Hi I have to solve a problem in Prolog, that sounds like this: deletes all the sublists of a list that are increasing. For example the list [1,[2],[3,4],6] becomes [1,6].
So far I have tried this but it's not working. Any help please ?
domains
el=integer
list=el*
element=integer;list
lista=element*
goal
elim([1,[2],[3],4)],L),
write(L).
predicates
elim(lista,lista)
is_increasing(lista)
is_list(lista)
clauses
is_increasing([A,B|T]) :-
B>A,
is_increasing([B|T]).
is_list([_|_]).
is_list([]).
elim([],[]).
elim([E|Es],[E|Ts]) :-
is_list(E),
is_increasing(E),
elim(Es, Ts).
attempt to modularize your code: first write an is_increasing/1. Since it appears that a list of 1 element is increasing, you can do as simply as
is_increasing([A,B|T]) :- B > A, is_increasing([B|T]).
is_increasing([_]).
then you can use it to discard elements while copying. Beware to check that an element is a list before calling. Here is a possible definition
is_list([_|_]).
is_list([]).
edit
there is a bad declaration, as advised by mbratch
element=i(integer);l(list)
should be
element=integer;list
Also, you forgot is_increasing([_])., and anyway you're not using at all is_list or is_increasing.
The rule eliminating sublists of course should read
elim([E|Es], Ts) :- is_list(E), is_increasing(E), elim(Es, Ts).
just add the base case and a copy. i.e. elim is a 3 clauses predicate...
edit apart the rule above, you need only a base case
elim([],[]).
and a copy
elim([E|Es],[E|Ts]) :- elim(Es, Ts).
just try to understand why the order of rules is also important in Prolog...
Related
I have a simple Prolog-program that I need some help debugging.
The point is to extend the program by pattern-matching to create a proof checker for propositional logic. The problem I have is that I get no when I expect yes and my 'fix' (providing a base case for valid_proof_aux) still gives me two solutions and I don't know why.
Not sure how to go about debugging Prolog yet, sorry.
%call:
valid_proof([p],p,[[1, p, premise]])
%src:
reverse_it([],Z,Z).
reverse_it([H|T],Z,Acc) :- reverse_it(T,Z,[H|Acc]).
valid_proof(Prems,Goal,Proof):-
last(Proof, [_, Goal, _]),
reverse_it(Proof, RevP, []),
valid_proof_aux(Prems, RevP) .
valid_proof_aux(Prems,
[[_,Prop,premise] | T]):-
memberchk(Prop,Prems),
valid_proof_aux(Prems,T).
%my 'fix'
valid_proof_aux(_, []) :- true .
You don't really show how to run the program and what exactly you get (you should edit your question with and add this), so this answer is a bit of a guess, but anyway:
You need the base case either way (as you observe yourself), valid_proof_aux/2 would fail when the list becomes empty [] and does not match [[...]|T] anymore.
?- [] = [_|_]. % try to unify an empty list with a non-empty list
false.
What you need to do to get rid of the choice point is to put the list argument as the first argument.
valid_proof_aux([], _).
valid_proof_aux([[_,Prop,premise]|T], Prems) :-
memberchk(Prop, Prems),
valid_proof_aux(T, Prems).
Note that you don't need the :- true., this is implicit. Also, avoid leaving any blanks on the two sides of the | in [Head|Tail].
If I have a database such as:
number(0).
number(1).
number(2).
number(3).
number(4).
number(5).
number(6).
number(7).
number(8).
number(9).
and want to write a predicate numbers(L) that instantiates that L to a list of numbers. i.e.
numbers([A,B]).
should instantiate A and B to 10*10 different combinations of numbers, how would I do this. I want to show the recursion in the numbers(L) predicate, not use maplist.
Many thanks for your assistance
First, you should not use number/1 for your purposes, because it is a name of a built-in predicate. Rename number to num or some other name.
A rule that produces a pair of numbers is trivial:
numbers([A,B]) :- num(A), num(B).
Yes, that was really it!
Now you can print all of the combinations like this:
:- numbers([A,B]), write(A), write('-'), write(B), nl, fail.
Here is a demo on ideone.
i have a to write a routine which lists all descendants so far i wrote
descend(X,Y) :- child(X,Y).
descend(X,Y) :- child(X,Z), descend(Z,Y).
which works fine so any descendent i need to find i just do descend(X,name). and it keeps giving me descendants of name in form of X= descend1, X = descend2
but to get the results i have to press ; every time what i am trying is to write is a routine descendb which gives the list of all descends without pressing ;
descendb(X) :- descend(A,X), write(A).
this is obviously wrong.
You can get all results with a 'failure driven' loop, aka forall/2
descendb(X) :- forall(descend(A,X), writeln(A)).
That's generally useful only when we have to do some 'side effect' on every solution found, like writeln (for instance) does.
Since you say you're after 'the list of all descends', try findall/3 instead:
descendb(X, Ds) :- findall(D, descend(D,X), Ds).
Since we have 2 arguments, you are not obliged to make a choice, descendb/1 and descendb/2 are effectively different predicates.
I have a predicate "lookupOptions" which returns one by one some lists (Menus).
I'm trying to get it to satisfy the case of multiple inputs. I can return a single set of options as follows, by reading the head of the "list_places" list.
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :- lookupOptions(Restaurant,H,Menu), list_places(Town,[H|T])
But, I'm not able to get it to iterate.
I have tried a lot of things, these were my best efforts so far.
a) standard enough iteration, but it wont resolve ...
doStuff(X,[],_).
doStuff(Restaurant,[H|T],_):- lookupOptions(Resturant,H,_), doStuff(Restaurant,T,_).
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :- doStuff(Restaurant,[H|T],Menu), list_places(Town,[H|T]).
b) expanding the goal predicate ...
find_options(_,Town,[H|T],_)
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :- find_options(Restaurant,Town,[],Menu).
find_options(Restaurant,Town,X,Menu) :- list_places(Town,X).
find_options(Restaurant,Town,[H|T],Menu) :- lookupOptions(Restaurant,[H],Menu), find_options(Restaurant,Town,T,Menu).
Would either of these work ? if the pattern was written correctly. Or if there was an appropriate cut put in place?
Any help most appreciated ...
It's no clear on what you want iterate. Prolog uses backtracking to examine all alternatives, then you should start backtracking if you are after some alternative, or use the all solutions family.
Now I think you want simply declare there could be more find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu). Then try replacing the head match [H|T] with this:
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :-
lookupOptions(Restaurant,H,Menu),
list_places(Town, Places),
member(H, Places).
BTW T is a singleton in your original rule. This could be a hint for the need of generalize it.
I got stuck to implement a logic. At some instance in my program I have a list say named as List.
The length of this List is variable and I don't know in advance. Now I have to pass this list in a functor to create a fact and I am unable to implement it. For eg:
if List is [first] then it should add the fact functor(first).
if List is [first,second] then it should add the fact functor(first,second).
if List is [first,second,third] then it should add the fact functor(first,second,third).
and so on...
I was trying by =.. but here I am unable to map that variable length constraint. For fixed length I am able to perform but I don't know in advance that how many elements will be there in list.
Any suggestions to implement this logic. Thanks.
I don't quite understand your problem with =.. but this worked for me:
assert_list(List) :-
Term =.. [my_functor|List],
assert(Term).
Note that I use my_functor instead of simply functor because functor/3 is a built-in predicate so you cannot assert ternary functor facts (functor(first, second, third)).
Calling it:
?- assert_list([first,second,third]).
true.
Checking that it works:
?- listing(my_functor).
:- dynamic user:my_functor/3.
user:my_functor(first, second, third).
true.
Note that technically, the different n-ary my_functor/n predicates are not the same predicates. You must use different queries in your program for each n. To circumvent this, you could simply assert the list as one and only argument of my_functor:
?- List = [first, second, third],
assert(my_functor(List)).
true.
?- listing(my_functor).
:- dynamic user:my_functor/3.
user:my_functor([first, second, third]).
true.
My SWI-Prolog version is 5.7.5.