I have created a program, list(X,Y) to check whether all the elements in list Y are smaller than X.
The codes are as follows.
list(X,[]).
list(X,[Y|Z]):-X>Y,list(X,Z).
It works fine when I type list(3,[1,2]). However, if I type list(3,Y) in order to find lists which only contain elements smaller than 3, there is an error.
?- list(3,[1,2]).
true .
?- list(3,Y).
Y = [] ;
ERROR: >/2: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
I have read some posts which got the same error, but I still don't understand which part of my codes goes wrong.
Here comes a similar example found from internet.
greater(X,Y,Z) returns the part Z of Y that is greater than X.
greater(X,[],[]).
greater(X,[H|Y],[H|Z]) :- H>X, greater(X,Y,Z).
greater(X,[H|Y],Z) :- H=<X, greater(X,Y,Z).
?- greater(2,[1,2,3], Y).
Y = [3].
The question is, what is the difference between the codes of greater(X,Y,Z) and list(X,Y) so that there is no error when calling greater(2,[1,2,3], Y)..
Thanks for any help provided.
Since - judging from your comment - you seem to be reasoning over integers: That's a textbook example for using finite domain constraints, which are available in almost all modern Prolog implementations and generalize integer arithmetic so that you can use it in all directions.
Your code works exactly as expected with, among others, B-Prolog, GNU Prolog, SICStus, SWI and YAP if you just use the finite domain constraint (#>)/2 instead of the lower-level arithmetic primitive (>)/2:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
list(X, []).
list(X, [Y|Z]):- X#>Y, list(X,Z).
Constraints allow you to use this predicate, which you can also express with maplist/2 as in the queries below, in all directions:
?- maplist(#>(3), [1,2]).
true.
?- maplist(#>(X), [1,2]).
X in 3..sup.
?- maplist(#>(3), [A,B]).
A in inf..2,
B in inf..2.
?- maplist(#>(X), [Y,Z]).
Z#=<X+ -1,
Y#=<X+ -1.
Even the most general query, where none of the arguments is instantiated, gives useful answers:
?- maplist(#>(X), Ls).
Ls = [] ;
Ls = [_G1022],
_G1022#=<X+ -1 ;
Ls = [_G1187, _G1190],
_G1190#=<X+ -1,
_G1187#=<X+ -1 ;
etc.
EDIT: Also the example you now added can be made much more general with finite domain constraints:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
greater(_, [], []).
greater(X, [H|Y], [H|Z]) :- H #> X, greater(X, Y, Z).
greater(X, [H|Y], Z) :- H #=< X, greater(X, Y, Z).
You can now use it in all directions, for example:
?- greater(X, [E], Ls).
Ls = [E],
X#=<E+ -1 ;
Ls = [],
X#>=E.
This is not possible with the original version, whose author may not have been aware of constraints.
Related
I'd like to test whether a term has only one solution.
(Understanding that this might be done in different ways) I've done the following and would like to understand why it doesn't work, if it can be made to work, and if not, what the appropriate implementation would be.
First, I have an "implies" operator (that has seemed to work elsewhere):
:- op(1050,xfy,'==>').
'==>'(A,B) :-·forall(call(A), call(B)).
next I have my singleSolution predicate:
singleSolution(G) :- copy_term(G,G2), (call(G), call(G2)) ==> (G = G2).
Here I'm trying to say: take a term G and make a copy of it, so I can solve them independently. Now if solving both independently implies they are equal, then there must be only one solution.
This works in some simple cases.
BUT.
I have a predicate foo(X,Y,Z) (too large to share) which solves things properly, and for which singleSolution can answer correctly. However, X,Y,Z are not fully ground after singleSolution(foo(X,Y,Z)) is called, even though they would be after directly calling foo(X,Y,Z).
I don't understand that. (As a sanity test: I've verified that I get the same results under swi-prolog and gprolog.)
EDIT: Here is an example of where this fails.
increasing([]).
increasing([_]).
increasing([X,Y|T]) :- X < Y, increasing([Y|T]).
increasingSublist(LL,L) :-·
sublist(L,LL),
length(L, Len),
Len > 1,
increasing(L).
then
| ?- findall(L, singleSolution(increasingSublist([1,2],L)),R).
R = [_]
yes
But we don't know what L is.
This seems to work, but I'm not sure if it's logically sound :)
It uses call_nth/2, a nonstandard but common predicate. It abuses throw to short-circuit the computation. Using bagof/3 instead of findall/3 lets us keep the Goal argument bound (and it will fail where findall/3 would succeed if it finds 0 solutions).
only_once(Goal) :-
catch(bagof(_, only_once_(Goal), _), too_many, fail).
only_once_(Goal) :-
call_nth(Goal, N),
( N > 1
-> throw(too_many)
; true
).
Testing it (on SWI):
?- only_once(member(X, [1])).
X = 1.
?- only_once(member(a, [a, b])).
true.
?- only_once(member(X, [a, b])).
false.
?- only_once(between(1,inf,X)).
false.
Unfortunately, I don't think call_nth/2 is supported in GNU Prolog.
Another possible solution:
single_solution(G) :-
copy_term(G, H),
call(G),
!,
( ground(H)
-> true
; \+ ( call(H), G \= H ) % There is no H different from G
).
p(a).
p(a).
q(b).
q(c).
Examples:
?- single_solution( p(X) ).
X = a.
?- single_solution( q(X) ).
false.
?- single_solution( member(X, [a,a,a]) ).
X = a.
?- single_solution( member(X, [a,b,c]) ).
false.
?- single_solution( repeat ).
true.
?- single_solution( between(1,inf,X) ).
false.
?- single_solution( between(1,inf,5) ).
true.
Here is an another approach I came up with after #gusbro commented that forall/2 doesn't bind variables from the calling goal.
single_solution(G) :-·
% duplicate the goal so we can solve independently
copy_term(G,G2),
% solve the first goal at least / at most once.
G, !,
% can we solve the duplicate differently?
% if so, cut & fail. Otherwise, succeed.
(G2, G2 \= G, !, fail; true).
This one tickled my interest in theory:
Is it possible to write an inconsistent Prolog program, i.e. a program that answers both false and true depending on how it is queried, using only pure Prolog, the cut, and false?
For example, one could query p(1) and the Prolog Processor would says false. But when one queries p(X) the Prolog Processor would give the set of answers 1, 2, 3.
This can be easily achieved with "computational state examination predicates" like var/1 (really better called fresh/1) + el cut:
p(X) :- nonvar(X),!,member(X,[2,3]).
p(X) :- member(X,[1,2,3]).
Then
?- p(1).
false.
?- p(X).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3.
"Ouch time" ensues if this is high-assurance software. Naturally, any imperative program has no problem going off the rails like this on every other line.
So. can be done without those "computational state examination predicates"?
P.S.
The above illustrates that all the predicates of Prolog are really carrying a threaded hidden argument of the "computational state":
p(X,StateIn,StateOut).
which can be used to explain the behavour of var/1 and friends. The Prolog program is then "pure" when it only calls predicates that neither consult not modify that State. Well, at least that seems to be a good way to look at what is going on. I think.
Here's a very simple one:
f(X,X) :- !, false.
f(0,1).
Then:
| ?- f(0,1).
yes
| ?- f(X,1).
no
| ?- f(0,Y).
no
So Prolog claims there are no solutions to the queries with variables, although f(0,1) is true and would be a solution to both.
Here is one attempt. The basic idea is that X is a variable iff it can be unified with both a and b. But of course we can't write this as X = a, X = b. So we need a "unifiable" test that succeeds without binding variables like =/2 does.
First, we need to define negation ourselves, since it's impure:
my_not(Goal) :-
call(Goal),
!,
false.
my_not(_Goal).
This is only acceptable if your notion of pure Prolog includes call/1. Let's say that it does :-)
Now we can check for unifiability by using =/2 and the "not not" pattern to preserve success while undoing bindings:
unifiable(X, Y) :-
my_not(my_not(X = Y)).
Now we have the tools to define var/nonvar checks:
my_var(X) :-
unifiable(X, a),
unifiable(X, b).
my_nonvar(X) :-
not(my_var(X)).
Let's check this:
?- my_var(X).
true.
?- my_var(1).
false.
?- my_var(a).
false.
?- my_var(f(X)).
false.
?- my_nonvar(X).
false.
?- my_nonvar(1).
true.
?- my_nonvar(a).
true.
?- my_nonvar(f(X)).
true.
The rest is just your definition:
p(X) :-
my_nonvar(X),
!,
member(X, [2, 3]).
p(X) :-
member(X, [1, 2, 3]).
Which gives:
?- p(X).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3.
?- p(1).
false.
Edit: The use of call/1 is not essential, and it's interesting to write out the solution without it:
not_unifiable(X, Y) :-
X = Y,
!,
false.
not_unifiable(_X, _Y).
unifiable(X, Y) :-
not_unifiable(X, Y),
!,
false.
unifiable(_X, _Y).
Look at those second clauses of each of these predicates. They are the same! Reading these clauses declaratively, any two terms are not unifiable, but also any two terms are unifiable! Of course you cannot read these clauses declaratively because of the cut. But I find this especially striking as an illustration of how catastrophically impure the cut is.
I implemented the following power program in Prolog:
puissance(_,0,1).
puissance(X,N,P) :- N>0,A is N-1, puissance(X,A,Z), P is Z*X.
The code does what is supposed to do, but after the right answer it prints "false.". I don't understand why. I am using swi-prolog.
Can do like this instead:
puissance(X,N,P) :-
( N > 0 ->
A is N-1,
puissance(X,A,Z),
P is Z*X
; P = 1 ).
Then it will just print one answer.
(Your code leaves a `choice point' at every recursive call, because you have two disjuncts and no cut. Using if-then-else or a cut somewhere removes those. Then it depends on the interpreter what happens. Sicstus still asks if you want ((to try to find)) more answers.)
Semantic differences
Currently, there are 3 different versions of puissance/3, and I would like to show a significant semantic difference between some of them.
As a test case, I consider the query:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
What does this query mean? Declaratively, it is clearly equivalent to false. This query is very interesting nevertheless, because it terminates iff puissance/3 terminates universally.
Now, let us try the query on the different variants of the program:
Original definition (from the question):
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
ERROR: puissance/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Accepted answer:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
false.
Other answer:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
ERROR: puissance/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Obviously, the solution shown in the accepted answer yields a different result, and is worth considering further.
Here is the program again:
puissance(_,0,1) :- !.
puissance(X,N,P) :- N>0,A is N-1, puissance(X,A,Z), P is Z*X.
Let us ask something simple first: Which solutions are there at all? This is called the most general query, because its arguments are all fresh variables:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z).
Y = 0,
Z = 1.
The program answers: There is only a single solution: Y=0, Z=1.
That's incorrect (to see this, try the query ?- puissance(0, 1, _) which succeeds, contrary to the same program claiming that Y can only be 0), and a significant difference from the program shown in the question. For comparison, the original program yields:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z).
Y = 0,
Z = 1 ;
ERROR: puissance/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
That's OK: On backtracking, the program throws an instantiation error to indicate that no further reasoning is possible at this point. Critically though, it does not simply fail!
Improving determinism
So, let us stick to the original program, and consider the query:
?- puissance(1, 1, Z).
Z = 1 ;
false.
We would like to get rid of false, which occurs because the program is not deterministic.
One way to solve this is to use zcompare/3 from library(clpfd). This lets you reify the comparison, and makes the result available for indexing while retaining the predicate's generality.
Here is one possible solution:
puissance(X, N, P) :-
zcompare(C, 0, N),
puissance_(C, X, N, P).
puissance_(=, _, 0, 1).
puissance_(<, X, N, P) :-
A #= N-1,
puissance(X, A, Z),
P #= Z*X.
With this version, we get:
?- puissance(1, 1, Z).
Z = 1.
This is now deterministic, as intended.
Now, let us consider the test case from above with this version:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
nontermination
Aha! So this query neither throws an instantiation error nor terminates, and is therefore different from all the versions that have hitherto been posted.
Let us consider the most general query with this program:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z).
Y = 0,
Z = 1 ;
X = Z,
Y = 1,
Z in inf..sup ;
Y = 2,
X^2#=Z,
Z in 0..sup ;
Y = 3,
_G3136*X#=Z,
X^2#=_G3136,
_G3136 in 0..sup ;
etc.
Aha! So we get a symbolic representation of all integers that satisfy this relation.
That's pretty cool, and I therefore recommend you use CLP(FD) constraints when reasoning over integers in Prolog. This will make your programs more general and also lets you improve their efficiency more easily.
You can add a cut operator (i.e. !) to your solution, meaning prolog should not attempt to backtrack and find any more solutions after the first successful unification that has reached that point. (i.e. you're pruning the solution tree).
puissance(_,0,1) :- !.
puissance(X,N,P) :- N>0,A is N-1, puissance(X,A,Z), P is Z*X.
Layman's Explanation:
The reason prolog attempts to see if there are any more solutions, is this:
At the last call to puissance in your recursion, the first puissance clause succeeds since P=1, and you travel all the way back to the top call to perform unification with P with the eventual value that results from that choice.
However, for that last call to puissance, Prolog didn't have a chance to check whether the second puissance clause would also be satisfiable and potentially lead to a different solution, therefore unless you tell it not to check for further solutions (by using a cut on the first clause after it has been successful), it is obligated to go back to that point, and check the second clause too.
Once it does, it sees that the second clause cannot be satisfied because N = 0, and therefore that particular attempt fails.
So the "false" effectively means that prolog checked for other choice points too and couldn't unify P in any other way that would satisfy them, i.e. there are no more valid unifications for P.
And the fact that you're given the choice to look for other solutions in the first place, exactly means that there are still other routes with potentially satisfiable clauses remaining that have not been explored yet.
I'm trying to trigger backtracking on a goal but in a dynamic way, if it's possible. To better exemplify my issue let's say we have the following PROLOG code:
num(1).
num(2).
num(3).
num(4).
num(5).
Then I head to SWI-Prolog and call: num(X). This triggers backtracking looking for all solutions, by typing ; .
What I would like is to remove those facts (num(1),num(2), etc) and replace that code with something thata generates those facts dynamically. Is there any way in which I can achieve this? Someting of the sorts,maybe?
num(X):- for X in 1..5
that yields the same solutions as the code above?
As far as I know, the findall predicate returns a list, which is not what I'm looking for. I would like to backtrack through all answers and look through them using ; in the console.
Yes there is, and you were already very close!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
num(X) :-
X in 1..5.
?- num(X).
X in 1..5.
?- num(X), X #>3.
X in 4..5.
?- num(X), labeling([], [X]).
X = 1
; X = 2
; X = 3
; X = 4
; X = 5.
SWI-Prolog has the (non-ISO) predicate between/3 for that:
num(X) :- between(1, 5, X).
You can implement the predicate (for other Prologs and for further tweaking) like this:
between2(A, A, A) :- !. % green cut
between2(A, B, A) :- A < B.
between2(A, B, C) :-
A < B,
A1 is A + 1,
between2(A1, B, C).
The signature for both between/3 and between2/3 is (+From,+To,?X). It means that the From and To must be bound and X can be either bound or not. Also note that From and To must be integers such that From <= To. (Oh, and these integers must be written using Arabic numerals with an optional plus or minus sign before. And using ASCII. Is something non-obvious still missed? And the integers must not be too large or too small, although SWI-Prolog is usually compiled with unbounded integer support, so both between(1, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, X) and between2(1, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, X) usually work.)
I implemented the following power program in Prolog:
puissance(_,0,1).
puissance(X,N,P) :- N>0,A is N-1, puissance(X,A,Z), P is Z*X.
The code does what is supposed to do, but after the right answer it prints "false.". I don't understand why. I am using swi-prolog.
Can do like this instead:
puissance(X,N,P) :-
( N > 0 ->
A is N-1,
puissance(X,A,Z),
P is Z*X
; P = 1 ).
Then it will just print one answer.
(Your code leaves a `choice point' at every recursive call, because you have two disjuncts and no cut. Using if-then-else or a cut somewhere removes those. Then it depends on the interpreter what happens. Sicstus still asks if you want ((to try to find)) more answers.)
Semantic differences
Currently, there are 3 different versions of puissance/3, and I would like to show a significant semantic difference between some of them.
As a test case, I consider the query:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
What does this query mean? Declaratively, it is clearly equivalent to false. This query is very interesting nevertheless, because it terminates iff puissance/3 terminates universally.
Now, let us try the query on the different variants of the program:
Original definition (from the question):
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
ERROR: puissance/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Accepted answer:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
false.
Other answer:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
ERROR: puissance/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Obviously, the solution shown in the accepted answer yields a different result, and is worth considering further.
Here is the program again:
puissance(_,0,1) :- !.
puissance(X,N,P) :- N>0,A is N-1, puissance(X,A,Z), P is Z*X.
Let us ask something simple first: Which solutions are there at all? This is called the most general query, because its arguments are all fresh variables:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z).
Y = 0,
Z = 1.
The program answers: There is only a single solution: Y=0, Z=1.
That's incorrect (to see this, try the query ?- puissance(0, 1, _) which succeeds, contrary to the same program claiming that Y can only be 0), and a significant difference from the program shown in the question. For comparison, the original program yields:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z).
Y = 0,
Z = 1 ;
ERROR: puissance/3: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
That's OK: On backtracking, the program throws an instantiation error to indicate that no further reasoning is possible at this point. Critically though, it does not simply fail!
Improving determinism
So, let us stick to the original program, and consider the query:
?- puissance(1, 1, Z).
Z = 1 ;
false.
We would like to get rid of false, which occurs because the program is not deterministic.
One way to solve this is to use zcompare/3 from library(clpfd). This lets you reify the comparison, and makes the result available for indexing while retaining the predicate's generality.
Here is one possible solution:
puissance(X, N, P) :-
zcompare(C, 0, N),
puissance_(C, X, N, P).
puissance_(=, _, 0, 1).
puissance_(<, X, N, P) :-
A #= N-1,
puissance(X, A, Z),
P #= Z*X.
With this version, we get:
?- puissance(1, 1, Z).
Z = 1.
This is now deterministic, as intended.
Now, let us consider the test case from above with this version:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z), false.
nontermination
Aha! So this query neither throws an instantiation error nor terminates, and is therefore different from all the versions that have hitherto been posted.
Let us consider the most general query with this program:
?- puissance(X, Y, Z).
Y = 0,
Z = 1 ;
X = Z,
Y = 1,
Z in inf..sup ;
Y = 2,
X^2#=Z,
Z in 0..sup ;
Y = 3,
_G3136*X#=Z,
X^2#=_G3136,
_G3136 in 0..sup ;
etc.
Aha! So we get a symbolic representation of all integers that satisfy this relation.
That's pretty cool, and I therefore recommend you use CLP(FD) constraints when reasoning over integers in Prolog. This will make your programs more general and also lets you improve their efficiency more easily.
You can add a cut operator (i.e. !) to your solution, meaning prolog should not attempt to backtrack and find any more solutions after the first successful unification that has reached that point. (i.e. you're pruning the solution tree).
puissance(_,0,1) :- !.
puissance(X,N,P) :- N>0,A is N-1, puissance(X,A,Z), P is Z*X.
Layman's Explanation:
The reason prolog attempts to see if there are any more solutions, is this:
At the last call to puissance in your recursion, the first puissance clause succeeds since P=1, and you travel all the way back to the top call to perform unification with P with the eventual value that results from that choice.
However, for that last call to puissance, Prolog didn't have a chance to check whether the second puissance clause would also be satisfiable and potentially lead to a different solution, therefore unless you tell it not to check for further solutions (by using a cut on the first clause after it has been successful), it is obligated to go back to that point, and check the second clause too.
Once it does, it sees that the second clause cannot be satisfied because N = 0, and therefore that particular attempt fails.
So the "false" effectively means that prolog checked for other choice points too and couldn't unify P in any other way that would satisfy them, i.e. there are no more valid unifications for P.
And the fact that you're given the choice to look for other solutions in the first place, exactly means that there are still other routes with potentially satisfiable clauses remaining that have not been explored yet.