How this prolog crossword solver works? - prolog

I am trying to write a crossword solver I have got this code but I can't Understand some parts of it:
size(5).
black(1,3).
black(2,3).
black(3,2).
black(4,3).
black(5,1).
black(5,5).
words([do,ore,ma,lis,ur,as,po, so,pirus, oker,al,adam, ik]) .
:- use_module(library(lists),[nth1/3, select/3]).
crossword(Puzzle) :-
words(WordList),
word2chars(WordList,CharsList),
make_empty_words(EmptyWords) ,
fill_in(CharsList,EmptyWords),
word2chars(Puzzle,EmptyWords).
word2chars([],[]).
word2chars([Word|RestWords] ,[Chars|RestChars] ) :-
atom_chars(Word,Chars),
word2chars(RestWords,RestChars).
fill_in([],[]).
fill_in([Word|RestWords],Puzzle) :-
select(Word,Puzzle,RestPuzzle),
fill_in(RestWords,RestPuzzle).
make_empty_words(EmptyWords) :-
size(Size),
make_puzzle(Size,Puzzle),
findall(black(I,J),black(I,J),Blacks) ,
fillblacks(Blacks,Puzzle),
empty_words(Puzzle,EmptyWords).
make_puzzle(Size,Puzzle) :-
length(Puzzle,Size),
make_lines(Puzzle,Size).
make_lines([],_).
make_lines([L|Ls],Size) :-
length(L,Size),
make_lines(Ls,Size).
fillblacks([],_).
fillblacks([black(I,J)|Blacks],Puzzle) :-
nth1(I,Puzzle,LineI),
nth1(J,LineI,black),
fillblacks(Blacks,Puzzle).
empty_words(Puzzle,EmptyWords) :-
empty_words(Puzzle,EmptyWords,TailEmptyWords),
size(Size),
transpose(Size,Puzzle,[],TransposedPuzzle),
empty_words(TransposedPuzzle,TailEmptyWords,[] ).
empty_words([],Es,Es).
empty_words([L|Ls],Es,EsTail) :-
empty_words_on_one_line(L,Es,Es1) ,
empty_words(Ls,Es1,EsTail).
empty_words_on_one_line([], Tail, Tail).
empty_words_on_one_line([V1,V2|L],[[V1,V2|Vars]|R],Tail) :-
var(V1), var(V2), !,
more_empty(L,RestL,Vars),
empty_words_on_one_line(RestL,R,Tail) .
empty_words_on_one_line([_| RestL],R, Tail) :-
empty_words_on_one_line(RestL,R,Tail) .
more_empty([],[],[]).
more_empty([V|R],RestL,Vars) :-
( var(V) ->
Vars = [V|RestVars],
more_empty(R,RestL,RestVars)
;
RestL = R,
Vars = []
).
transpose(N,Puzzle,Acc,TransposedPuzzle) :-
( N == 0 ->
TransposedPuzzle = Acc
;
nth_elements(N,Puzzle,OneVert),
M is N - 1,
transpose(M,Puzzle,[OneVert|Acc], TransposedPuzzle)
).
nth_elements(_,[],[]).
nth_elements(N,[X|R],[NthX| S]) :-
nth1(N,X,NthX),
nth_elements(N,R,S).
This code is used for solving crosswords like this:
What are symbols ; -> used for?
My main problem is understanding the rules , transpose and more_empty.
Any explanation to help me understand the code would be appreciated.

-> and ; are Prolog's control flow, like the if-then-else satement in other languages. So:
transpose(N,Puzzle,Acc,TransposedPuzzle) :-
( N == 0 ->
TransposedPuzzle = Acc
;
nth_elements(N,Puzzle,OneVert),
M is N - 1,
transpose(M,Puzzle,[OneVert|Acc], TransposedPuzzle)
).
translates to psuedocode:
def transpose(N, Puzzle, Acc)
if N == 0
return Acc
else
OneVert = nth_elements(N, Puzzle)
transpose(N-1, Puzzle, [OneVert, Acc])
or:
def transpose(N, Puzzle, Acc)
while N > 0
OneVert = nth_elements(N, Puzzle)
Acc = [OneVert, Acc]
N = N - 1
return Acc
That should give you some idea what it does. I suggest you translate the more_empty function into psuedocode yourself (or just step through it in your head), and try to work it out from there.

In addition to the correct answers of Josh and Avi Tshuva stating that a -> b ; c is like "if a then b else c", I would like to explain that -> and ; are individual operators which can be used separately.
; is logical disjunction, ie. logical "or". So x; y means "x or y". This makes the conditional statement a bit confusing because a -> b ; c reads like "a implies b or c" which is obviously not what it means! Even if you parenthesize it like "(a implies b) or c" you get a different meaning from the conditional statement because in this incorrect interpretation, c will always be tried, even if (a implies b) succeeds.
The difference is because -> has some "non-logical" semantics. From SWI-Prolog docs:
:Condition -> :Action If-then and If-Then-Else. The ->/2 construct commits to the choices made at its left-hand side, destroying choice points created inside the clause (by ;/2), or by goals called by this clause. Unlike !/0, the choice point of the predicate as a whole (due to multiple clauses) is not destroyed. The combination ;/2 and ->/2 acts as if defined as:
If -> Then; _Else :- If, !, Then.
If -> _Then; Else :- !, Else.
If -> Then :- If, !, Then.
Please note that (If -> Then) acts as (If -> Then ; fail), making the construct fail if the condition fails. This unusual semantics is part of the ISO and all de-facto Prolog standards.
(note that in the above quote, If, Then etc. are variables!)
So beware of anything with an implicit cut!

These are Prolog's if-then-else control structure.
The syntax is as follows:
condition -> then statements/decelerations ; else
statements/declerations

Related

How to stop backtracking and end the recursion in Prolog

I'm currently learning SWI-Prolog. I want to implement a function factorable(X) which is true if X can be written as X = n*b.
This is what I've gotten so far:
isTeiler(X,Y) :- Y mod X =:= 0.
hatTeiler(X,X) :- fail,!.
hatTeiler(X,Y) :- isTeiler(Y,X), !; Z is Y+1, hatTeiler(X,Z),!.
factorable(X) :- hatTeiler(X,2).
My problem is now that I don't understand how to end the recursion with a fail without backtracking. I thought the cut would do the job but after hatTeilerfails when both arguments are equal it jumps right to isTeiler which is of course true if both arguments are equal. I also tried using \+ but without success.
It looks like you add cuts to end a recursion but this is usually done by making rule heads more specific or adding guards to a clause.
E.g. a rule:
x_y_sum(X,succ(Y,1),succ(Z,1)) :-
x_y_sum(X,Y,Z).
will never be matched by x_y_sum(X,0,Y). A recursion just ends in this case.
Alternatively, a guard will prevent the application of a rule for invalid cases.
hatTeiler(X,X) :- fail,!.
I assume this rule should prevent matching of the rule below with equal arguments. It is much easier just to add the inequality of X and Y as a conditon:
hatTeiler(X,Y) :-
Y>X,
isTeiler(Y,X),
!;
Z is Y+1,
hatTeiler(X,Z),
!.
Then hatTeiler(5,5) fails automatically. (*)
You also have a disjunction operator ; that is much better written as two clauses (i drop the cuts or not all possibilities will be explored):
hatTeiler(X,Y) :- % (1)
Y > X,
isTeiler(Y,X).
hatTeiler(X,Y) :- % (2)
Y > X,
Z is Y+1,
hatTeiler(X,Z).
Now we can read the rules declaratively:
(1) if Y is larger than X and X divides Y without remainder, hatTeiler(X,Y) is true.
(2) if Y is larger than X and (roughly speaking) hatTeiler(X,Y+1) is true, then hatTeiler(X, Y) is also true.
Rule (1) sounds good, but (2) sounds fishy: for specific X and Y we get e.g.: hatTeiler(4,15) is true when hatTeiler(4,16) is true. If I understand correctly, this problem is about divisors so I would not expect this property to hold. Moreover, the backwards reasoning of prolog will then try to deduce hatTeiler(4,17), hatTeiler(4,18), etc. which leads to non-termination. I guess you want the cut to stop the recursion but it looks like you need a different property.
Coming from the original property, you want to check if X = N * B for some N and B. We know that 2 <= N <= X and X mod N = 0. For the first one there is even a built-in called between/2 that makes the whole thing a two-liner:
hT(X,B) :-
between(2, X, B),
0 is (X mod B).
?- hT(12,X).
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 12.
Now you only need to write your own between and you're done - all without cuts.
(*) The more general hasTeiler(X,X) fails because is (and <) only works when the right hand side (both sides) is variable-free and contains only arithmetic terms (i.e. numbers, +, -, etc).
If you put cut before the fail, it will be freeze the backtracking.
The cut operation freeze the backtracking , if prolog cross it.
Actually when prolog have failed, it backtracks to last cut.
for example :
a:- b,
c,!,
d,
e,!,
f.
Here, if b or c have failed, backtrack do not freeze.
if d or f have failed, backtrack Immediately freeze, because before it is a cut
if e have failed , it can backtrack just on d
I hope it be useful

Prolog - simplify derivative

so I just got started with Prolog this semester, and got the homework to implement a pretty basic d(function, variable, derivative) which I did like this:
d(X,X,1) :- !.
d(C,X,0) :- atomic(C). %, (C \= X).
d(X**E,X,E*X**(E-1)).
d(U+V,X,A+B) :- d(U,X,A), d(V,X,B).
d(U-V,X,A-B) :- d(U,X,A), d(V,X,B).
d(U*V,X,DU*V+U*DV) :- d(U,X,DU), d(V,X,DV).
d(U/V,X,(DU*V-U*DV)/(V*V)) :- d(U,X,DU), d(V,X,DV).
I know this is not complete, but it covers all the tasks required in the exercise.
However,
?- d((x*x+2*x+3)/(3*x),x,R).
leads to
R = ((1*x+x*1+ (0*x+2*1)+0)* (3*x)- (x*x+2*x+3)* (0*x+3*1))/ (3*x* (3*x)).
which doesn't look pretty at all. is/2 unfortunately doesn't like my x as it is not a number...
Is there a simple solution to achieve a cleaner result?
I would rather see this as two separate problems:
First, get derivation right (you're probably getting close, depending on your concrete requirements).
Then, work on simplifying expressions on an algebraic level. Exploit algebraic identities, see if applying the laws of commutativity / associativity / distributivity on some subexpressions enable their rewriting into something equivalent (but simpler / more compact).
As a starting point, you may want to look at the somewhat related question "Replacing parts of expression in prolog".
Here's a simplistic sketch how you could do the simplification—using iwhen/2 to safeguard against insufficient instantiation:
expr_simplified(A, B) :-
iwhen(ground(A), xpr_simplr(A,B)).
xpr_simplr(A, B) :-
( atomic(A)
-> A = B
; ( A = X+0 ; A = 0+X ; A = 1*X ; A = X*1 )
-> xpr_simplr(X, B)
; ( A = 0*_ ; A = _*0 )
-> B = 0
; A = X+X
-> B = X*2
; A = X*X
-> B = X**2
; A = X**1
-> B = X
; A =.. [F|Xs0], % defaulty catch-all
maplist(xpr_simplr, Xs0, Xs),
B =.. [F|Xs]
).
Let's see what it does with the expression you gave. We apply expr_simplified/2 until we reach a fixed point:
?- A = ((1*x+x*1+(0*x+2*1)+0)*(3*x)-(x*x+2*x+3)*(0*x+3*1))/(3*x*(3*x)),
expr_simplified(A,B),
expr_simplified(B,C),
expr_simplified(C,D).
A = ((1*x+x*1+(0*x+2*1)+0)*(3*x)-(x*x+2*x+3)*(0*x+3*1))/(3*x*(3*x)),
B = ((x+x+(0+2))*(3*x)-(x**2+2*x+3)*(0+3))/(3*x)**2,
C = ((x*2+2)*(3*x)-(x**2+2*x+3)*3)/(3*x)**2,
D = C. % fixed point reached
As imperfect as the simplifier is, the expression got a lot more readable.
a possibility to get a number is to replace each instance of variable x with a value, visiting the derived tree. You should do writing a clause to match each binary operator, or use a generic visit, like
set_vars(E, Vs, Ev) :-
E =.. [F,L,R],
set_vars(L, Vs, Lv),
set_vars(R, Vs, Rv),
Ev =.. [F,Lv,Rv].
set_vars(V, Vs, N) :- memberchk(V=N, Vs).
set_vars(V, _, V).
that yields
?- d((x*x+2*x+3)/(3*x),x,R), set_vars(R,[x=5],E), T is E.
R = ((1*x+x*1+ (0*x+2*1)+0)* (3*x)- (x*x+2*x+3)* (0*x+3*1))/ (3*x* (3*x)),
E = ((1*5+5*1+ (0*5+2*1)+0)* (3*5)- (5*5+2*5+3)* (0*5+3*1))/ (3*5* (3*5)),
T = 0.29333333333333333
but, there is a bug in your first clause, that once corrected, will allow to evaluate directly the derived expression:
d(X,V,1) :- X == V, !.
...
now, we can throw away the utility set_vars/3, so
?- d((T*T+2*T+3)/(3*T),T,R), T=8, V is R.
T = 8,
R = ((1*8+8*1+ (0*8+2*1)+0)* (3*8)- (8*8+2*8+3)* (0*8+3*1))/ (3*8* (3*8)),
V = 0.3177083333333333.

Number of occurrences of X in the List L in prolog

I am trying to find the number of occurrences of X in the List L
For eg :-
occurrences(a, [b, a, b, c, a, d, a], N ).
N =3
My code not working .Here is my code.
occ(K,L,N) :- N1=0, occ1(K,L,N1,N).
occ1(K,[],N1,N) :- N=N1.
occ1(K,L,N1,N) :-
L=[X|L1],
( K=X -> N1 is N1+1, occ1(K,L1,N1,N) ; occ1(K,L1,N1,N) ).
Can anybody tell me what's wrong in the code.
While the answer given by #Kay is spot-on as far as fixing the bug is concerned, it completely circumvents a much bigger issue: The code of occ1/4 is logically impure.
This may not appear very important to you right now,
but using impure code has several negative consequences:
Impure code cannot be read declaratively, only procedurally.
Debugging impure code is often tedious and pain-staking.
Impure predicates are less "relational" than their pure counterparts.
Logical impurity hampers code re-use.
Because it is non-monotone, impure code is prone to lead to logically unsound answers, particularly when working with non-ground terms.
To show that these problems persisted in your code after having been "fixed" as suggested #Kay, let us consider the "corrected" code and some queries. First, here's the corrected code:
occ(K,L,N) :- N1=0, occ1(K,L,N1,N).
occ1(_,[],N1,N) :- N=N1.
occ1(K,L,N1,N) :-
L=[X|L1],
( K=X -> N2 is N1+1, occ1(K,L1,N2,N) ; occ1(K,L1,N1,N) ).
Here's the query you gave in your question:
?- occ(a,[b,a,b,c,a,d,a],N).
N = 3 ;
false.
Okay! What if we write the query differently?
?- A=a,B=b,C=c,D=d, occ(a,[B,A,B,C,A,D,A],N).
A = a, B = b, C = c, D = d, N = 3 ;
false.
Okay! What if we reorder goals? Logical conjunction should be commutative...
?- occ(a,[B,A,B,C,A,D,A],N), A=a,B=b,C=c,D=d.
false.
Fail! It seemed that occ1/4 is fine, but now we get an answer that is logically unsound.
This can be avoided by using logically pure code:
Look at the pure and monotone code I gave in my answer to the related question "Prolog - count repititions in list (sic)".
The problem is
N1 is N1+1
Variables cannot be "overwritten" in Prolog. You need to just a new variable, e.g.
N2 is N1+1, occ1(K,L1,N2,N)
To your question "Can we replace a particular list element. If yes, what is the syntax?":
You can only build a new list:
replace(_, _, [], []).
replace(Old, New, [H0|T0], [H1|T1]) :-
(H0 = Old -> H1 = New; H1 = H0),
replace(Old, New, T0, T1).

studying for prolog/haskell programming exam

I starting to study for my upcoming exam and I'm stuck on a trivial prolog practice question which is not a good sign lol.
It should be really easy, but for some reason I cant figure it out right now.
The task is to simply count the number of odd numbers in a list of Int in prolog.
I did it easily in haskell, but my prolog is terrible. Could someone show me an easy way to do this, and briefly explain what you did?
So far I have:
odd(X):- 1 is X mod 2.
countOdds([],0).
countOdds(X|Xs],Y):-
?????
Your definition of odd/1 is fine.
The fact for the empty list is also fine.
IN the recursive clause you need to distinguish between odd numbers and even numbers. If the number is odd, the counter should be increased:
countOdds([X|Xs],Y1) :- odd(X), countOdds(Xs,Y), Y1 is Y+1.
If the number is not odd (=even) the counter should not be increased.
countOdds([X|Xs],Y) :- \+ odd(X), countOdds(Xs,Y).
where \+ denotes negation as failure.
Alternatively, you can use ! in the first recursive clause and drop the condition in the second one:
countOdds([X|Xs],Y1) :- odd(X), !, countOdds(Xs,Y), Y1 is Y+1.
countOdds([X|Xs],Y) :- countOdds(Xs,Y).
In Prolog you use recursion to inspect elements of recursive data structs, as lists are.
Pattern matching allows selecting the right rule to apply.
The trivial way to do your task:
You have a list = [X|Xs], for each each element X, if is odd(X) return countOdds(Xs)+1 else return countOdds(Xs).
countOdds([], 0).
countOdds([X|Xs], C) :-
odd(X),
!, % this cut is required, as rightly evidenced by Alexander Serebrenik
countOdds(Xs, Cs),
C is Cs + 1.
countOdds([_|Xs], Cs) :-
countOdds(Xs, Cs).
Note the if, is handled with a different rule with same pattern: when Prolog find a non odd element, it backtracks to the last rule.
ISO Prolog has syntax sugar for If Then Else, with that you can write
countOdds([], 0).
countOdds([X|Xs], C) :-
countOdds(Xs, Cs),
( odd(X)
-> C is Cs + 1
; C is Cs
).
In the first version, the recursive call follows the test odd(X), to avoid an useless visit of list'tail that should be repeated on backtracking.
edit Without the cut, we get multiple execution path, and so possibly incorrect results under 'all solution' predicates (findall, setof, etc...)
This last version put in evidence that the procedure isn't tail recursive. To get a tail recursive procedure add an accumulator:
countOdds(L, C) :- countOdds(L, 0, C).
countOdds([], A, A).
countOdds([X|Xs], A, Cs) :-
( odd(X)
-> A1 is A + 1
; A1 is A
),
countOdds(Xs, A1, Cs).

SWI-Prolog. Check correctness of mathematical expression

I try to check the correctness of student mathematical expression using Prolog (SWI-Prolog). So, for example if the student were asked to add three variable x, y, and z, and there's a rule that the first two variable that must be added are: x and y (in any order), and the last variable that must be added is z then I expect that prolog can give me true value if the student's answer is any of these:
x+y+z
(x+y)+ z
z+(x+y)
z+x+y
y+x+z
and many other possibilities.
I use the following rule for this checking:
addData :-
assert(variable(v1)),
assert(variable(v2)),
assert(variable(v3)),
assert(varName(v1,x)),
assert(varName(v2,y)),
assert(varName(v3,z)),
assert(varExpr(v1,x)),
assert(varExpr(v2,y)),
assert(varExpr(v3,z)).
add(A,B,R) :- R = A + B.
removeAll :- retractall(variable(X)),
retractall(varName(X,_)),
retractall(varExpr(X,_)).
checkExpr :-
% The first two variable must be x and y, in any combination
( (varExpr(v1,AExpr), varExpr(v2,BExpr));
(varExpr(v2,AExpr), varExpr(v1,BExpr))
),
add(AExpr, BExpr, R1),
% store the expression result as another variable, say v4
retractall(variable(v4)),
retractall(varName(v4, _)),
retractall(varExpr(v4, _)),
assert(variable(v4)),
assert(varName(v4, result)),
assert(varExpr(v4, R1)),
% add the result from prev addition with Z (in any combination)
( (varExpr(v3,CExpr), varExpr(v4,DExpr));
(varExpr(v4,CExpr), varExpr(v3,DExpr))
),
add(CExpr, DExpr, R2),
R2 = z + x + y. % will give me false
% R2 = z + (x + y). % will give me true
% Expected: both should give me true
checkCorrect :- removeAll,
addData,
checkExpr.
You should try to specify a grammar and write a parser for your expressions.
Avoid assert/retract, that make the program much more difficult to understand, and attempt instead to master the declarative model of Prolog.
Expressions are recursive data structures, using operators with known precedence and associativity to compose, and parenthesis to change specified precedence where required.
See this answer for a parser and evaluator, that accepts input from text. In your question you show expressions from code. Then you are using Prolog' parser to do the dirty work, and can simply express your requirements on the resulting syntax tree:
expression(A + B) :-
expression(A),
expression(B).
expression(A * B) :-
expression(A),
expression(B).
expression(V) :-
memberchk(V, [x,y,z]).
?- expression(x+y+(x+z*y)).
true .
edit: we can provide a template of what we want and let Prolog work out the details by means of unification:
% enumerate acceptable expressions
checkExpr(E) :-
member(E, [F = A + D, F = D + A]),
F = f,
A = c * N,
N = 1.8,
D = d.
And so on...
Test:
?- checkExpr(f=(c*1.8)+d).
true.
?- checkExpr(f=(c*1.8)+e).
false.
?- checkExpr(f=d+c*1.8).
true.

Resources