Related
I can't seem to wrap my head around how Prolog actually works. I'm very used to other programming languages like Java and Python but Prolog seems to be very different since it is based on a set of logical statements.
If someone can explain to me how I would approach a situation where I am given a set of rules such as
likes(john,mary).
likes(mary,adam).
likes(adam,mary).
likes(jack,destiny).
likes(destiny,adam).
likes(brianna,adam).
and I want to find out how to see who is the most liked person (in this case adam = 3), how would I do this?
Maybe it's easier if you think of Prolog as a special database retrieval language that can morph into functional programming in the same line.
Here we we have a relation likes/2 over which we want to run statistics.
One could use predicates from library(aggregate) or similar, but let's not
Suggestion is to chain three operations:
Create a nicer structure to run stats
Run stats over nicer structure
Find the best
Create nicer structure to run stats
Collect
the vector (in the form or a Prolog list) of persons that occur as second argument in predicate likes/2 (so that we have something to count), and
the set of persons (also in the form of a Prolog list) so that we can iterate over something.
The key are the collection predicates findall/3 and setof/3
findall/3 is used to collect all the Person that appear on second argument position of likes/2,
setof/3 is used to collect the set of all Person that appear on first or second argument position of likes/2.
To make that work, setof/3 needs to be told that the argument on the other position is unimportant by
"existentially quantifying" it with X^.
person_occurrences(PersonVec) :-
findall(Person,likes(_,Person),PersonVec).
person_set(PersonSet) :-
setof(Person,X^(likes(Person,X);likes(X,Person)),PersonSet).
Alternativey for person_set/2, more comprehensible:
person(Person) :- likes(Person,_).
person(Person) :- likes(X,Person).
person_set(PersonSet) :- setof(Person,person(Person),PersonSet).
Trying this on the "Prolog Toplevel" shows we are on the right track:
?- person_occurrences(PersonSet).
PersonSet = [mary, adam, mary, destiny, adam, adam].
?- person_set(PersonSet).
PersonSet = [adam, brianna, destiny, jack, john, mary].
We can easily count how often a person occurs in the vector of persons,
by using findall/3 to create an arbitrary list of x (for example),
one x for each occurrence, then determining the length of that list:
count(Person,PersonVec,Count) :-
findall(x,member(Person,PersonVec),Xs),length(Xs,Count).
Trying this on the "Prolog Toplevel" shows we are on the right track:
?- person_occurrences(PersonVec),count(mary,PersonVec,Count).
PersonVec = [mary, adam, mary, destiny, adam, adam],
Count = 2.
We now have the "nicer structure" that we can use to do stats, namely the
"vector of persons" and the "set of persons".
Run stats over nicer structure
The result here, called Stats shall be a list (it's always lists) of
pairs -(NumberOfOccurrencesOfPersonInPersonVector,Person),
which can be more easily written "infix": Count-Person, for example 2-mary.
This is a recursive definition (or an inductive definition) whereby we "count"
for each person element in PersonSet until the PersonSet is the empty set
(or rather, the empty list), upon which we are done and succeed. The result
is constructed in the third argument:
% stats(PersonVec,PersonSet,Stats)
stats(_,[],[]).
stats(PersonVec,[Person|MorePersons],[Count-Person|MoreStats]) :-
count(Person,PersonVec,Count), % count them
stats(PersonVec,MorePersons,MoreStats). % recursion
Trying this on the "Prolog Toplevel" shows we are on the right track:
?- person_occurrences(PersonVec),stats(PersonVec,[mary],Stats).
PersonVec = [mary, adam, mary, destiny, adam, adam],
Stats = [2-mary] ; % Maybe more solutions?
false. % Nope.
New we can build the whole of the stats list:
stats(Stats) :-
person_occurrences(PersonVec),
person_set(PersonSet),
stats(PersonVec,PersonSet,Stats).
Trying this on the "Prolog Toplevel" shows we are on the right track:
?- stats(Stats).
Stats = [3-adam, 0-brianna, 1-destiny, 0-jack, 0-john, 2-mary] ;
false.
Find the best
Given Stats, we can find a BestPerson by maximizing over the list of pairs.
This can be done directly by selecting the pair which is "largest"
according to "the standard order of term": the numeric count comes first
so a term with a larger numeric count is "larger" than one with a
smaller numeric count, which is what we want. The predicate
max_member/2
does what we want:
best(Stats,BestPerson,BestCount) :-
max_member(BestCount-BestPerson,Statss).
Alternatively, we can program-out the max_member/2 (and keep
it to numeric comparison of the first argument, AND get several
answers in case there are several persons with the same "likes"
count), like so:
% start the maximization over Stats with a dummy "(-1)-nobody"
best(Stats,BestPerson,BestCount) :-
best2(Stats, (-1)-nobody, BestCount-BestPerson).
% best2(Stats,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result).
best2([],BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar).
best2([Count-_|MoreStats],BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result) :-
Count < BestCountSoFar,
best2(MoreStats,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result). % keep best
best2([Count-_|MoreStats],BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result) :-
Count == BestCountSoFar,
best2(MoreStats,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result). % keep best (2nd possibility below)
best2([Count-Person|MoreStats],BestCountSoFar-_,Result) :-
Count >= BestCountSoFar,
best2(MoreStats,Count-Person,Result). % take new, better, pair
Conclude
We run it together:
?- stats(Stats),best(Stats,BestPerson,BestCount).
Stats = [3-adam, 0-brianna, 1-destiny, 0-jack, 0-john, 2-mary],
BestPerson = adam, BestCount = 3 ; % maybe more solutions?
false. % no
Complete code
likes(john,mary).
likes(mary,adam).
likes(adam,mary).
likes(jack,destiny).
likes(destiny,adam).
likes(brianna,adam).
person_occurrences(PersonVec) :-
findall(Person,likes(_,Person),PersonVec).
person_set(PersonSet) :-
setof(Person,X^(likes(Person,X);likes(X,Person)),PersonSet).
count(Person,PersonVec,Count) :-
findall(x,member(Person,PersonVec),Xs),length(Xs,Count).
% stats(PersonVec,PersonSet,Stats)
stats(_,[],[]).
stats(PersonVec,[Person|MorePersons],[Count-Person|MoreStats]) :-
count(Person,PersonVec,Count), % count them
stats(PersonVec,MorePersons,MoreStats). % recursion
stats(Stats) :-
person_occurrences(PersonVec),
person_set(PersonSet),
stats(PersonVec,PersonSet,Stats).
% start the maximization over Stats with a dummy "(-1)-nobody"
best(Stats,BestPerson,BestCount) :-
best2(Stats, (-1)-nobody, BestCount-BestPerson).
% best2(Stats,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result).
best2([],BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar).
best2([Count-_|MoreStats],BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result) :-
Count < BestCountSoFar,
best2(MoreStats,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result). % keep best
best2([Count-_|MoreStats],BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result) :-
Count == BestCountSoFar,
best2(MoreStats,BestCountSoFar-BestPersonSoFar,Result). % keep best (2nd possibility below)
best2([Count-Person|MoreStats],BestCountSoFar-_,Result) :-
Count >= BestCountSoFar,
best2(MoreStats,Count-Person,Result). % take new, better, pair
Consider the set of facts:
likes(john,mary).
likes(mary,adam).
likes(adam,mary).
likes(jack,destiny).
likes(destiny,adam).
likes(brianna,adam).
Another possible solution is as follows:
You can use setof/3 to get the list of persons that like someone:
?- setof(Person, likes(Person,Someone), ListOfPersons).
Someone = adam,
ListOfPersons = [brianna, destiny, mary] ;
Someone = destiny,
ListOfPersons = [jack] ;
Someone = mary,
ListOfPersons = [adam, john].
Then, you can combine setof/3 with findall/3 to get a list of pairs of the form Someone-ListOfPersons:
?- findall(Someone-ListOfPersons, setof(Person, likes(Person,Someone), ListOfPersons), Pairs).
Pairs = [adam-[brianna, destiny, mary], destiny-[jack], mary-[adam, john]].
After that, you can use maplist/3 to map pairs of the form Someone-ListOfPersons into corresponding pairs of the form Someone-NumberOfPersons:
?- findall(Someone-ListOfPersons, setof(Person, likes(Person,Someone), ListOfPersons), Pairs),
maplist([Someone-ListOfPersons, Someone-NumberOfPersons]>>length(ListOfPersons,NumberOfPersons), Pairs, NewPairs).
Pairs = [adam-[brianna, destiny, mary], destiny-[jack], mary-[adam, john]],
NewPairs = [adam-3, destiny-1, mary-2].
Finally, you can use sort/4 to get the most liked person:
?- findall(Someone-ListOfPersons, setof(Person, likes(Person,Someone), ListOfPersons), Pairs),
maplist([Someone-ListOfPersons, Someone-NumberOfPersons]>>length(ListOfPersons,NumberOfPersons), Pairs, NewPairs),
sort(2,>=,NewPairs, SortedPairs).
Pairs = [adam-[brianna, destiny, mary], destiny-[jack], mary-[adam, john]],
NewPairs = [adam-3, destiny-1, mary-2],
SortedPairs = [adam-3, mary-2, destiny-1].
Thus, the final solution is:
most_liked(Person) :-
findall(Someone-ListOfPersons,
setof(Person, likes(Person,Someone), ListOfPersons),
Pairs),
maplist([Someone-ListOfPersons, Someone-NumberOfPersons]>>length(ListOfPersons, NumberOfPersons),
Pairs,
NewPairs),
sort(2, >=, NewPairs, [Person-_|_]).
Running example:
?- most_liked(Person).
Person = adam.
Another solution where we don't care about the admonition to "do things only once" and "let Prolog work for us" instead is simply this:
Determine how much an arbitrary person is "liked"
person_liked_count(Person,Count) :-
likes(_,Person), % Grab a Person
findall(x, % Create a list of 'x'
likes(_,Person), % one 'x' for each like of the Person
Xs), % and this will be list 'Xs'.
length(Xs,Count). % The number of likes is the length of the list
We now get multiple solutions for any person, but we don't care:
?- person_liked_count(Person,Count).
Person = mary, Count = 2 ;
Person = adam, Count = 3 ;
Person = mary, Count = 2 ;
Person = destiny, Count = 1 ;
Person = adam, Count = 3 ;
Person = adam, Count = 3.
Maximize by doing exactly what is demanded
Person with "likes count" Count is what we want if we have person_liked_count(Person,Count) and there is no other person that has higher count (there is no need to even check that _PersonOther is different from Person inside the negation-as-failure-marked-subgoal, although we can):
most_liked(Person,Count) :-
person_liked_count(Person,Count), % grab a Person and a Count
\+ (person_liked_count(_P,CountOther), % "where not exists" a person _P
CountOther > Count). % with a higher count
We now get several answers, but that is not a problem as they are all the same:
?- most_liked(Person,Count).
Person = adam, Count = 3 ;
Person = adam, Count = 3 ;
Person = adam, Count = 3.
We can always force determinism with once/1
?- once(most_liked(Person,Count)).
Person = adam, Count = 3.
Everything in one block
likes(john,mary).
likes(mary,adam).
likes(adam,mary).
likes(jack,destiny).
likes(destiny,adam).
likes(brianna,adam).
person_liked_count(Person,Count) :-
likes(_,Person), % Grab a Person
findall(x, % Create a list of 'x'
likes(_,Person), % one 'x' for each like of the Person
Xs), % and this will be list 'Xs'.
length(Xs,Count). % The number of likes is the length of the list
most_liked(Person,Count) :-
person_liked_count(Person,Count), % grab a Person and a Count
\+ (person_liked_count(_P,CountOther), % "where not exists" a person _P
CountOther > Count). % with a higher count
solution(Person,Count) :- once(most_liked(Person,Count)).
I am new to Prolog and can't understand predicates very well.
First question: How can I 'return' a certain variable?
We have alternate(?A, ?B). alternate(first, second) should give me back second, and alternate(second, first) should give back first.
Second question: How to check if variable is of certain type?
I have for example ispair(?Pair). I have to check if Pair is pos(X,Y).
Not sure if that's what you meant, but what about the following:
alternate(first, pair(X,_), X).
alternate(second, pair(_,X), X).
If you query without any restrictions, you get the following two answer substitutions:
?- alternate(X,Y,Z).
X = first,
Y = pair(Z, _5844) ; % hit ; to get the second answer
X = second,
Y = pair(_5842, Z). % variables _12345 are fresh ones created by prolog
You can also ask: on which side of the pair (a,b) is b?
?- alternate(Where, pair(a,b), b).
Where = second.
In the case that your pair is (b,b), you get two solutions:
?- alternate(Where, pair(b,b), b).
Where = first ;
Where = second.
Also, c is not part of the pair (a,b):
?- alternate(Where, pair(a,b), c).
false.
If you insist on picking an element from heaven, you will get no as answer:
?- alternate(heaven, X, Y).
false.
When you know that the first element of a pair is a, prolog will tell you how the pair must look like:
?- alternate(first, X, a).
X = pair(a, _5680).
Again we have a fresh variable (_5680) in there, because any second term is fine.
I have a large numbers of facts that are already in my file (position(M,P)), M is the name and P is the position of the player , I am asked to do a player_list(L,N), L is the list of players and N is the size of this list. I did it and it works the problem is that it gives the list without the names it gives me numbers and not names
player_list([H|T],N):- L = [H|T],
position(H,P),
\+ member(H,L),
append(L,H),
player_list(T,N).
what I get is:
?- player_list(X,4).
X = [_9176, _9182, _9188, _9194] .
so what should I do ?
You could use an additional list as an argument to keep track of the players you already have. This list is empty at the beginning, so the calling predicate calls the predicate describing the actual relation with [] as an additional argument:
player_list(PLs,L) :-
pl_l_(PLs,L,[]). % <- actual relation
The definition you posted is missing a base case, that is, if you already have the desired amount of players, you can stop adding others. In this case the number of players to add is zero otherwise it is greater than zero. You also have to describe that the head of the list (PL) is a player (whose position you don't care about, so the variable is preceded by an underscore (_P), otherwise the goal is just like in your code) and is not in the accumulator yet (as opposed to your code, where you check if PL is not in L) but in the recursive call it is in the accumulator. You can achieve the latter by having [PL|Acc0] in the recursive goal, so you don't need append/2. Putting all this together, your code might look something like this:
pl_l_([],0,_). % base case
pl_l_([PL|PLs],L1,Acc0) :-
L1 > 0, % number of players yet to add
L0 is L1-1, % new number of players to add
position(PL,_P), % PL is a player and
\+ member(PL,Acc0), % not in the accumulator yet
pl_l_(PLs,L0,[PL|Acc0]). % the relation holds for PLs, L0 and [PL|Acc0] as well
With respect to your comment, I assume that your code contains the following four facts:
position(zlatan,center).
position(rooney,forward).
position(ronaldo,forward).
position(messi,forward).
Then your example query yields the desired results:
?- player_list(X,4).
X = [zlatan,rooney,ronaldo,messi] ? ;
X = [zlatan,rooney,messi,ronaldo] ? ;
...
If you intend to use the predicate the other way around as well, I suggest the use of CLP(FD). To see why, consider the most general query:
?- player_list(X,Y).
X = [],
Y = 0 ? ;
ERROR at clause 2 of user:pl_l_/3 !!
INSTANTIATION ERROR- =:=/2: expected bound value
You get this error because >/2 expects both arguments to be ground. You can modify the predicate pl_l_/3 to use CLP(FD) like so:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
pl_l_([],0,_).
pl_l_([PL|PLs],L1,Acc0) :-
L1 #> 0, % <- new
L0 #= L1-1, % <- new
position(PL,_P),
\+ member(PL,Acc0),
pl_l_(PLs,L0,[PL|Acc0]).
With these modifications the predicate is more versatile:
?- player_list([zlatan,messi,ronaldo],Y).
Y = 3
?- player_list(X,Y).
X = [],
Y = 0 ? ;
X = [zlatan],
Y = 1 ? ;
X = [zlatan,rooney],
Y = 2 ?
...
I'm generating random coordinates and adding on my list, but first I need verify if that coordinate already exists. I'm trying to use member but when I was debugging I saw that isn't working:
My code is basically this:
% L is a list and Q is a count that define the number of coordinate
% X and Y are the coordinate members
% check if the coordniate already exists
% if exists, R is 0 and if not, R is 1
createCoordinates(L,Q) :-
random(1,10,X),
random(1,10,Y),
convertNumber(X,Z),
checkCoordinate([Z,Y],L,R),
(R is 0 -> print('member'), createCoordinates(L,Q); print('not member'),createCoordinates(L,Q-1).
checkCoordinate(C,L,R) :-
(member(C,L) -> R is 0; R is 1).
% transforms the number N in a letter L
convertNumber(N,L) :-
N is 1, L = 'A';
N is 2, L = 'B';
...
N is 10, L = 'J'.
%call createCoordinates
createCoordinates(L,20).
When I was debugging this was the output:
In this picture I'm in the firts interation and L is empty, so R should be 1 but always is 0, the coordinate always is part of the list.
I have the impression that the member clause is adding the coordinate at my list and does'nt make sense
First off, I would recommend breaking your problem down into smaller pieces. You should have a procedure for making a random coordinate:
random_coordinate([X,Y]) :-
random(1, 10, XN), convertNumber(XN, X),
random(1, 10, Y).
Second, your checkCoordinate/3 is converting Prolog's success/failure into an integer, which is just busy work for Prolog and not really improving life for you. memberchk/2 is completely sufficient to your task (member/2 would work too but is more powerful than necessary). The real problem here is not that member/2 didn't work, it's that you are trying to build up this list parameter on the way out, but you need it to exist on the way in to examine it.
We usually solve this kind of problem in Prolog by adding a third parameter and prepending values to the list on the way through. The base case then equates that list with the outbound list and we protect the whole thing with a lower-arity procedure. In other words, we do this:
random_coordinates(N, Coordinates) :- random_coordinates(N, [], Coordinates).
random_coordinates(0, Result, Result).
random_coordinates(N, CoordinatesSoFar, FinalResult) :- ...
Now that we have two things, memberchk/2 should work the way we need it to:
random_coordinates(N, CoordinatesSoFar, FinalResult) :-
N > 0, succ(N0, N), % count down, will need for recursive call
random_coordinate(Coord),
(memberchk(Coord, CoordinatesSoFar) ->
random_coordinates(N, CoordinatesSoFar, FinalResult)
;
random_coordinates(N0, [Coord|CoordinatesSoFar], FinalResult)
).
And this seems to do what we want:
?- random_coordinates(10, L), write(L), nl.
[[G,7],[G,3],[H,9],[H,8],[A,4],[G,1],[I,9],[H,6],[E,5],[G,8]]
?- random_coordinates(10, L), write(L), nl.
[[F,1],[I,8],[H,4],[I,1],[D,3],[I,6],[E,9],[D,1],[C,5],[F,8]]
Finally, I note you continue to use this syntax: N is 1, .... I caution you that this looks like an error to me because there is no distinction between this and N = 1, and your predicate could be stated somewhat tiresomely just with this:
convertNumber(1, 'A').
convertNumber(2, 'B').
...
My inclination would be to do it computationally with char_code/2 but this construction is actually probably better.
Another hint that you are doing something wrong is that the parameter L to createCoordinates/2 gets passed along in all cases and is not examined in any of them. In Prolog, we often have variables that appear to just be passed around meaninglessly, but they usually change positions or are used multiple times, as in random_coordinates(0, Result, Result); while nothing appears to be happening there, what's actually happening is plumbing: the built-up parameter becomes the result value. Nothing interesting is happening to the variable directly there, but it is being plumbed around. But nothing is happening at all to L in your code, except it is supposedly being checked for a new coordinate. But you're never actually appending anything to it, so there's no reason to expect that anything would wind up in L.
Edit Notice that #lambda.xy.x solves the problem in their answer by prepending the new coordinate in the head of the clause and examining the list only after the recursive call in the body, obviating the need for the second list parameter.
Edit 2 Also take a look at #lambda.xy.x's other solution as it has better time complexity as N approaches 100.
Since i had already written it, here is an alternative solution: The building block is gen_coord_notin/2 which guarantees a fresh solution C with regard to an exclusion list Excl.
gen_coord_notin(C, Excl) :-
random(1,10,X),
random(1,10,Y),
( memberchk(X-Y, Excl) ->
gen_coord_notin(C, Excl)
;
C = X-Y
).
The trick is that we only unify C with the new result, if it is fresh.
Then we only have to fold the generations into N iterations:
gen_coords([], 0).
gen_coords([X|Xs], N) :-
N > 0,
M is N - 1,
gen_coords(Xs, M),
gen_coord_notin(X, Xs).
Remark 1: since coordinates are always 2-tuples, a list representation invites unwanted errors (e.g. writing [X|Y] instead of [X,Y]). Traditionally, an infix operator like - is used to seperate tuples, but it's not any different than using coord(X,Y).
Remark 2: this predicate is inherently non-logical (i.e. calling gen_coords(X, 20) twice will result in different substitutions for X). You might use the meta-level predicates var/1, nonvar/1, ground/1, integer, etc. to guard against non-sensical calls like gen_coord(1-2, [1-1]).
Remark 3: it is also important that the conditional does not have multiple solutions (compare member(X,[A,B]) and memberchk(X,[A,B])). In general, this can be achieved by calling once/1 but there is a specialized predicate memberchk/2 which I used here.
I just realized that the performance of my other solutions is very bad for N close to 100. The reason is that with diminishing possible coordinates, the generate and test approach will take longer and longer. There's an alternative solution which generates all coordinates and picks N random ones:
all_pairs(Ls) :-
findall(X-Y, (between(1,10,X), between(1,10,Y)), Ls).
remove_index(X,[X|Xs],Xs,0).
remove_index(I,[X|Xs],[X|Rest],N) :-
N > 0,
M is N - 1,
remove_index(I,Xs,Rest,M).
n_from_pool(_Pool, [], 0).
n_from_pool(Pool, [C|Cs], N) :-
N > 0,
M is N - 1,
length(Pool, L),
random(0,L,R),
remove_index(C,Pool,NPool,R),
n_from_pool(NPool, Cs, M).
gen_coords2(Xs, N) :-
all_pairs(Pool),
n_from_pool(Pool, Xs, N).
Now the query
?- gen_coords2(Xs, 100).
Xs = [4-6, 5-6, 5-8, 9-6, 3-1, 1-3, 9-4, 6-1, ... - ...|...] ;
false.
succeeds as expected. The error message
?- gen_coords2(Xs, 101).
ERROR: random/1: Domain error: not_less_than_one' expected, found0'
when we try to generate more distinct elements than possible is not nice, but better than non-termination.
I need to find the least multiple of N in a list of numbers.
leastMultiple/2
leastMultipleOfThree/2,
arg1= list of numbers,arg2= X (X is what we want to find, the least multiple of 3 in a list of numbers).
For example, find the least multiple of 3 in [7,9,15,22]. I have been staring at this for quite some time, and I'm not entirely sure where to begin. If you can simply help me wrap my head around the problem a bit, I'd be very thankful.
An earlier version of my answer was confused by the use of the word "least multiple." You want to find the multiples in the list, and retrieve the smallest. I understand now.
First we must detect a multiple of N. We can do this by dividing and looking at the remainder using the modulo operator, like this:
?- X is 7 mod 3.
X = 1.
?- X is 9 mod 3.
X = 0.
I will define a convenience method for this, is_multiple_of:
% multiple_of(X, N) is true if X is a multiple of N
multiple_of(X, N) :- 0 is X mod N.
Now we can simply say:
?- multiple_of(7, 3).
false.
?- multiple_of(9, 3).
true.
Now there are two ways to proceed. The efficient approach, which could easily be made tail recursive for greater performance, would be to walk the list once with an accumulator to hold the current minimum value. A less code-intensive approach would be to just filter the list down to all multiples and sort it. Let's look at both approaches:
% less code: using setof/3
leastMultipleOfThree(List, Result) :-
setof(X, (member(X, List), multiple_of(X, 3)), [Result|_]).
setof/3 evaluates its second term as many times as possible, each time retrieving the variable in its first term for inclusion in the result, the third term. In order to make the list unique, setof/3 sorts the result, so it happens that the smallest value will wind up in the first position. We're using member(X, List), multiple_of(X, 3) as a very simple generate-test pattern. So it's terse, but it doesn't read very well, and there are costs associated with building lists and sorting that mean it isn't optimal. But it is terse!
% more code: using an accumulator
leastMultipleOfThree(List, Result) :- leastMultipleOfThree(List, null, Result).
% helper
leastMultipleOfThree([], Result, Result) :- Result \= null.
leastMultipleOfThree([X|Xs], C, Result) :-
multiple_of(X, 3)
-> (C = null -> leastMultipleOfThree(Xs, X, Result)
; (Min is min(X, C),
leastMultipleOfThree(Xs, Min, Result)))
; leastMultipleOfThree(Xs, C, Result).
This is quite a bit more code, because there are several cases to be considered. The first rule is the base case where the list is extinguished; I chose null arbitrarily to represent the case where we haven't yet seen a multiple of three. The test on the right side ensures that we fail if the list is empty and we never found a multiple of three.
The second rule actually handles three cases. Normally I would break these out into separate predicates, but there would be a lot of repetition. It would look something like this:
leastMultipleOfThree([X|Xs], null, Result) :-
multiple_of(X, 3),
leastMultipleOfThree(Xs, X, Result).
leastMultipleOfThree([X|Xs], C, Result) :-
multiple_of(X, 3),
C \= null,
Min is min(X, C),
leastMultipleOfThree(Xs, Min, Result).
leastMultipleOfThree([X|Xs], C, Result) :-
\+ multiple_of(X, 3),
leastMultipleOfThree(Xs, C, Result).
This may or may not be more readable (I prefer it) but it certainly performs worse, because each of these rules creates a choice point that if/else conditional expressions within a rule do not. It would be tempting to use cuts to improve that, but you'll certainly wind up in a hellish labyrinth if you try it.
I hope it's fairly self-explanatory at this point. :)