I am very new to prolog and I am trying to code a simple program which will display the first 100 integers.
is_integer(0).
is_integer(X) :-
is_integer(Y),
( Y >= 100, ! ; X is Y + 1 ).
It works well but when we ask if 2.1 is an integer then it replies "true". This is because 2.1 is between 0 and 100.
But I want a program which will strictly display the first 100 Integers only.Could someone help me with this please.
Thanks!
I think this matches your style in the question if you don't want to use predefined functions like between(0, 100, X):
between0_100(X) :-
(var(X) -> true ; X >= 0), % either X is unbound or >= 0.
between0_100(0, X).
between0_100(X, X).
between0_100(X, Y) :-
Z is X + 1, % increment X
Z =< 100, % and test if it is <= 100
between0_100(Z, Y). % recurse
?- between0_100(X).
X = 0 ;
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
…
X = 98 ;
X = 99 ;
X = 100 ;
false.
?- between0_100(2.1).
false
What do you mean by "display"?
The (very standard) predicate between/3 is defined along the lines of:
between(Lower, Upper, N) is true when N >= Lower and N =< Upper. If N is an integer, it will succeed or fail, and throw an error if it is not an integer. If N is a free variable it will enumerate solutions by backtracking. I am quite certain you can find reasonable implementations of between/3 elsewhere on StackOverflow.
Or do you mean that you type in:
?- first_100_ints.
And you get:
0
1
2
3
4
...
99
?
You could do this as follows:
first_100_ints :-
next_int(0, 100).
next_int(X, Upper) :-
( X < Upper
-> format('~d~n', [X]),
succ(X, X1),
next_int(X1, Upper)
; true
).
This is one "cheap" way to do it. But keep in mind that this is not how you would want to write a Prolog program, normally. One somewhat better way would be to use the built-ins between/3 and forall/3:
?- forall(between(0, 99, X), format('~d~n', [X])).
This is equvalent to:
?- \+ (between(0, 99, X), \+ format('~d~n', [X])).
which reads something along the lines of, "There is no number between 0 and 99 (inclusive) for which you cannot print out the number". See here.
There are other things you can do, depending on what your exact goal is.
I second #Kay's answer. If it is possible, don't use side-effects and use the prolog-toplevel instead!
If your Prolog implementation offers clpfd, you could do it like this:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
?- X in 0..100, indomain(X).
X = 0. ;
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
% % ... lots of more answers ...
X = 99 ;
X = 100 ;
false. % query terminates universally
Related
Trying to calculate the triangular number sequence in Prolog.
This is my solution:
where X is the nth position of the sequence and Y is the result.
triang(1, 1).
triang(X, Y) :-
X>0,
A is X - 1,
triang(A, B),
Y is B + X.
?- triang(5,X).
X = 15
But when i try to do for example triang(X,10) I receive an error
Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated.
I guess this is because X is not defined in the consult.
is there any recommendation how to solve this problem,thank you.
First of all, the result you got is not that bad. It says: sorry, I am unable to come to a conclusion and before producing an incorrect result, I prefer to produce an error.
The actual reason is the following goal
?- X > 0.
error(instantiation_error,(is)/2).
So here we ask for X that are greater than zero. And there are many, in fact infinitely many. There is no direct way to enumerate that set for this built-in and thus it prefers the error.
However, with library(clpz) or clpfd, there is a better way:
:- use_module(library(clpz)). % use clpfd for SWI instead
:- op(150, fx, #).
triang(0, 0).
triang(X, Y) :-
#X #>0,
#Y #>0,
#A #= #X - 1,
#Y #= #B + #X,
triang(A, B).
?- triang(X,15).
X = 5
; false.
?- triang(X,14).
false.
?- triang(X,X).
X = 0
; X = 1
; false.
?- triang(X,Y).
X = 0, Y = 0
; X = 1, Y = 1
; X = 2, Y = 3
; X = 3, Y = 6
; X = 4, Y = 10
; X = 5, Y = 15
; X = 6, Y = 21
; ... .
?- #X #> 0.
clpz:(X in 1..sup).
So now there is an answer to #X #> 0. The answer is often called a constraint. In this case it tells us that X must be in the interval 1 up to (kind of) infinity.
I have this predicate with two clauses:
abs(X, Y) :- X < 0, Y is -X.
abs(X, X) :- X >= 0.
and I submit this to the interpreter:
?- abs(-5,W).
W = 5 ;
false.
?-
Why does it evaluate the second clause and return false? Is there a way around that?
You wrote two clauses that are disjoint on the 1st argument(X) and were surprised that Prolog backtracked into the 2nd one even though the first one was satisfied.
abs(X, Y) :- X < 0, Y is -X.
abs(X, X) :- X >= 0.
When the 1st clause was satisfied, the Prolog engine only knew that there was a 2nd clause that hadn't been evaluated; when you typed ";", it tried the 2nd clause, which failed. To see why, consider a slightly different (and not as good) version of your code:
abs2(X, Y) :- X =< 0, Y is - X.
abs2(X, Y) :- X >= 0, Y = X.
?- abs2(0, Y).
Y = 0 ;
Y = 0 ;
In this situation, even though the 1st clause succeeds, the 2nd clause can also succeed.
So, how to avoid this? It depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want to get all the answers, do something like this:
?- setof(W, abs(-5, W), Ws).
Ws = [5].
To print them all:
?- forall(abs(-5, W), format('W = ~q~n', [W])).
W = 5
If you want to tell the Prolog engine that your predicate is deterministic, you can use an if-then-else:
abs(X, Y) :-
( X < 0
-> Y is -X
; Y = X
).
This can also be written with a cut("!"), but it's often easier to understand with if-then-else.
And, if you're using the latest version of SWI-Prolog, you can use the "=>" notation:
abs(X, Y), X < 0 => Y is -X.
abs(X, Y) => true.
I am trying to print all the even numbers from 1 to 10 using Prolog, and here is what I have tried:
printn(10,0):- write(10),!.
printn(X,Sum):-
( X mod 2 =:= 0 -> Sum is X+Sum, Next is X+1, nl, printn(Next);
Next is X+1, printn(Next) ).
but it returns false.
You don't need to create the list with the numbers from the beginning, it is better to examine numbers once:
print(X,Y):-print_even(X,Y,0).
print_even(X, X, Sum):-
( X mod 2 =:= 0 -> Sum1 is X+Sum;
Sum1 = Sum
), print(Sum1).
print_even(X, Y, Sum):-
X<Y, Next is X+1,
( X mod 2 =:= 0 -> Sum1 is X+Sum, print_even(Next, Y, Sum1);
print_even(Next, Y, Sum)
).
Keep in mind that in Prolog Sum is Sum+1 always fails you need to use a new variable e.g Sum1.
Example:
?- print(1,10).
30
true ;
false.
The most useful way of obtaining Prolog output is to capture the solution in a variable, either individually through backtracking, or in a list. The idea of "printing", which carries over from using other languages allows for formatting, etc, but is not considered the best way to express a solution.
In Prolog, you want to express your problem as a relation. For example, we might say, even_with_max(X, Max) is true (or succeeds) if X is an even number less than or equal to Max. In Prolog, when reasoning with integers, the CLP(FD) library is what you want to use.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
even_up_to(X, Max) :-
X in 1..Max,
X mod 2 #= 0, % EDIT: as suggested by Taku
label([X]).
This will yield:
3 ?- even_up_to(X, 10).
X = 2 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 8 ;
X = 10.
If you then want to collect into a list, you can use: findall(X, even_up_to(X), Evens).
What error do you have? Here is my solution:
Create list [1...10]
Filter it, excluding odd numbers
Sum elements of the list
Code:
sumList([], 0).
sumList([Head|Tail], Sum) :-
sumList(Tail, Rest),
Sum is Head + Rest.
isOdd(X) :-
not((X mod 2) =:= 0).
sumOfEvenNums(A, B, Out) :-
numlist(A, B, Numbers),
exclude(isOdd, Numbers, Even_numbers),
sumList(Even_numbers, Out).
Now you can call sumOfEvenNums(1, 10, N)
In ECLiPSe, you can write with iterator:
sum_even(Sum):-
( for(I,1,10),fromto(0,In,Out,Sum)
do
(I mod 2 =:= 0 -> Out is In + I;Out is In)
)
With library(aggregate):
evens_upto(Sum) :-
aggregate(sum(E), (between(1, 10, E), E mod 2 =:= 0), Sum).
Thanks to #CapelliC for the inspiration.
I want to write the equivalent psudo-function in prolog:
function underhundred(X){
if (X >= 0 && X <=100) return 1;
else return 0;
}
I tried writing this but it does not compile:
underhundred(X,L) :- L is (X => 0, X =< 100 -> L = 1; L = 0) .
What would be the proper way of writing this without using prolog between predicate?
If you indeed want to use the goals L=1 and L=0 and X is an integer, use clpfd!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
Reification works like a charm!
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L.
L in 0..1, X in 0..100#<==>L.
What if X gets instantiated?
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L, X=(-7).
L = 0, X = -7. % out of bounds: -7 < 0 =< 100
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L, X=55.
L = 1, X = 55. % within bounds: 0 =< 55 =< 100
?- X in 0..100 #<==> L, X=111.
L = 0, X = 111. % out of bounds: 0 =< 100 < 111
A Prolog query succeeds or fails. If it succeeds it will return the bindings it made to be true.
You can write this predicate using clpfd as:
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
under_hundred_clpfd(X):-
X in 0..100.
(You might prefer a name such as between_0_100?, if you literally want under 100 then you can use X in inf..99).
Some queries:
?-under_hundred_clpfd(5).
true.
?-under_hundred_clpfd(101).
false.
?-under_hundred_clpfd(X).
X in 0..100.
A traditional way to write this is:
under_hundred(X):-
X>=0,
X=<100.
But this way does not work for uninstantiated variables.
?-under_hundred(X).
ERROR: >/2: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
So like you say you might have to put a between/3 or length/2 goal to get a solution or similar construct.
underhundred(X):-
length(_,X),
X>=0,
X=<100.
This is not a very good solution as on back tracking it will get into an infinite loop. between/3 behaves better but you don't want it :).
If the main point of the question is how to write an if-then-else construct in Prolog, then a reasonable answer along the lines of the proposed definition is:
underhundred(X,L) :-
( X >= 0, X =< 100 )
-> L = 1
; L = 0.
This will only be useful if underhundred(X,L) is called after X has been sufficiently instantiated.
So I've been trying to teach myself prolog and I think I'm coming along nicely. However, I'm sort of stuck at this one method I'm trying to make.
toN(N,A) A is equal to the integer values between 0 and N-1, generated in ascending order.
so
toN(5,A) would be
A = 0;
A = 1;
A = 2;
A = 3;
A = 4.
I'm still new to prolog so I'm not exactly sure how to do this with multiple values. I had something like this:
toN(N,A) :- 0 < N, Nx is N-1, toN(Nx,A).
toN(N,A) :- 0 =< N, Nx is N-1, A = Nx.
However this just returns false. Nothing else. It seems perfectly fine to me
Check if the Prolog implementation that you are using supports clpfd!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
The implementation of toN/2 gets declarative and super-concise:
toN(N,A) :-
A #>= 0,
A #< N,
labeling([up],[A]).
You'll find more labeling options in the clpfd manual: SWI-Prolog clpfd, SICStus Prolog clpfd.
Something like this should generate the sequence of integers between any two arbitrary endpoints:
sequence(X,Y,X) :- % to generate the integers between X and Y,
integer(X) , % - the starting point must be bound
integer(Y) , % - the endpoint must be bound
range(X,Y,Z) % - then we just invoke the worker
. %
range(X,X,X) . % hand back the last item in the sequence if X and Y have converged.
range(X,Y,X) :- % otherwise, return an item
X =\= Y . % - if X and Y haven't converged.
range(X,Y,Z) :- % otherwise,
X < Y , % - if X < Y ,
X1 is X+1 , % - increment X
range(X1,Y,Z) % - and recurse down.
. %
range(X,Y,Z) :- % otherwise
X > Y , % - if X > Y
X1 is X-1 , % - decrement X
range(X1,Y,Z) % - and recurse down
. %
With that general-purpose tool, you can simply say:
to_n(N,A) :- sequence(0,N,A).
Your implementation does not fail: by backtracking it yields numbers from -1 to N-1
?- toN(5,A).
A = -1 ? ;
A = 0 ? ;
A = 1 ? ;
A = 2 ? ;
A = 3 ? ;
A = 4 ? ;
no
To eliminate the -1 you should just replace =< by < in your second clause as #false commented above.
An alternative implementation, maybe more readable, would be
Edit: inserted condition N>=0 in answer to #false comment below.
toN(N,A) :-
N >= 0,
toN(0,N,A).
toN(K,N,K).
toN(K,N,A) :-
K < N-1,
Kn is K+1,
toN(Kn,N,A).