Related
I'd like to test whether a term has only one solution.
(Understanding that this might be done in different ways) I've done the following and would like to understand why it doesn't work, if it can be made to work, and if not, what the appropriate implementation would be.
First, I have an "implies" operator (that has seemed to work elsewhere):
:- op(1050,xfy,'==>').
'==>'(A,B) :-·forall(call(A), call(B)).
next I have my singleSolution predicate:
singleSolution(G) :- copy_term(G,G2), (call(G), call(G2)) ==> (G = G2).
Here I'm trying to say: take a term G and make a copy of it, so I can solve them independently. Now if solving both independently implies they are equal, then there must be only one solution.
This works in some simple cases.
BUT.
I have a predicate foo(X,Y,Z) (too large to share) which solves things properly, and for which singleSolution can answer correctly. However, X,Y,Z are not fully ground after singleSolution(foo(X,Y,Z)) is called, even though they would be after directly calling foo(X,Y,Z).
I don't understand that. (As a sanity test: I've verified that I get the same results under swi-prolog and gprolog.)
EDIT: Here is an example of where this fails.
increasing([]).
increasing([_]).
increasing([X,Y|T]) :- X < Y, increasing([Y|T]).
increasingSublist(LL,L) :-·
sublist(L,LL),
length(L, Len),
Len > 1,
increasing(L).
then
| ?- findall(L, singleSolution(increasingSublist([1,2],L)),R).
R = [_]
yes
But we don't know what L is.
This seems to work, but I'm not sure if it's logically sound :)
It uses call_nth/2, a nonstandard but common predicate. It abuses throw to short-circuit the computation. Using bagof/3 instead of findall/3 lets us keep the Goal argument bound (and it will fail where findall/3 would succeed if it finds 0 solutions).
only_once(Goal) :-
catch(bagof(_, only_once_(Goal), _), too_many, fail).
only_once_(Goal) :-
call_nth(Goal, N),
( N > 1
-> throw(too_many)
; true
).
Testing it (on SWI):
?- only_once(member(X, [1])).
X = 1.
?- only_once(member(a, [a, b])).
true.
?- only_once(member(X, [a, b])).
false.
?- only_once(between(1,inf,X)).
false.
Unfortunately, I don't think call_nth/2 is supported in GNU Prolog.
Another possible solution:
single_solution(G) :-
copy_term(G, H),
call(G),
!,
( ground(H)
-> true
; \+ ( call(H), G \= H ) % There is no H different from G
).
p(a).
p(a).
q(b).
q(c).
Examples:
?- single_solution( p(X) ).
X = a.
?- single_solution( q(X) ).
false.
?- single_solution( member(X, [a,a,a]) ).
X = a.
?- single_solution( member(X, [a,b,c]) ).
false.
?- single_solution( repeat ).
true.
?- single_solution( between(1,inf,X) ).
false.
?- single_solution( between(1,inf,5) ).
true.
Here is an another approach I came up with after #gusbro commented that forall/2 doesn't bind variables from the calling goal.
single_solution(G) :-·
% duplicate the goal so we can solve independently
copy_term(G,G2),
% solve the first goal at least / at most once.
G, !,
% can we solve the duplicate differently?
% if so, cut & fail. Otherwise, succeed.
(G2, G2 \= G, !, fail; true).
I'm working on defining the logical operators in Prolog as an exercise. The first few were pretty straight forward:
and(A, B) :-
A, B.
or(true).
or(A, _) :-
or(A).
or(_, B) :-
or(B).
neg(false).
But now I want to define nand and nor, and it would be nice to define them in terms of my other predicates. For example, maybe something like below:
nand(A, B) :-
neg(and(A, B)).
But the inner and expression doesn't evaluate. I'm guessing that Prolog interprets the and expression as an atom. Is there any way to force it to evaluate the nested predicate?
eval(true).
eval(or(A,_)):- eval(A),!.
eval(or(_,A)):- eval(A),!.
eval(and(A,B)):- eval(A),eval(B).
eval(neg(A)):- \+eval(A).
:- eval(true).
:- \+eval(and(true,false)).
:- eval(and(true,true)).
:- eval(neg(neg(true))).
:- halt.
All of these predicates are defined in pretty much the same way. The base case is defined for the empty list. For non-empty lists we unify in the head of the clause when a certain predicate holds, but do not unify if that predicate does not hold. These predicates look too similar for me to think it is a coincidence. Is there a name for this, or a defined abstraction?
intersect([],_,[]).
intersect(_,[],[]).
intersect([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Acc]) :-
member(X,Ys),
intersect(Xs,Ys,Acc).
intersect([X|Xs],Ys,Acc) :-
\+ member(X,Ys),
intersect(Xs,Ys,Acc).
without_duplicates([],[]).
without_duplicates([X|Xs],[X|Acc]) :-
\+ member(X,Acc),
without_duplicates(Xs,Acc).
without_duplicates([X|Xs],Acc) :-
member(X,Acc),
without_duplicates(Xs,Acc).
difference([],_,[]).
difference([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Acc]) :-
\+ member(X,Ys),
difference(Xs,Ys,Acc).
difference([X|Xs],Ys,Acc) :-
member(X,Ys),
difference(Xs,Ys,Acc).
delete(_,[],[]).
delete(E,[X|Xs],[X|Ans]) :-
E \= X,
delete(E,Xs,Ans).
delete(E,[X|Xs],Ans) :-
E = X,
delete(E,Xs,Ans).
There is an abstraction for "keep elements in list for which condition holds".
The names are inclide, exclude. There is a library for those in SWI-Prolog that you can use or copy. Your predicates intersect/3, difference/3, and delete/3 would look like this:
:- use_module(library(apply)).
intersect(L1, L2, L) :-
include(member_in(L1), L2, L).
difference(L1, L2, L) :-
exclude(member_in(L2), L1, L).
member_in(List, Member) :-
memberchk(Member, List).
delete(E, L1, L) :-
exclude(=(E), L1, L).
But please take a look at the implementation of include/3 and exclude/3, here:
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc/_SWI_/library/apply.pl?show=src#include/3
Also in SWI-Prolog, in another library, there are versions of those predicates called intersection/3, subtract/3, delete/3:
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc/_SWI_/library/lists.pl?show=src#intersection/3
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc/_SWI_/library/lists.pl?show=src#subtract/3
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=delete/3
Those are similar in spirit to your solutions.
Your next predicate, without_duplicates, cannot be re-written like that with include/3 or exclude/3. Your implementation doesn't work, either. Try even something easy, like:
?- without_duplicates([a,b], L).
What happens?
But yeah, it is not the same as the others. To implement it correctly, depending on whether you need the original order or not.
If you don't need to keep the initial order, you can simply sort; this removes duplicates. Like this:
?- sort(List_with_duplicates, No_duplicates).
If you want to keep the original order, you need to pass the accumulated list to the recursive call.
without_duplicates([], []).
without_duplicates([H|T], [H|Result]) :-
without_duplicates_1(T, [H], Result).
without_duplicates_1([], _, []).
without_duplicates_1([H|T], Seen0, Result) :-
( memberchk(H, Seen0)
-> Seen = Seen0 , Result = Result0
; Seen = [H|Seen0], Result = [H|Result0]
),
without_duplicates_1(T, Seen, Result0).
You could get rid of one argument if you use a DCG:
without_duplicates([], []).
without_duplicates([H|T], [H|No_duplicates]) :-
phrase(no_dups(T, [H]), No_duplicates).
no_dups([], _) --> [].
no_dups([H|T], Seen) -->
{ memberchk(H, Seen) },
!,
no_dups(T, Seen).
no_dups([H|T], Seen) -->
[H],
no_dups(T, [H|Seen]).
Well, these are the "while loops" of Prolog on the one hand, and the inductive definitions of mathematical logic on the other hand (See also: Logic Programming, Functional Programming, and Inductive Definitions, Lawrence C. Paulson, Andrew W. Smith, 2001), so it's not surprising to find them multiple times in a program - syntactically similar, with slight deviations.
In this case, you just have a binary decision - whether something is the case or not - and you "branch" (or rather, decide to not fail the body and press on with the selected clause) on that. The "guard" (the test which supplements the head unification), in this case member(X,Ys) or \+ member(X,Ys) is a binary decision (it also is exhaustive, i.e. covers the whole space of possible X)
intersect([X|Xs],Ys,[X|Acc]) :- % if the head could unify with the goal
member(X,Ys), % then additionally check that ("guard")
(...action...). % and then do something
intersect([X|Xs],Ys,Acc) :- % if the head could unify with the goal
\+ member(X,Ys), % then additionally check that ("guard")
(...action...). % and then do something
Other applications may need the equivalent of a multiple-decision switch statement here, and so N>2 clauses may have to be written instead of 2.
foo(X) :-
member(X,Set1),
(...action...).
foo(X) :-
member(X,Set2),
(...action...).
foo(X) :-
member(X,Set3),
(...action...).
% inefficient pseudocode for the case where Set1, Set2, Set3
% do not cover the whole range of X. Such a predicate may or
% may not be necessary; the default behaviour would be "failure"
% of foo/1 if this clause does not exist:
foo(X) :-
\+ (member(X,Set1);member(X,Set2);member(X,Set3)),
(...action...).
Note:
Use memberchk/2 (which fails or succeeds-once) instead of member/2 (which fails or succeeds-and-then-tries-to-succeed-again-for-the-rest-of-the-set) to make the program deterministic in its decision whether member(X,L).
Similarly, "cut" after the clause guard to tell Prolog that if a guard of one clause succeeds, there is no point in trying the other clauses because they will all turn out false: member(X,Ys),!,...
Finally, use term comparison == and \== instead of unification = or unification failure \= for delete/3.
How do I make a logical NOT in a predicate?
If I wanted to define a state dependent on three conditions, it might look like:
test(A, B, C) :- cond(A), cond(B); cond(C).
How would you define a state to be NOT A and NOT B and NOT C?
Plain reading of your condition (note: will work as expected, under the restrictive conditions of Prolog - negation by failure - only if A,B,C are instantiated)
test(A,B,C) :- \+ cond(A), \+ cond(B), \+ cond(C).
that's equivalent (Boolean algebra applied to negation):
test(A,B,C) :- \+ (cond(A) ; cond(B) ; cond(C)).
Is it possible to get a predicate with already built-in ones (in swi-prolog) such that:
Wanted_Pred(X, a) %false
Wanted_Pred(b, a) %false
Wanted_Pred(X, Y) %true
Wanted_Pred(X, X) %true
Wanted_Pred(X, [Y|Z]) %false
Wanted_Pred([A|B], [X,Y|Z]) %false
Wanted_Pred([A,C|B], [X,Y|Z]) %true
e.g. succeeds iff both arguments represent each others free variable renaming,
note that copy_term doesn't do it as it unifies arguments in the end:
copy_term(X, a) %true
copy_term(X, [Y|Z]) %true
copy_term([A|B], [X,Y|Z]) %true
subsumes_term/2 perfectly fits your requirements, just swap the arguments:
?- subsumes_term(a,X).
false.
?- subsumes_term(a,b).
false.
?- subsumes_term(Y,X).
true.
?- subsumes_term(X,X).
true.
?- subsumes_term([Y|Z],X).
false.
?- subsumes_term([X,Y|Z],[A|B]).
false.
?- subsumes_term([X,Y|Z],[A,C|B]).
true.
I've seen a fairly recent thread on SWI-Prolog mailing list on the efficient implementation of (=#=)/2, that I think it's related (actually, it also satisfies your requirements): putting it to good use should be the best option available.
edit correcting the link to mailing list. Recent switch of list' hosting to google groups made the archive unavailable...
You can find the thread for instance in archived discussions, searching for the author, Kuniaki Mukai
Here is the predicated I am searching implemented by me but
I WANT TO FIND OUT IF THIS KIND OF PREDICATE IS BUILT_IN OR SIMILAR ONE IN SWI-PROLOG.
true_copy(X, Y) :-
(X == Y, !);
(var(X), var(Y), !);
((var(X); var(Y)) -> !, fail);
(atom(X), atom(Y) -> !, fail).
true_copy([X | L1], [Y | L2]) :-
!,
true_copy(X, Y),
true_copy(L1, L2).
true_copy(Term1, Term2) :-
Term1 =.. L1,
Term2 =.. L2,
true_copy(L1, L2).