In prolog I'm trying to unify every valid pairing of needs with resources
needs([ece2090,1,m,13,16]).
needs([ece3520,1,tu,11,14]).
needs([ece4420,1,w,13,16]).
resources([joel, [ece2090,ece2010,ece3520,ece4420],[[m,13,16]]]).
resources([sam, [ece2010,ece4420],[]]).
resources([pete, [ece3520],[[w,13,16]]]).
using this formula
make_bid([Class,Sect,Day,Ts,Te],[Name,Cap,Unavail],[Class,Sect,Day,Ts,Te,Name,_]) :-
no_conflict_all_unavailable(Day,Ts,Te,Unavail),
course_capable(Class,Cap),
writef('%w %w %w\n',[Class,Sect,Name]),
fail.
and running this test.
test(Listing) :- needs(N), resources(R), make_bid(N,R,Listing).
The point of this part of the program is to pair every class with a teacher that both has the qualifications to teach the class and is not unavailable during that time. It's supposed to give a list.
?- test(Listing).
ece3520 1 joel
ece3520 1 pete
ece4420 1 joel
ece4420 1 sam
false.
When run, the above is generated. This is correct, but it's in a format that's useless to me, since I need it to be a variable of its own to do further computations. Then the solution is to use bagof or findall, right?
So I remove the fail clause from the main part of the program and then change the test to this
test(Bag) :- needs(N), resources(R), bagof(Listing,make_bid(N,R,Listing),Bag).
but it generates this
ece3520 1 joel
Bag = [[ece3520, 1, tu, 11, 14, joel, _G4310]]
If you look closely you'll see that there's no period at the end as well as a lack of a true/false statement. This would lead one to believe it is infinitely looping. This isn't the case however, as the Bag matrix is fully formed and I can simply type "." to end the program (instead of, you know, aborting it).
It only generates the first valid solution. Why is this happening?
You've structured your test predicate so that bagof/3 is called for every instance combination of needs(N) and resources(R) and so it collects each result of make_bid in it's own bagof/3 result:
ece3520 1 joel
Bag = [[ece3520, 1, tu, 11, 14, joel, _G4310]]
The first line is the write that is in make_bid predicate. The second line is the Bag result for the single query to make_bid for one pair of needs/resources. The last argument in the list, _G4310, occurs because your predicate uses _ and it's anonymous (never used/instantiated).
Your current make_bid is designed to write the results in a loop rather than instantiate them in multiple backtracks. So that could be changed to:
make_bid([Class, Sect, Day, Ts, Te], [Name, Cap, Unavail], [Class, Sect, Day, Ts, Te, Name, _]) :-
no_conflict_all_unavailable(Day, Ts, Te, Unavail),
course_capable(Class, Cap).
(NOTE: I'm not sure why you have _ at the end of the 3rd list argument. What does it represent?)
If you want to collect the whole result in one list, then you canb use findall/3:
findall([Class, Sect, Name], (needs(N), resources(R), make_bid(N, R, [Class, Sect, _, _, _, Name, _]), Listings).
This will collect a list of elements that look like, [Class, Sect, Name]. You could use bagof/3 here, but you'd need an existential quantifier for the variables in the make_bid/3 call that you don't want to bind.
If you wanted the entire Listing list, then:
findall(L, (needs(N), resources(R), make_bid(N, R, L)), Listings).
But each element of Listings will be a list whose last element is an anonymous variable, since that's how make_bid/3 is structured.
Related
update :-
write("Name?:"),
read(Name),
assert(Name),nl,
write("Age?:"),
read(Age),
assert(Age),
write("Continue(y or n)?:"),
read(Respond),
process(Respond).
process(y) :-
write('Name?:'),
read(Name),
assert(Name),nl,
write("Age?:"),
read(Age),
assert(Age),
repeat,
write("y or n"),
read(Respond),
process(Respond).
process(n) :- !.
I want to run this Prolog to assert in the name and age, but when I write age for the number, it shows
?- update.
Name?:fred.
Age?:|: 25.
ERROR: Type error: `callable' expected, found `25' (an integer)
ERROR: In:
ERROR: [9] assert(25)
ERROR: [8] update at c:/example.pl:11
ERROR: [7] <user>
?-
How to figure out this problem.
Problem 1
Incorrect input for assert/1
The problem is not with just Age it is with any input that uses assert, e.g.
?- update.
Name?:Fred
|: .
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
ERROR: In:
ERROR: [9] assert(_4940)
ERROR: [8] update at c:/example.pl:8
ERROR: [7] <user>
?- update.
Name?:Jim.
ERROR: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
ERROR: In:
ERROR: [9] assert(_5826)
ERROR: [8] update at c:/example.pl:8
ERROR: [7] <user>
The problem is that assert/1 is not being given a fact or rule.
assert/1 says:
Assert a clause (fact or rule) into the database.
See facts and rules
In the example above Fred is not a fact because it does not end with a period (.).
In the example above with Jim. a period was given but because Jim starts with a capital letter, it is not a fact or rule but a variable.
When the age is entered as a number, again this is not a fact or rule it is an integer.
Problem 2
Use of read/1 which says:
Read the next Prolog term from the current input stream and unify it with Term.
When reading a Prolog term the input must end with a period.
This not only requires the input to be a term, but end with a . which is even more confusing given the prompt, e.g Age. Most of the examples you find do what you did, the corrected code below does what you want.
Problem 3
Competing ways or repeating.
The code is using two ways:
Use of repeat/0
It is recursive, e.g.
process(y) :-
...
process(Respond).
This is making it hard to get the code working.
Problem 4
Duplicate code, e.g.
write("Name?:"),
read(Name),
assert(Name),nl,
write("Age?:"),
read(Age),
assert(Age),
write("Continue(y or n)?:"),
read(Respond),
process(Respond).
Duplicated code is more likely to lead to problems when one copy is corrected and the other copy is not corrected.
Problem 1 fix
Make the input a fact before storing in the database with assert/1, e.g.
Values in variables
Name
Age
Variables converted to facts by adding a functor
name(Name)
age(Age)
The facts used with assert/1
assert(name(Name))
assert(age(Age))
Problem 2 fix
Use read_string/5, e.g.
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Name)
This reads the input into the variable Name as a string. Now that the input is a string, and not a Prolog term, the period is no longer required. There are predicates that operate on strings.
Problem 3 fix
Use the recursion form and remove repeat/0.
This could also use repeat/0 instead of recursion. The corrected code below uses recursion to demonstrate the change to process/1.
Problem 4 fix
Just refactor the code. You can see this in the corrected code at the end.
Now with the fixes in place.
Change 1
Since the input for continue is no longer a term, e.g. y or n, but a string, the parameter for process needs to be a string, e.g.
process("y") :-
process("n") :-
Change 2
Age will be asserted as a string but would be better asserted as an integer.
number_string/2 can solve this, e.g.
number_string(Age_n,Age),
assert(age(Age_n))
Change 3
user27815 Asked in a comment:
do you need the cut in process("n") :- !. ?
Since
process(Respond).
is not creating a choice point, the cut is not needed.
Corrected code:
update :-
% Respond will be read as a string and not as a term, so it needs "".
process("y").
process("y") :-
write('Name: '),
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Name),
assert(name(Name)),
write("Age: "),
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Age),
number_string(Age_n,Age),
assert(age(Age_n)),
write("Continue: (y or n) "),
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Respond),
process(Respond).
process("n").
Example run:
?- update.
Name: Fred
Age: 30
Continue: (y or n) y
Name: Jim
Age: 21
Continue: (y or n) n
true.
To check that the database was updated use listing/1
?- listing(name/1).
:- dynamic name/1.
name("Fred").
name("Jim").
true.
?- listing(age/1).
:- dynamic age/1.
age(30).
age(21).
true.
A free enhancement.
Keeping the facts of name and age separate doesn't keep the relation between them intact. A better solution would be a person fact with both Name and Age values.
Here is the necessary modified code.
update :-
% Respond will be read as a string and not as a term, so it needs "".
process("y").
process("y") :-
write('Name: '),
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Name),
write("Age: "),
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Age),
number_string(Age_n,Age),
assert(person(Name,Age_n)),
write("Continue: (y or n) "),
read_string(user, "\n", "\r", End, Respond),
process(Respond).
process("n").
Example run:
?- update.
Name: Fred
Age: 30
Continue: (y or n) y
Name: Jim
Age: 21
Continue: (y or n) n
true.
To check that the database was updated use listing/1
?- listing(person/2).
:- dynamic person/2.
person("Fred", 30).
person("Jim", 21).
true.
After noticing your deleted answer.
In your deleted answer you have
?- person(name(N), age(A)).
N = nancy,
A = 22;
N= steve,
A = 100;
true.
The change needed for this variation of the fact to be created is
assert(person(name(Name),age(Age_n)))
however that might not be the optimal way to go.
In Prolog, positions typically indicate the meaning of a value, e.g. first position is name and second position is age. In this variation by adding the functors name and age to the fact person/2 you are duplicating known knowledge, but more importantly the possibility the amount of work Prolog has to do.
For example:
If the fact was person(Name,Age). to get at Name and Age Prolog only needs one unification. But with person(Name,Age). Prolog now needs to unify with person(name(nancy),age(22)) then to get Name has to unify again with name(nancy) and to get Age has to unify with age(22). You could also use person(name(Name),age(Age)). which requires only one unification, but now makes your code more verbose.
When first learning Prolog this crutch helps, but when working with larger data sets, this starts to impact performance.
Another item of note in your deleted answer is that the names of the people are still based on using read/1, e.g. nancy and steve. While a lot of Prolog examples do this, there is no requirement to keep them as such, they can be strings. Odds are the code will never need to exactly match on nancy or steve and instead will always reference them as a value in a variable. The nice thing about keeping them as strings is that when writing them out, they will appear correctly as Nancy and Steve.
This is because assert does not work on variables. It asserts a fact or rule; in other words, assert(something) asserts that something must be true.
From the SWI-Prolog documentation:
Assert a clause (fact or rule) into the database.
An integer value is not a rule or a fact. It is (in this case) an integer, not something that evaluates to a boolean value. There's no point in asserting a value.
I would write some helpers:
read_assert(P,V) :- format('~w ? ',[P]), read(V), A =.. [P,V], assert(A).
?- maplist(read_assert, [name,age], Vs).
name ? capellic.
age ? 99.
Vs = [capellic, 99].
?- name(N).
N = capellic.
This is my first time using Prolog.
I have employees:
employee(eID,firstname,lastname,month,year).
I have units:
unit(uID,type,eId).
I want to make a predicate
double_name(X).
that prints the last names of the employees with the same first name in the unit X.
I am doing something like this :
double_name(X) :-
unit(X,_,_eID),
employee(_eID,_firstname,_,_,_),
_name = _firstname,
employee(_,_name,_lastname,_,_),
write(_lastname).
But it prints all the employees in the unit.
How can i print only the employees with the same name ?
unit(unit_01,type,1).
unit(unit_01,type,2).
unit(unit_01,type,3).
employee(1,mary,smith,6,1992).
employee(2,fred,jones,1,1990).
employee(3,mary,cobbler,2,1995).
double_name(Unit) :-
unit(Unit,_,Eid_1),
employee(Eid_1,Firstname,Lastname_1,_,_),
unit(Unit,_,Eid_2),
Eid_1 \= Eid_2,
employee(Eid_2,Firstname,Lastname_2,_,_),
write(Firstname),write(","),write(Lastname_1),nl,
write(Firstname),write(","),write(Lastname_2).
Variables in Prolog typically start with an upper case letter, but starting them with and underscore is allowed, but not typical.
In double_name/2 the predicates like
unit(Unit,_,Eid_1)
employee(Eid_1,Firstname,Lastname_1,_,_)
are used to load the values from the facts into variables while pattern matching (via unification) that the bound variables match with the fact.
To ensure that a person is not compared with themselves.
Eid_1 \= Eid_2
and to make sure that two people have the same first name the same variable is used: Firstname.
The write/1 and nl/0 predicates just write the result to the screen.
Example:
?- double_name(unit_01).
mary,smith
mary,cobbler
true ;
mary,cobbler
mary,smith
true ;
false.
Notice that the correct answer is duplicated. This can be resolved.
See: Prolog check if first element in lists are not equal and second item in list is equal
and look at the use of normalize/4 and setof/3 in my answer
which I leave as an exercise for you.
so I have a set of facts:
course(cs61, "intro to cs")
...
course(cs62b, "data structure")
...
grade(adam, cs61, spring11, "A")
...
grade(chrisitian, cs61, fall2010, "A-")
I need to define a predicate good_standing(Student) to determine whether the Student got A in every class he took. I must use 2 different approaches:
use setof/3
use NAF
on the 1st. I have tried to figure out get Result_list: the set of students that got A from every class he took. and then call member(Student, Result_list). But I don't know what to get the Result_list since the syntax is a bit strange to me.
1) For the NAF solution you should keep in mind that the good-standing student is the one with no grades lower than A, i.e., the one such that there is no course he/she took and the grade is lower than A. We also require this person to take at least one course.
good_standing(Student) :- grade(Student, _,_,_),
\+ (grade(Student, Course, _, Grade),
lower(Grade,"A")).
with lower/2 defining relation between the grades:
lower("A-","A").
lower("B","A").
...
The solution above works if students get only one grade per course.
2) For the setof solution you can find all grades per student and check that they are A.
grade(Student, Grade) :- grade(Student, _,_,Grade).
good_standing(Student) :- setof(Grade, grade(Student,Grade), ["A"]).
Alternatively, as suggested by false we can make the existential quantification explicit within setof:
good_standing(Student) :- setof(Grade,
Course^Period^grade(Student,Course,Period,Grade),
["A"]).
go :- match(Mn,Fn),
write('--Matching Result--'),
nl,
write(Mn),
write(' match with '),
write(Fn),
match(Mn1,Fn1).
person(may,female,25,blue).
person(rose,female,20,blue).
person(hock,male,30,blue).
person(ali,male,24,blue).
match(Mn,Fn):-person(Fn,'female',Fage,Fatt),
person(Mn,'male',Mage,Matt),
Mage>=Fage,
Fatt=Matt.
Hi,this is my code...but it's only can show the 1 output...but there are 3 pair of matching in match(X,Y).how to show them all in my go function.
Thank you
You get all your matches if you force backtracking, usually by entering ; (e.g. in SWI Prolog). But you also see that you are getting unnecessary outputs true. This is because the last clause in go is match(Mn1,Fn1). This clause succeeds three times and binds the variables Mn1,Fn1 but then only true is output, because you do not write() after that clause. The fourth time match(Mn1,Fn1) fails and by backtracking you come back to the first clause match(Mn,Fn) that matches, the match is output, etc.
You surely do not want to have this behavior. You should remove the last clause match(Mn1,Fn1) in go. Now by pressing ; you get the 3 matches without any output true in between.
But what you likely want is that the program does the backtracking. To achieve this, you just need to force backtracking by adding false as the last clause. To get proper formatting of the output, use the following program. The last clause go2. is added to get true at the very end.
go2 :- write('--Matching Result--'), nl,
match(Mn,Fn),
write(Mn), write(' match with '), write(Fn), nl,
fail.
go2.
This technique is called failure driven loop.
If you have any predicate that has multiple results and want to to find all of them, you should use findall/3
For example, in your case, you could do something like:
findall([X,Y], match(X,Y),L).
L will be a list that will contain all the X,Y that satisfy match(X,Y) in the format [X,Y].
for example, assuming that:
match(m1,f1).
match(m2,f2).
the result will be L = [ [m1,f1], [m2,f2] ]
note that you can define the format as you wish, for example you could write:
findall(pair(X,Y), match(X,Y), L).
L = [ pair(m1,f1), pair(m2,f2) ]
findall( X, match(X,Y), L).
L = [ m1, m2]
findall( 42, match(X,Y), L).
L = [42, 42]
then you have to recurse on the list to print them.
However, if you wish to find one result, run some code and then continue you could use forall/2:
forall(match(X,Y), my_print(X,Y).
Prolog is a lazy language. Which means that it will stop once it has found a condition that made your problem true. This will be the very first match alone.
IF your code is working (I haven't tried it), then you should try and run the match-statement like this in your prolog inspector: match(X,Y)
The prolog inspector will return all states and print them for you.
i wanna ask a question about returning a list...
Facts:
TEAM(TEAMNAME,DIRECTOR,NATIOANALITY,OVERALLGOAL)
team (milan,allegri,italy, 8.5).
team (inter,benitez,italy,7.6).
team (barcelona,guardiola,spain,7.8).
team (realmadrid,mourinho,spain,7.2).
and i want to create a predicate:
find(T,N,G) : T is name of team, N is nationality of team and this team's overallgoal must be greater than G. and outputs must be like these:
find([], spain,9). returns true
find(X, spain,6). returns X=[barcelona, realmadrid]
i tried to do this with:
find(T,N,G):-find1(T,N,G),is_set(T).
find1([]).
find1([T|Ts],N,G):-team(T,_,N,Gs),Gc>G,find1(Ts).
it gives results but not like output above...
if my goal is find([],spain,9). then give false...
if my goal is find(X,spain,6). then give first X=barcelona and wait for ";" after that give X=realmadrid... but i want to a list like above...
Thanks a lot...
To extract a list of items satisfying a predicate from a database of clauses, one should use findall predicate. For example, your code could be rewritten as follows:
find(T, N, G) :- findall(X, (team(X, _, N, G0), G0 > G), T).