Related
I want to Display all list elements that larger than N, my code like
member2(X, [X|_]).
member2(X, [_|T]) :- member2(X,T), X > T, write(X).
Why would you state member2(X, [X|_]) ? Its not the last element yet. You should only stop when there are no more elements to check: member2(X,[]).
And generally:
member2(X,[Y|Ys]) :- (X >= Y -> display(Y), nl; true), member2(X,Ys).
This way you will display all the Ys that are smaller or equal to X.
In your code, T was a list of elements. You cannot compare it to a single elememt X.
You could use include/3 to perform the filtering. For example:
include(<(5),[7,3,2,6,4,5,8],Output).
will unify Output with [7,6,8] (the elements in the second argument that are greater than the number used in the first argument).
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
There is a partially ordered set relation le(X,Y), when Y mod X = 0
(so there are le(1,5), le(5,70), le(7,14) etc.)
I have to make predicates
max(X) is X maximum element
greatest(X) is X the greatest element
defining max(X) is simple, because
max(X) :- \+ le(X,A), le(B,X). (there isn't any greater element and X is in set)
But how about greatest(X)?
For the least upper bound (LUB), you need two sets. First the argument set S, that you are asking for the LUB, and then the partial order T where you are searching for the LUB. So input is as follows:
T the partial order
S the set, S subset T
The code is then very similar as for the max. Just use range restricted formulas, that search over the partial order. This works in ordinary Prolog for finite partial orders.
Here is your divisibility example:
?- [user].
ls(X,Y) :-
Y mod X =:= 0.
bound(M,Y) :-
\+ (member(X,M),
\+ls(X,Y)).
lub(S,T,Y) :-
member(Y,T), bound(S,Y),
\+ (member(Z,T), bound(S,Z),
\+ls(Y,Z)).
^D
And here are some example runs:
?- lub([3,2],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10],Y).
Y = 6 ;
false.
?- lub([5,3],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10],Y).
false.
?- lub([5,3],[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20],Y).
Y = 15 ;
false.
The above very general algorithm is not the efficientest, it is of order m^2*n^2, where n is the size of S and m is the size of T. For infinite partial orders you would need to invent something with CLP(X).
Say I have a list
[5,4,6,9]
And I want to take away from the head of the list but return the rest of the list
so: -3
[2,4,6,9]
-2
[3,4,6,9]
And then I want to move on to the next element so,
-3
[5,1,6,9],
-2
[5,2,6,9]
How could I produce a prolog predicate for this,
so far I have
change([],[]).
change([Head|Tail], [Head1|Tail]):-
process(Head, Head1).
process([],[]).
process(Head, Head1):-
Head1 is Head-3,
Head1 >=0.
process(Head, Head1):-
Head1 is Head-2,
Head1 >=0.
I'm unsure what I'd return in my recursive call,
any help would be great thank you
The way your code is currently written it's attempting to change more than one list element in a given solution. However, the requirement appears to be to only change one list element. Using CLP(FD) will help with the arithmetic.
change([], []). % Nothing to change
change([X|T], [Y|T]) :- % Change only the head
Y #= X - 2 ; Y #= X - 3.
change([X|Xs], [X|Ys]) :- % Keep the head and change something later
change(Xs, Ys).
The potential problem with this solution is that it change(L, L). is true (the list isn't changed). To avoid that, you can change the base case to be for the single element list and force the others to be two elements:
change([X], [Y]) :- % Change only the last or single element
Y #= X - 2 ; Y #= X - 3.
change([X,X1|Xs], [Y,X1|Xs]) :- % Change only the head
Y #= X - 2 ; Y #= X - 3.
change([X,X1|Xs], [X,Y1|Ys]) :- % Keep the head and change something later
change([X1|Xs], [Y1|Ys]).
We want to build a predicate that gets a list L and a number N and is true if N is the length of the longest sequence of list L.
For example:
?- ls([1,2,2,4,4,4,2,3,2],3).
true.
?- ls([1,2,3,2,3,2,1,7,8],3).
false.
For this I built -
head([X|S],X). % head of the list
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X),H=X, NN is N-1 , ls(T,NN) . % if the head equal to his following
ls(_,0) :- !. % get seq in length N
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X) , not(H=X) ,ls(T,N). % if the head doesn't equal to his following
The concept is simply - check if the head equal to his following , if so , continue with the tail and decrement the N .
I checked my code and it works well (ignore cases which N = 1) -
ls([1,2,2,4,4,4,2,3,2],3).
true ;
false .
But the true answer isn't finite and there is more answer after that , how could I make it to return finite answer ?
Prolog-wise, you have a few problems. One is that your predicate only works when both arguments are instantiated, which is disappointing to Prolog. Another is your style—head/2 doesn't really add anything over [H|T]. I also think this algorithm is fundamentally flawed. I don't think you can be sure that no sequence of longer length exists in the tail of the list without retaining an unchanged copy of the guessed length. In other words, the second thing #Zakum points out, I don't think there will be a simple solution for it.
This is how I would have approached the problem. First a helper predicate for getting the maximum of two values:
max(X, Y, X) :- X >= Y.
max(X, Y, Y) :- Y > X.
Now most of the work sequence_length/2 does is delegated to a loop, except for the base case of the empty list:
sequence_length([], 0).
sequence_length([X|Xs], Length) :-
once(sequence_length_loop(X, Xs, 1, Length)).
The call to once/1 ensures we only get one answer. This will prevent the predicate from usefully generating lists with sequences while also making the predicate deterministic, which is something you desired. (It has the same effect as a nicely placed cut).
Loop's base case: copy the accumulator to the output parameter:
sequence_length_loop(_, [], Length, Length).
Inductive case #1: we have another copy of the same value. Increment the accumulator and recur.
sequence_length_loop(X, [X|Xs], Acc, Length) :-
succ(Acc, Acc1),
sequence_length_loop(X, Xs, Acc1, Length).
Inductive case #2: we have a different value. Calculate the sequence length of the remainder of the list; if it is larger than our accumulator, use that; otherwise, use the accumulator.
sequence_length_loop(X, [Y|Xs], Acc, Length) :-
X \= Y,
sequence_length([Y|Xs], LengthRemaining),
max(Acc, LengthRemaining, Length).
This is how I would approach this problem. I don't know if it will be useful for you or not, but I hope you can glean something from it.
How about adding a break to the last rule?
head([X|S],X). % head of the list
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X),H=X, NN is N-1 , ls(T,NN) . % if the head equal to his following
ls(_,0) :- !. % get seq in length N
ls([H|T],N) :- head(T,X) , not(H=X) ,ls(T,N),!. % if the head doesn't equal to his following
Works for me, though I'm no Prolog expert.
//EDIT: btw. try
14 ?- ls([1,2,2,4,4,4,2,3,2],2).
true ;
false.
Looks false to me, there is no check whether N is the longest sequence. Or did I get the requirements wrong?
Your code is checking if there is in list at least a sequence of elements of specified length. You need more arguments to keep the state of the search while visiting the list:
ls([E|Es], L) :- ls(E, 1, Es, L).
ls(X, N, [Y|Ys], L) :-
( X = Y
-> M is N+1,
ls(X, M, Ys, L)
; ls(Y, 1, Ys, M),
( M > N -> L = M ; L = N )
).
ls(_, N, [], N).