I know how to do it for 2 lists:
append([],L,L).
append([H|T],L,[H|R]):-append(T,L,R).
but how to do it for 3? Without using the append for 2 lists twice.
To append lists efficiently, consider using difference lists. A difference list is a list expressed using a term with two lists. The most common representation uses (-)/2 as the functor for the term. For example, the list [1,2,3] can be expressed as:
[1,2,3| Tail]-Tail.
By keeping track of the list tail, i.e. of its open end, you can do several operations efficiently. For example, you can append an element to end of the list in O(1) by instantiating the tail:
add_to_end_of_list(List-Tail, Element, List-Tail2) :-
Tail = [Element| Tail2].
Or simply:
add_to_end_of_list(List-[Element| Tail2], Element, List-Tail2).
Let's try it:
?- add_to_end_of_list([1,2,3| Tail]-Tail, 4, Result).
Tail = [4|_G1006],
Result = [1, 2, 3, 4|_G1006]-_G1006.
Now, appending two lists is similar and also O(1). Instead of appending an element, we want to append a list of elements:
dappend(List1-Tail1, Tail1-Tail2, List1-Tail2).
For example:
?- dappend([1,2,3 | Tail1]-Tail1, [4,5,6| Tail2]-Tail2, Result).
Tail1 = [4, 5, 6|Tail2],
Result = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|Tail2]-Tail2.
I leave to you as an exercise to answer your own question using difference lists. Note that going from a difference list to a closed list, is simply a question of instantiating the open end to the empty list. For example:
?- dappend([1,2,3 | Tail1]-Tail1, [4,5,6| Tail2]-Tail2, Result-[]).
Tail1 = [4, 5, 6],
Tail2 = [],
Result = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
However, going from a closed list to a difference list does requires you to traverse the list, which is O(n):
as_difflist([], Back-Back).
as_difflist([Head| Tail], [Head| Tail2]-Back) :-
as_difflist(Tail, Tail2-Back).
The cost of constructing the difference lists may or may not be an issue, of course, depending on how you get the initial lists and how often you will be appending lists in your application.
Hope I understood the question (and I don't think the following is more efficient than the other solutions here), but did you mean something like this?
append([],[],L,L).
append([],[H|T],L,[H|R]) :- append([],T,L,R).
append([H|T],L0,L1,[H|R]) :- append(T,L0,L1,R).
append3(Xs, Ys, Zs, XsYsZs) :-
append(Xs, YsZs, XsYsZs),
append(Ys, Zs, YsZs).
Is as efficient, as it can get. Cost is about |Xs|+|Ys| inferences. However, you might have attempted to define it like the following with about 2|Xs|+|Ys| inferences.
append3bad(Xs, Ys, Zs, XsYsZs) :-
append(Xs, Ys, XsYs),
append(XsYs, Zs, XsYsZs).
Also, termination is much better in the first case:
append3(Xs, Ys, Zs, XsYsZs)
terminates_if b(Xs),b(Ys);b(XsYsZs)
meaning that either Xs and Ys or XsYsZs needs to be known to make append3/4 terminate
... versus
append3bad(Xs, Ys, Zs, XsYsZs)
terminates_if b(Xs),b(Ys);b(Xs),b(XsYsZs)
^^^^^
for append3bad/4, where XsYsZs is not sufficient, but additionally also Xs has to be known.
Related
I've made a basic predicate ascending/1 to check if a list is in ascending order, on https://swish.swi-prolog.org.
ascending([]).
ascending([_]).
ascending([X, Y| T]) :-
X =< Y,
ascending([Y|T]).
It shows the following if I query ?- ascending([1, 2, 4, 6]).:
As in, it tries to find more solutions. Pressing Next, 10, 100 or 1,000 just returns false, which is a mystery in and of itself - true and false at the same time? Maybe that's because of the anonymous _? Have I not defined completely enough? Why is it not just returning true?
Most Prolog systems implement first-argument indexing, which allows avoid creating spurious choice-points. Assuming that and a call with the first argument bound, in the case of your code, the Prolog runtime is able to able to distinguish between the first clause, whose first argument is an atom, and the two other clauses, whose first argument are lists. But not able (in general) to distinguish between the second and third clauses and avoid trying both for a goal where the first argument is a list. This results in the creation of a choice-point. Hence the results your get:
?- ascending([1, 2, 4, 6]).
true ;
false.
But we can improve on your solution. For example:
ascending([]).
ascending([Head| Tail]) :-
ascending(Tail, Head).
ascending([], _).
ascending([Head| Tail], Previous) :-
Previous =< Head,
ascending(Tail, Head).
We will now get:
?- ascending([1, 2, 4, 6]).
true.
?- ascending([1, 2, 4, 6, 1]).
false.
I have a predict which gets first N elements:
nfirst(N, _, Lnew) :- N =< 0, Lnew = [].
nfirst(_, [], []).
nfirst(N, [X|Y], [X|Y1]) :- N1 is N - 1, nfirst(N1, Y, Y1).
It works:
% nfirst(3,[1,2,3,4,5,6],X).
% X = [1, 2, 3]
I need a predict for divide list like below:
% divide([a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h],[3,2,1,2],X).
% X = [[a,b,c],[d,e],[f],[g,h]]
The best way is using nfirst.
Very similar question to the one I answered here. Again, the trick is to use append/3 plus length/2 to "bite off" a chunk of list, per my comment above:
split_at(N, List, [H|[T]]) :- append(H, T, List), length(H, N).
If you run that, you'll see this:
?- split_at(4, [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], X).
X = [[1, 2, 3, 4], [5, 6, 7, 8]] ;
So this is the backbone of your program, and now you just need the usual recursive stuff around it. First, the base case, which says, if I'm out of list, I should be out of split locations, and thus out of result:
divide([], [], []).
Note that explicit base cases like this make your program more correct than something like divide([], _, _) because they will cause you to fail if you get too many split locations for your list size.
Now the recursive case is not difficult, but because split_at/3 puts two things together in a list (probably a bad choice, you could make split_at/4 as an improvement) you have to take them out, and it clouds the logic a bit here while making (IMO) a nicer API on its own.
divide(List, [Split|Splits], [Chunk|Rest]) :-
split_at(Split, List, [Chunk, Remainder]),
divide(Remainder, Splits, Rest).
This should be fairly straightforward: we're just taking a Split location, using it to chop up the List, and repeating the processing on what's left over. It seems to work as you expect:
?- divide([a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h],[3,2,1,2],X).
X = [[a, b, c], [d, e], [f], [g, h]] ;
false.
Hope this helps! Compare to the other answer, it may illuminate things.
Here's a code which recursively add the element X at the end of the list.
app(X, [], [X]).
app(X, [Y | S], [Y | S2]) :- app(X, S, S2).
Could anyone explain me how it works? Where's the return statement, what exactly the app(X, S, S2) [Y | S], [Y | S2] do?
You don't need return statement everything is done by unification (simply pattern matching). The clause:
app(X, [Y | S], [Y | S2])
states that the second argument is a list with head Y and tail S and the third argument is a list with head Y and tail S2. So it forces (by using unification) the heads of the two lists to be the same. Recursively the two lists become identical except the fact that the third argument list has one more element in the end (element X) and this is defined by the first clause. Note that second clause only works for lists with one or more elements. So as a base of the recursion when we examine the empty list (in the second parameter) then the third list due to first clause contains only one more element the element X.
Prolog programs are made by defining facts and rules. You define facts and rules, and Prolog interpreter tries to come up with solutions to make them true. Other than this basic concept, you need to know two other important concepts which Prolog programmers use extensively.
These are:
Input and Output parameters: There are no return statements in Prolog. Some variables will be results (outputs) and some others will be the inputs. In your program, the first and second parameters are input and the last one is the output.
Pattern Matching: If a list is expressed as [Head|Tail]. Head is the first element and Tail is a list of the remaining elements.
When you call app, for example, as app(5, [1, 2, 3, 4], L)., Prolog interpreter tries to come up with values for L such that app is true.
Prolog interpreter is solving the problem in the following steps:
In order to make app(X, [Y | S], [Y | S2]) true, the first element of the last parameter need to become Y. So, in my example, L becomes [1, S2].
Then it tries to match the rule app(X, S, S2). Here S is [2, 3, 4] and S2 is the output parameter for the next run. Then Step 1 gets repeated but with app(5, [2, 3, 4], S2) and after that S2 becomes [2, S2]. So, L, now, becomes [1, 2, S2].
This same thing gets repeated (recursion) and L is populated as [1, 2, 3, 4, S2].
Now, the second parameter is empty. So, the first fact app(X, [], [X]) is matched. In order to make this true, the last parameter becomes a list containing just X (which is 5 in this case), which results in L being [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
I have this
initialstate(0,[],[[1,0],[2,3],[1,2],[2,3]]).
I would like to find which sublist inside the list is the same with the number 1.
And after delete the sublist who had the number one.
It would be something like that :
?- initialstate(_,_,[X,_]), initialstate(_,_,list),
delete(list,X,Newlist),assertz(initialstate(A,B,Newlist)).
I know this is wrong but i am trying to explain you what i want to do.
I want my final list to be :
initialstate(0,[],[[2,3],[2,3]]).
Edit: A new answer to incorporate CapelliC's endorsement of delete/3 and OPs further queries in the comments.
Predicate:
initial_state_without_elements(initialstate(A,B,List), Element,
initialstate(A,B,FilteredList) ):-
delete(List, Element, FilteredList).
Query:
?- initial_state_without_elements(initialstate(0,[],[[1,0],[2,3],[1,2],[2,3]]), [2,_], NewState).
NewState = initialstate(0, [], [[1, 0], [1, 2]]).
We want to take some list of lists, ListOfLists, and remove all the sublists, Ls, that contain a given Element. In general, to check if an element X is in some list List, we we can use member(X, List).
So we want a list of lists, SubListsWithout, which contains all Ls of ListOfLists for which member(Element, SubList) is false.
Here is a predicate sublists_without_elements/3, which takes a list of lists, an element, and a variable as arguments, and unifies the variable with a list of the sublists of the first which do not contain the element. This predicate uses the standard recursive technique for describing lists:
sublists_without_element([], _, []).
sublists_without_element([L|Ls], Element, SubListsWithout) :-
member(Element, L), !,
sublists_without_element(Ls, Element, SubListsWithout).
sublists_without_element([L|Ls], Element, [L|SubListsWithout]) :-
sublists_without_element(Ls, Element, SubListsWithout).
The first clause is our base case: the empty list has no sublists, regardless of the element.
The second clause is true if (1) Element is a member of L, and (2) SubListsWithout is a list of the sublists of Ls which do not contain Element. (note: *L has not been added to SubListsWithout in this clause, which means it has been excluded from the lits we are accumulating. The ! is used to prune the search path here, because once we know that an Element is a member of L, we don't want to have anything to do with L again.)
The third clause is true if L is added to SubListsWithout, and SubListsWithout contains the rest of the sublists of Ls which do not have Element as a member.
The above is one way to write your own predicate to filter a list. It is important that you be able to write and read predicates of this form, because you will see tons of them. However, you'll also want to get to know the standard libraries of your Prolog implementation. In SWI-Prolg, you can simply use exclude\3 to accomplish the above task. Thus, you could achieve your desired goal in with the following:
filter_initial_state(initial_state(A,B,List),
Element,
initial_state(A,B,FilteredList)) :-
exclude(member(Element), List, FilteredList).
You can use it thus,
?- filter_initial_state(initial_state(0,[],[[1,0],[2,3],[1,2],[2,3]]), 1, Filtered).
and prolog will reply,
Filtered = initial_state(0, [], [[2, 3], [2, 3]]).
I think you've chosen the right builtin (delete/3), but there is some detail wrong. Here is a working 'query':
?- retract(initialstate(A,B,C)), C=[[X,_]|_], delete(C,[X,_],Newlist), assertz(initialstate(A,B,Newlist)).
A = 0,
B = [],
C = [[1, 0], [2, 3], [1, 2], [2, 3]],
X = 1,
Newlist = [[2, 3], [2, 3]].
First of all: if you do a assertz without first doing a retract you'll end with having an almost duplicate of your data, and probably is not what you want. assertz stores the updated initialstate after the old one (there is asserta, but I doubt will correct the bug).
Second, note how to use pattern matching to extract the essential information:
C=[[X,_]|_]
the use of _ (i.e. an anonymous var) is essential, because allows to specify which part of the complex structure we must ignore when using it. And we must use it also to indicate to delete/3 what to match.
delete(C,[X,_],Newlist)
My database is similar to this:
% happy(Person,Happiness)
happy(1,10).
happy(2,5).
happy(3,8).
happy(4,1).
I want to sort people w.r.t. their happiness.
I coded the following and it does what I want. However it looked cumbersome to me. Any improvements?
? - sortPeople(Ts).
Ts = [1, 3, 2, 4].
My solution:
getFirst([],R,R).
getFirst([[H1,_]|T],F,R) :-
append([H1],F,R1),
getFirst(T,R1,R).
compareHappiness(X, [_,S1], [_,S2]) :- compare(X, S1, S2).
sortPeople(Ts) :-
findall([X,Y], happy(X,Y), List),
predsort(compareHappiness, List, SortedList),
getFirst(SortedList,[],Ts).
Consider using more descriptive and declarative predicate names, for example:
person_happiness(1, 10).
person_happiness(2, 5).
person_happiness(3, 8).
person_happiness(4, 1).
To sort people by happiness, consider using the built-in keysort/2, which is more efficient than predsort/3. You only need to build key-value pairs, for which by convention the functor -/2 is used, and instead of your auxiliary predicate, consider using the SWI-Prolog built-ins pairs_values/2 and reverse/2:
descending_happiness(Ps) :-
findall(H-P, person_happiness(P, H), HPs),
keysort(HPs, HPs1),
pairs_values(HPs1, Ps1),
reverse(Ps1, Ps).
Example query:
?- descending_happiness(Ps).
Ps = [1, 3, 2, 4].
-Here is what I got :
sort(Rez) :- findall([Happiness,PId],happy(PId,Happiness),List),
msort(List,LSorted),
findall(PersonID,member([_,PersonID],LSorted),Sorted),
reverse(Sorted,Rez).