I am a beginner and I am using SWI Prolog to write a rule to print all the facts about addition of two numbers.The following is the code:
addition(X,Y,Z) :- Z is X+Y.
add(X,Y):-
between(X,Y,A),
addition(X,A,Z),
writeln(addition(X,A,Z)),
X1 is X+1,
add(X1,Y).
And the following is the output:
1 ?- add(1,2).
addition(1,1,2)
addition(2,2,4)
addition(1,2,3)
addition(2,2,4)
false.
As you can see the output addition(2,2,4) is repeating and addition(2,1,3) is missing. What am I doing wrong here??
addition/3 is a "rule", or a "predicate", not a fact. Anyway, you have defined it as:
% addition(X, Y, Z)
% Z is the sum of the integers X and Y
Now you want to apply this predicate to (and I am guessing here) each pair X and Y such that X is between A and B and Y is between A and B:
% add(A, B, Addition)
% Add all numbers X and Y that are between A and B
add(A, B, addition(X, Y, Z)) :-
between(A, B, X),
between(A, B, Y),
addition(X, Y, Z).
You will notice that you don't need recursion (or iteration): you can use the fact that between/3 is non-deterministic and will create choice points that will be evaluated on backtracking.
You can now call it like this:
?- add(1, 2, A).
A = addition(1, 1, 2) ;
A = addition(1, 2, 3) ;
A = addition(2, 1, 3) ;
A = addition(2, 2, 4).
You can press the ; or space to backtrack and evaluate the next solution.
The third argument to add/3 is unified with the term addition/3 in the head of add/3. It happens to have the same name as the predicate addition/3, but it could have been called anything.
If you insist on printing it out from a single call, you could use forall/2:
?- forall(add(1, 2, A), format('~q', [A])).
Related
I have a prolog rule position_that_is_equals_to_two that sets X to the position at which the number 2 was found in the provided list of three elements [X, Y, Z]:
position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, Y, Z], X) :-
include(==(2), [X, Y, Z], AllElementsWhichHaveAValueOfTwo),
nth0(0, AllElementsWhichHaveAValueOfTwo, X).
When querying it, I immediately get false:
?- position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, _, _], X)
false
However, when I replace include/3 with individual comparisons, prolog gives three possible values for X, which is the output I would expect:
position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, Y, Z], X) :-
(
( X == 2 ; X #= 1)
; ( Y == 2 ; X #= 2)
; ( Z == 2 ; X #= 3)
).
Querying it:
?- position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, _, _], X)
X = 1
X = 2
X = 3
Why is the first variant returning false? How can it me modified to (1) still use include and (2) list possible values for X, like the second variant does?
How can it be modified to still use include?
It can't. Include shrinks the original list and throws away information you need to answer the question. With AllElementsWhichHaveAValueOfTwo = [2] what is the index of that two? Was it 0, 1, 2 or 50,000? You can't know.
Worse, include/3 has the signature include(:Goal, +List1, ?List2) and the + means the List1 must be provided, you can't give it unground variables like [X,Y,Z] and have it fill them in. So it can't be used for that reason also.
Take this query:
?- position_that_is_equals_to_two([X, _, _], X)
What you expect out of it is that X in the list has value two and X as the index has value zero. You want 2 = 0. That can't work.
Your other code is giving the right answer for the wrong reasons; the code (X == 2 ; X #= 1) says "variable X must be two OR variable X must be one" which is allowed but for your indexing you need them both at the same time, not either/or. What you want it to say is "first list item must be two AND the index must be one".
Change the code to (X = 2, X = 1) which is logically how it should be and you're back to asking for 2 = 1 which can't work.
In your example code, X is being used for 2 different purposes and values - that's a conflict.
== is not clpfd.
Looks like this would be sufficient (without using clpfd):
pos_2(Pos, L) :-
length(L, 3),
nth1(Pos, L, 2).
Result in swi-prolog:
?- pos_2(Pos, L).
Pos = 1,
L = [2, _, _] ;
Pos = 2,
L = [_, 2, _] ;
Pos = 3,
L = [_, _, 2].
I'm new in prolog, and I wanted to create a "function" to count how many different values I have in a list.
I've made this predicate to count the total number of values:
tamanho([],0).
tamanho([H|T],X) :- tamanho(T,X1), X is X1+1.
I wanted to follow the same line of thought like in this last predicate.(Don't know if that's possible).
So in a case where my list is [1,2,2,3], the answer would be 3.
Can someone give me a little help?
Here is a pure version which generalizes the relation. You can not only count but just see how elements have to look like in order to obtain a desired count.
In SWI, you need to install reif first.
:- use_module(library(reif),[memberd_t/3]).
:- use_module(library(clpz)). % use clpfd in SWI instead
:- op(150, fx, #). % backwards compatibility for old SWI
nt_int(false, 1).
nt_int(true, 0).
list_uniqnr([],0).
list_uniqnr([E|Es],N0) :-
#N0 #>= 0,
memberd_t(E, Es, T),
nt_int(T, I),
#N0 #= #N1 + #I,
list_uniqnr(Es,N1).
tamanho(Xs, N) :-
list_uniqnr(Xs, N).
?- tamanho([1,2,3,1], Nr).
Nr = 3.
?- tamanho([1,2,X,1], 3).
dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2).
?- tamanho([1,2,X,Y], 3).
X = 1, dif:dif(Y,1), dif:dif(Y,2)
; Y = 1, dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2)
; X = 2, dif:dif(Y,1), dif:dif(Y,2)
; Y = 2, dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2)
; X = Y, dif:dif(X,1), dif:dif(X,2)
; false.
You can fix your code by adding 1 to the result that came from the recursive call if H exists in T, otherwise, the result for [H|T] call is the same result for T call.
tamanho([],0).
tamanho([H|T], X) :- tamanho(T, X1), (member(H, T) -> X is X1; X is X1 + 1).
Tests
/*
?- tamanho([], Count).
Count = 0.
?- tamanho([1,a,21,1], Count).
Count = 3.
?- tamanho([1,2,3,1], Count).
Count = 3.
?- tamanho([1,b,2,b], Count).
Count = 3.
*/
In case the input list is always numerical, you can follow #berbs's suggestion..
sort/2 succeeds if input list has non-numerical items[1] so you can use it without any restrictions on the input list, so tamanho/2 could be just like this
tamanho(T, X) :- sort(T, TSorted), length(TSorted, X).
[1] thanks to #Will Ness for pointing me to this.
This question already has answers here:
Prolog, X before Y in a List
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I am going to write predicate which is true iff only and only when element X occurs before Y on list L
before(L, X, Y) :-
nth1(PX, L, X),
nth1(PY, L, Y),
PX < PY.
Above, you can see my solution. What do you think about it ?
When it comes to my specific question:
My predicate returns true when there is exists at least one pair that Y followed X. How to define predicate such that it is true for each pair ?
The solution you show works for the "if one exists" case, but is somewhat imperative in nature. That is, it's a little bit like a C program translated to Prolog. Imperative means you are telling the computer, using the programming language, what steps to execute in order to achieve your results.
To be more declarative or relational, your "exists" solution could be expressed nicely as a DCG:
... --> [].
... --> [_], ... .
before(X, Y) --> ... , [X], ... , [Y], ... .
(NOTE: You can in Prolog have a predicate named ..., which is shown here.) This describes the relationship of X and Y in the list. It does not describe steps to execute, but instead describes the relationship of X and Y in a sequence. This solution has been shown before on SO.
Following this approach (where we describe the relationship of X and Y), one way (not necessarily the only way) to express that all the X precede all the Y would be:
before_all(X, Y) -->
{ dif(X,Y) },
any_sequence_but(Y), [X], any_sequence_but(Y), [Y], any_sequence_but(X).
any_sequence_but(_) --> [].
any_sequence_but(Y) --> [X], { dif(X,Y) }, any_sequence_but(Y).
Which yields a solution like this:
?- phrase(before_all(X,Y), [b,a,b,c,a,b,d]).
X = b,
Y = d ;
X = a,
Y = d ;
X = b,
Y = d ;
X = c,
Y = d ;
X = a,
Y = d ;
X = b,
Y = d ;
false.
?-
If the condition should hold for all pairs, the condition should hold for at least one pair, while its converse shouldn't be true for any pair.
I took the liberty of renaming your before/3 to beforeSome/3.
beforeSome(L, X, Y) :-
nth1(PX, L, X),
nth1(PY, L, Y),
PX < PY.
beforeAll(L, X, Y) :-
beforeSome(X,Y),
not(beforeSome(L, Y, X)).
Which yields the desired results:
?- beforeAll([1,2,3,1,4,5], 1, 4).
true.
?- beforeAll([1,2,3,1,4,5], 1, 2).
false.
Please note that your use of nth1/3 precludes it being used with uninstantiated variables. In other words, beforeAll([1,2,3,1,4,5], X, Y). is false.
A better implementation of beforeSome/3 would be something like
beforeSome([X|T], X, Y) :-
member(Y, T).
beforeSome([_|T], X, Y) :-
beforeSome(T, X, Y).
% no change needed, but repeated here for completeness' sake
beforeAll(L, X, Y) :-
beforeSome(X,Y),
not(beforeSome(L, Y, X)).
I'm very new to Prolog so please bear with me.
Lets say I have the following:
foo(bar(a,b)).
foo(bar(b,a)).
Then I enter foo(X) as a query:
?- foo(X).
X = bar(a, b) ;
X = bar(b, a).
Prolog returns two instantiations of X to satisfy the query: bar(a, b) and bar(b,a).
Is there away I can make these two instantiations equivalent? Once Prolog instantiates X to bar(a,b), it won't instantiate it to bar(b,a).
So when I enter foo(X) as a query:
?- foo(X).
X = bar(a, b).
X was no instantiated as bar(b,a), because it's equivalent to bar(a,b). Is this possible to do with Prolog, or does it go against the fundamental principals of Prolog?
The first clause of symmetry/2 deals with cases in which both foo(bar(a,b)) and foo(bar(b,a)) occur. I use the standard order of terms in order to return only the former. Notice that the use of #< would have falsely excluded results like foo(bar(e,e)).
The second clause treats cases in which either foo(bar(c,d)) or foo(bar(d,c)) occur.
foo(bar(a, b)).
foo(bar(b, a)).
foo(bar(c, d)).
foo(bar(e, e)).
symmetry(X, Y):-
foo(bar(X, Y)),
foo(bar(Y, X)),
X #=< Y.
symmetry(X, Y):-
foo(bar(X, Y)),
\+ foo(bar(Y, X)).
Example of usage:
?- symmetry(X, Y).
X = a,
Y = b ;
X = Y, Y = e ;
X = c,
Y = d ;
false
Hope this helps!
Identity of literals it's the core of unification - the fundamental operation of Prolog algorithm - and then the answer to your question it's no, it's not possible to handle bar(a,b) as bar(b,a).
What is the difference between this:
X \= Y
and this piece of code:
dif(X, Y)
I thought that they should behave the same, but they do not. Here's the example:
n_puta(L, N, X) :- nputa(L, N, 0, X).
nputa([], N, C, _) :- N = C.
nputa([G|R], N, C, X) :- G = X, nputa(R, N, Y, X), C is Y - 1.
nputa([G|R], N, C, X) :- dif(G,X), nputa(R, N, C, X).
And here are some calls:
?- n_puta([a,a,b,b,b], 2, X).
X = a ;
false.
?- n_puta([a,a,b,a,b,b], 3, X).
X = a ;
X = b ;
false.
X should be the atom that occurs exactly N times in the list L. If I replace dif(G, X) with G \= X, I don't get the expected result. Can someone tell me what is the difference between these two operators? Can I use anything else except dif(G, X)?
This example works prefectly in SWI-Prolog, but doesn't work in Amzi! Prolog.
dif/2 and (\=)/2 are the same as long as their arguments are ground. But only dif/2 is a pure relation that works correctly also with variables and can be used in all directions. Your example clearly shows that you should use dif/2 in this case, because you use your predicate not only to test, but also to generate solutions. The most widely used Prolog systems all provide dif/2.