instantiated etc.
As a beginner, you are in my view well advised to use more general predicates instead, so that you can freely exchange the order of goals and do not have to take procedural limitations into account, at least not so early, and without the ability to freely experiment with your code.
For example, in your case, the following trivial change to compose/3 gives you a predicate that works in all directions:
compose([], L, [L]).
compose([e(F,C)|T], e(A,_), [e(F,C)|L]) :-
N #= C+1,
compose(T, e(A,N), L).
Here, I have simply replaced the moded predicate (is)/2 with the CLP(FD) constraint (#=)/2, which completeley subsumes the more low-level predicate over integers.
After this small change (depending on your Prolog system, you may have to import a library to use the more general arithmetic predicates), we get:
?- numstrim([e(f,1),e(o,2),e(o,3),e(b,4),e(a,5),e(r,6)], Es).
nontermination
So, we find out that the instantiation error has actually overshadowed a different problem that can only be understood procedurally, and which has now come to light.
To improve this, I now turn around the two goals of numstrim/2:
numstrim([e(X,Y)|T], R) :-
length(P, 3),
napp(P, R, [e(X,Y)|T]).
This is because length(P, 3) always terminates, and placing a goal that always terminates first can at most improve, never worsen, the termination properties of a pure and monotonic logic program.
So now we get:
?- numstrim([e(f,1),e(o,2),e(o,3),e(b,4),e(a,5),e(r,6)], Es).
Es = [e(b, _1442), e(a, _2678), e(r, _4286)] .
That is, at least we get an answer now!
However, the predicate still does not terminate universally, because we get:
?- numstrim([e(f,1),e(o,2),e(o,3),e(b,4),e(a,5),e(r,6)], Es), false.
nontermination
I leave fixing this as an exercise.
What's the most idiomatic approach to output prolog code from a prolog program (as a side effect)?
For instance, in a simple case, I might want to write a Program that, given a text input, yields another Prolog program representing the text as a directed graph.
I understand this question is somewhat vague, but I've resigned to consulting Stackoverflow after failing to find a satisfying answer in the available Prolog Meta-Programming literature, which mostly covers applications of meta-circular interpreters.
If you feel this question might be better articulated some other way, please edit it or leave a comment.
The most idiomatic way is always to stay pure and avoid side effects.
Let the toplevel do the writing for you!
To generate a Prolog program, you define a relation that says for example:
program(P) :- ...
and then states, in terms of logical relations, what holds about P.
For example:
program(P) :-
P = ( Head :- Body ),
Head = head(A, B),
Body = body(A, B).
Example query and answer:
?- program(P).
P = (head(_G261, _G262):-body(_G261, _G262)).
So, there's your program, produced in a pure way.
If you want to write it, use portray_clause/1:
?- program(P), portray_clause(P).
head(A, B) :-
body(A, B).
...
This can be useful in a failure driven loop, to produce many programs automatically.
writeq/1 (or format('~q', [...])) produces output that can be read back. Usually you need also to put a full stop after a clause body. For instance, try
?- A_Clause = (X is 1+Y, write('X is '), write(X), nl), format('~q.~n', [A_Clause]).
Readability of code suffers from loosing variables 'nice names', but the functionality is there...
edit
as noted by #false, a space before the dot will avoid a bug in case the output term would finish with a dot
I know there is technically no 'return' in Prolog but I did not know how to formulate the question otherwise.
I found some sample code of an algorithm for finding routes between metro stations. It works well, however it is supposed to just print the result so it makes it hard to be extended or to do a findall/3 for example.
% direct routes
findRoute(X,Y,Lines,Output) :-
line(Line,Stations),
\+ member(Line,Lines),
member(X,Stations),
member(Y,Stations),
append(Output,[[X,Line,Y]],NewOutput),
print(NewOutput).
% needs intermediate stop
findRoute(X,Y,Lines,Output) :-
line(Line,Stations),
\+ member(Line,Lines),
member(X,Stations),
member(Intermediate,Stations),
X\=Intermediate,Intermediate\=Y,
append(Output,[[X,Line,Intermediate]],NewOutput),
findRoute(Intermediate,Y,[Line|Lines],NewOutput).
line is a predicate with an atom and a list containing the stations.
For ex: line(s1, [first_stop, second_stop, third_stop])
So what I am trying to do is get rid of that print at line 11 and add an extra variable to my rule to store the result for later use. However I failed miserably because no matter what I try it either enters infinite loop or returns false.
Now:
?- findRoute(first_stop, third_stop, [], []).
% prints [[first_stop,s1,third_stop]]
Want:
?- findRoute(first_stop, third_stop, [], R).
% [[first_stop,s1,third_stop]] is stored in R
Like you, I also see this pattern frequently among Prolog beginners, especially if they are using bad books and other material:
solve :-
.... some goals ...
compute(A),
write(A).
Almost every line in the above is problematic, for the following reasons:
"solve" is imperative. This does not make sense in a declarative languague like Prolog, because you can use predicates in several directions.
"compute" is also imperative.
write/1 is a side-effect, and its output is only available on the system terminal. This gives us no easy way to actually test the predicate.
Such patterns should always simply look similar to:
solution(S) :-
condition1(...),
condition2(...),
condition_n(S).
where condition1 etc. are simply pure goals that describe what it means that S is a solution.
When querying
?- solution(S).
then bindings for S will automatically be printed on the toplevel. Let the toplevel do the printing for you!
In your case, there is a straight-forward fix: Simply make NewOutput one of the arguments, and remove the final side-effect:
route(X, Y, Lines, Output, NewOutput) :-
line(Line, Stations),
\+ member(Line, Lines),
member(X, Stations),
member(Y, Stations),
append(Output, [[X,Line,Y]], NewOutput).
Note also that I have changed the name to just route/5, because the predicate makes sense also if the arguments are all already instantiated, which is useful for testing etc.
Moreover, when describing lists, you will often benefit a lot from using dcg notation.
The code will look similar to this:
route(S, S, _) --> []. % case 1: already there
route(S0, S, Lines) --> % case 2: needs intermediate stop
{ line_stations(Line, Stations0),
maplist(dif(Line), Lines),
select(S0, Stations0, Stations),
member(S1, Stations) },
[link(S0,Line,S1)],
route(S1, S, [Line|Lines]).
Conveniently, you can use this to describe the concatenation of lists without needing append/3 so much. I have also made a few other changes to enhance purity and readability, and I leave figuring out the exact differences as an easy exercise.
You call this using the DCG interface predicate phrase/2, using:
?- phrase(route(X,Y,[]), Rs).
where Rs is the found route. Note also that I am using terms of the form link/3 to denote the links of the route. It is good practice to use dedicated terms when the arity is known. Lists are for example good if you do not know beforehand how many elements you need to represent.
I'm new to prolog; I'm coming from a structured programming background, as will become obvious :)
I am building up a prolog query that involves reversing a number; eg. reverse_num(123,X) results in X = 321. I came up with the following definition, but it only works when I provide a number as the first parameter.
reverse_num(Num, Revnum) :-
number_chars(Num, Atoms),
reverse(Revatoms, Atoms),
number_chars(Reversed, Revatoms),
Reversed = Revnum.
the number_chars/2 predicate doesn't like an unsubstantiated variable if I do: reverse_num(X,123) (where I'm expecting X to be 321).
Am I trying too hard to make reverse_num do something it shouldn't (should it be understood to work only with a number as the first parameter and variable as the second)?
Or is there an easy / straight-forward way to handle a variable as the first parameter?
Relational naming
Before jumping into coding, let's take a step back. After all, the idea in Prolog is to define relations. Your name reverse_num/2 rather suggests some actions, num_reversed/2 might be a better name.
Determine the relation
Your definition is not that bad, let me rewrite it to1:
num_reversed(Num, Reversed) :-
number_chars(Num, Chars),
reverse(Chars, Revchars),
number_chars(Reversed, Revchars).
?- num_reversed(123,X).
X = 321.
?- num_reversed(1230,X).
X = 321.
?- num_reversed(12300,X).
X = 321.
Do you see the pattern? All numbers N*10^I have the same result!
Now, let's ask some more:
?- num_reversed(Num, 321).
error(instantiation_error,number_chars/2).
Hm, what did we expect? Actually, we wanted all 123*10^I to be printed. That's infinitely many solutions. So above query, if correctly answered, would require infinitely many solutions to be printed. If we print them directly, that will take all our universe's lifetime, and more!
It is for this reason, that Prolog produces an instantiation error instead. By this, Prolog essentially states:
This goal is too general that I can make a good answer. Maybe there are infinitely many solutions, maybe not. I know not. But at least I indicate this by issuing an error. To remove this error you need to instantiate the arguments a bit more.
So the answer Prolog produced was not that bad at all! In fact, it is much better to produce a clean error than to, say, fail incorrectly. In general, Prolog's errors are often a very useful hint to what semantic problems you might have. See all error classes how.
Coroutining
As have other answers suggested, coroutining, using when/2 might solve this problem. However, coroutining itself has many semantic problems. Not without reason, systems like XSB do not offer it, due to the many problems related to subsumption checking. An implementation that would be compatible to it would be unexpectedly inefficient.
But for the sake of the point, we could make our definition more versatile by querying it like
?- when(nonvar(Num), num_reversed(Num, Reversed)).
when(nonvar(Num), num_reversed(Num, Reversed)).
Now we get back as an answer exactly the query we entered. This is also known as floundering. So there is a way to represent infinitely may solutions in a compact manner! However, this comes at a rather high price: You no longer know whether a solution exists or not. Think of:
?- when(nonvar(Num), num_reversed(Num, -1)).
when(nonvar(Num), num_reversed(Num, -1)).
Others have suggested to wait also for nonvar(Reversed) which would only be correct if we would produce infinitely many answers - but, as we have seen - this just takes too much time.
Coroutining looked as a very promising road at the beginning of the 1980s. However, it has never really caught on as a general programming methodology. Most of the time you get much too much floundering which is just a pain and even more difficult to handle than, say instantiation errors.
However, a more promising offspring of this development are constraints. There, the mechanisms are much cleaner defined. For practical purposes, programmers will only use existing libraries, like CLPFD, CLPQ, or CHR. Implementing your own library is an extremely non-trivial project in its own right. In fact it might even be possible to provide an implementation of num_reversed/2 using library(clpfd) that is, restricting the relation to the integer case.
Mode dependent conditionals
Traditionally, many such problems are solved by testing for instantiations explicitly. It is good style to perform this exclusively with nonvar/1 and ground/1 like the condition in when/2- other type test predicates lead easily to errors as exemplified by another answer.
num_reversed(Num, Reversed) :-
( nonvar(Num)
-> original_num_reversed(Num, Reversed)
; original_num_reversed(Reversed, Base),
( Base =:= 0
-> Num is 0
; length(_, I),
Num is Base*10^I
)
).
Above code breaks very soon for floats using base 2 and somewhat later for base 10. In fact, with classical base 2 floats, the relation itself does not make much sense.
As for the definition of number_chars/2, ISO/IEC 13211-1:1995 has the following template and mode subclause:
8.16.7.2 Template and modes
number_chars(+number, ?character_list)
number_chars(-number, +character_list)
The first case is when the first argument is instantiated (thus nonvar). The second case, when the first argument is not instantiated. In that case, the second argument has to be instantiated.
Note, however, that due to very similar problems, number_chars/2 is not a relation. As example, Chs = ['0','0'], number_chars(0, Chs) succeeds, whereas number_chars(0, Chs), Chs = ['0','0'] fails.
Very fine print
1 This rewrite is necessary, because in many Prologs reverse/2 only terminates if the first argument is known. And in SWI this rewrite is necessary due to some idiosyncratic inefficiencies.
The number_chars/2 predicate has the signature:
number_chars(?Number, ?CharList)
But although not fully specified by the signature, at least Number or CharList have to be instantiated. That's where the error occurs from.
If you call:
reverse_num(Num,123)
You will call number_chars/2 with both uninstatiated at that time so the predicate will error.
A not very nice solution to the problem is to ask whether Num or RevNum are number/2s. You can do this by writing two versions. It will furthermore filter other calls like reverse_num(f(a),b), etc.:
reverse_num(Num,Revnum) :-
\+ number(Num),
\+ number(Revnum),
throw(error(instantiation_error, _)).
reverse_num(Num, Revnum) :-
ground(Num),
number(Num),
!,
number_chars(Num, Atoms),
reverse(Revatoms, Atoms),
number_chars(Revnum, Revatoms).
reverse_num(Num, Revnum) :-
ground(Revnum),
number(Revnum),
reverse_num(Revnum,Num).
Or you can in case you use two nongrounds (e.g. reverse_num(X,Y).) an instantiation error instead of false as #false says:
reverse_num(Num,Revnum) :-
\+ number(Num),
\+ number(Revnum),
!,
throw(error(instantiation_error, _)).
reverse_num(Num, Revnum) :-
number(Num),
!,
number_chars(Num, Atoms),
reverse(Revatoms, Atoms),
number_chars(Revnum, Revatoms).
reverse_num(Num, Revnum) :-
reverse_num(Revnum,Num).
The cut (!) is not behaviorally necessary, but will increase performance a bit. I'm not really a fan of this implementation, but Prolog cannot always fully make predicates reversible since (a) reversibility is an undecidable property because Prolog is Turing complete; and (b) one of the characteristics of Prolog is that the body atoms are evaluated left-to-right. otherwise it will take ages to evaluate some programs. There are logic engines that can do this in an arbitrary order and thus will succeed for this task.
If the predicate/2 is commutative, a solution that can be generalized is the following pattern:
predicate(X,Y) :-
predicate1(X,A),
predicate2(A,B),
% ...
predicaten(C,Y).
predicate(X,Y) :-
predicate(Y,X).
But you cannot simply add the last clause to the theory, because it can loop infinitely.
Nice to see someone is also worried about define flexible rules with no restrictions in the set of bound arguments.
If using a Prolog system that supports coroutining and the when/2 built-in predicate (e.g. SICStus Prolog, SWI-Prolog, or YAP), try as:
reverse_num(Num, Reversed) :-
when( ( ground(Num); ground(Atoms) ), number_chars(Num, Atoms) ),
when( ( ground(Reversed); ground(Revatoms) ), number_chars(Reversed, Revatoms) ),
reverse(Atoms , Revatoms).
that gives:
?- reverse_num( 123, X ).
X = 321.
?- reverse_num( X, 123 ).
X = 321 .
( thanks to persons who provided theses answers: Prolog: missing feature? )
This SWISH session shows my effort to answer.
Then I've come back here, where I found I was on #PasabaPorAqui' mood (+1), but I didn't get it right.
But, such an interesting topic: notice how regular is the join pattern.
reverse_num(X, Y) :-
when((nonvar(Xs);nonvar(Ys)), reverse(Xs, Ys)),
when((nonvar(X) ;nonvar(Xs)), atomic_chars(X, Xs)),
when((nonvar(Y) ;nonvar(Ys)), atomic_chars(Y, Ys)).
So, we can generalize in a simple way (after accounting for PasabaPorAqui correction, ground/1 it's the key):
% generalized... thanks Pasaba Por Aqui
:- meta_predicate when_2(0).
when_2(P) :-
strip_module(P,_,Q),
Q =.. [_,A0,A1],
when((ground(A0);ground(A1)), P).
reverse_num(X, Y) :-
maplist(when_2, [reverse(Xs, Ys), atomic_chars(X, Xs), atomic_chars(Y, Ys)]).
I think I understand why nonvar/1 was problematic: the list bound for reverse get 'fired' too early, when just the head get bound... too fast !
maplist/2 is not really necessary: by hand we can write
reverse_num(X, Y) :-
when_2(reverse(Xs, Ys)),
when_2(atomic_chars(X, Xs)),
when_2(atomic_chars(Y, Ys)).
this seems an ideal application of term rewriting... what do you think about -:- ? Implementing that we could write bidirectional code like
reverse_num(X, Y) -:-
reverse(Xs, Ys),
atomic_chars(X, Xs),
atomic_chars(Y, Ys).
edit SWISH maybe is not 'term_rewrite' friendly... so here is a lower level approach:
:- op(900, xfy, ++).
A ++ B ++ C :- when_2(A), B ++ C.
A ++ B :- when_2(A), when_2(B).
reverse_num(X, Y) :-
reverse(Xs, Ys) ++ atomic_chars(X, Xs) ++ atomic_chars(Y, Ys).
Setting aside the problem of trailing zeroes turning into leading zeroes, it doesn't seem like it should be much more complicated than something like this (made somewhat more complicated by dealing with negative numbers):
reverse_number(X,Y) :- number(X) , ! , rev(X,Y) .
reverse_number(X,Y) :- number(Y) , ! , rev(Y,X) .
rev(N,R) :-
N < 0 ,
! ,
A is abs(N) ,
rev(A,T) ,
R is - T
.
rev(N,R) :-
number_chars(N,Ns) ,
reverse(Ns,Rs) ,
number_chars(R,Rs)
.
Note that this does require at least one of the arguments to reverse_number/2 to be instantiated.
I have a standard procedure for determining membership of a list:
member(X, [X|_]).
member(X, [_|T]) :- member(X, T).
What I don't understand is why when I pose the following query:
?- member(a,[a,b]).
The result is
True;
False.
I would have thought that on satisfying the goal using the first rule (as a is the head of the list) True would be returned and that would be the end of if. It seems as if it is then attempting to satisfy the goal using the second rule and failing?
Prolog interpreter is SWI-Prolog.
Let's consider a similar query first: [Edit: Do this without adding your own definition ; member/2 is already defined]
?- member(a,[b,a]).
true.
In this case you get the optimal answer: There is exactly one solution. But when exchanging the elements in the list we get:
?- member(a,[a,b]).
true
; false.
Logically, both are just the affirmation that the query is true.
The reason for the difference is that in the second query the answer true is given immediately upon finding a as element of the list. The remaining list [b] does not contain a fitting element, but this is not yet examined. Only upon request (hitting SPACE or ;) the rest of the list is tried with the result that there is no further solution.
Essentially, this little difference gives you a hint when a computation is completely finished and when there is still some work to do. For simple queries this does not make a difference, but in more complex queries these open alternatives (choicepoints) may accumulate and use up memory.
Older toplevels always asked if you want to see a further solution, even if there was none.
Edit:
The ability to avoid asking for the next answer, if there is none, is extremely dependent on the very implementation details. Even within the same system, and the same program loaded you might get different results. In this case, however, I was using SWI's built-in definition for member/2 whereas you used your own definition, which overwrites the built-in definition.
SWI uses the following definition as built-in which is logically equivalent to yours but makes avoiding unnecessary choice points easier to SWI — but many other systems cannot profit from this:
member(B, [C|A]) :-
member_(A, B, C).
member_(_, A, A).
member_([C|A], B, _) :-
member_(A, B, C).
To make things even more complex: Many Prologs have a different toplevel that does never ask for further answers when the query does not contain a variable. So in those systems (like YAP) you get a wrong impression.
Try the following query to see this:
?- member(X,[1]).
X = 1.
SWI is again able to determine that this is the only answer. But YAP, e.g., is not.
Are you using the ";" operator after the first result then pushing return? I believe this is asking the query to look for more results and as there are none it is coming up as false.
Do you know about Prolog's cut - !?
If you change member(X, [X|_]). to member(X, [X|_]) :- !. Prolog will not try to find another solution after the first one.