Is their some way in SWI-Prolog to write predicates with three variables for example union(A,B,C) in the following form C = A ∪ B. For predicates with two variables I know their are operators to do that, but I am not sure if their is something similar in that case.
No.
Not directly. Prolog only supports defining unary operators (prefix/suffix operators such as -- 32 or 32 ++, both of which correspond to '--'/1 or '++'/1) and infix operators (e.g. X is Y which corresponds to is/2).
If you look at the operator definitions and precedences, you would need to define your union operator as an infix operator with a precedence of less than 700.
Then, reading a term like x = y ∪ z would yield '='( x , '∪'(y,z) ).
Another way to do it would be to write a DCG (definite clause grammar) to parse the text as desired. See this tutorial: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog/dcg
Suppose I've defined a few values for a function:
+(value[1] == "cats")
+(value[2] == "mice")
Is it possible to define a function like the following?
(undefined[X] == False) <= (value[X] == Y)
(undefined[X] == True) <= (value[X] does not exist)
My guess is that it can't, for two reasons:
(1) Queries are guaranteed to terminate in Datalog, and you could query for undefined[X] == True.
(2) According to Wikipedia, one of the ways Datalog differs from Prolog is that Datalog "requires that every variable appearing in a negative literal in the body of a clause also appears in some positive literal in the body of the clause".
But I'm not sure, because the terms involved ("terminate", "literal", "negative") have so many uses. (For instance: Does negative literal mean f[X] == not Y or does it mean not (f[X] == Y)? Does termination mean that it can evaluate a single expression like undefined[3] == True, or does it mean it would have found all X for which undefined[X] == True?)
Here another definition of "safe".
A safety condition says that every variable in the body of a rule must occur in at least one positive (i.e., not negated)
atom.
Source: Datalog and Recursive Query Processing
And an atom (or goal) is a predicate symbol (function) along with a list of terms as arguments. (Note that “term” and “atom” are used differently here than they are in Prolog.)
The safety problem is to decide whether the result of a given Datalog program can be guaranteed to be finite even when some source relations are infinite.
For example, the following rule is not safe because the Y variable appears only in a negative atom (i.e. not predicate2(Z,Y)).
rule(X,Y) :- predicate1(X,Z), not predicate2(Z,Y) .
To meet the condition of safety the Y variable should appear in a positive predicate too:
rule(X,Y) :- predicate1(X,Z), not predicate2(Z,Y), predicate3(Y) .
Hello good people of programming .
Logic programming is always fascinating compare to imperative programming.
As pursuing unknown of logic programming, there is some problems encountering arithmetic expressions.
Here is the code I have done so far.
number_atom(N) :-
(number(N) -> functor(N, _, _); functor(N, _, _), atom(N)).
arithmeticAdd_expression(V,V,Val,Val).
arithmeticAdd_expression(N, _Var, _Val, N) :-
number_atom(N).
arithmeticAdd_expression(X+Y, Var, Val, R) :-
arithmeticAdd_expression(X, Var, Val, RX),
arithmeticAdd_expression(Y, Var, Val, RY),
(number(RX), number(RY) -> R is RX + RY; R = RX + RY).
Taking add operation as example:
arithmeticAdd_expression(Expression, Variable, Value, Result)
?- arithmeticAdd_expression(a+10, a, 1, Result).
?- Result = 11;
?- Result = a + 10.
?- arithmeticAdd_expression(a+10, b, 1, Result).
?- Result = a + 10.
What I would like to achieve is that
if the atom(s) in the Expression can only be substituted by given Variable and value, then Result is the number only like the example shown above(Result = 11). Else, the Result is the Expression itself only. My problem with the code is somewhere there, I just could figure it out. So, Please someone can help me? Thank you.
An important attraction of logic programming over, say, functional programming is that you can often use the same code in multiple directions.
This means that you can ask not only for a particular result if the inputs are given, but also ask how solutions look like in general.
However, for this to work, you have to put some thought into the way you represent your data. For example, in your case, any term in your expression that is still a logical variable may denote either a given number or an atom that should be interpreted differently than a plain number or an addition of two other terms. This is called a defaulty representation because you have to decide what a variable should denote by default, and there is no way to restrict its meaning to only one of the possible cases.
Therefore, I suggest first of all to change the representation so that you can symbolically distinguish the two cases. For example, to represent expressions in your case, let us adopt the convention that:
atoms are denoted by the wrapper a/1
numbers are denoted by the wrapper n/1.
and as is already the case, (+)/2 shall denote addition of two expressions.
So, a defaulty term like b+10 shall now be written as: a(b)+n(10). Note the use of the wrappers a/1 and n/1 to make clear which case we are dealing with. Such a representation is called clean. The wrappers are arbitrarily (though mnemonically) chosen, and we could have used completely different wrappers such as atom/1 and number/1, or atm/1 and nmb/1. The key property is only that we can now symbolically distinguish different cases by virtue of their outermost functor and arity.
Now the key advantage: Using such a convention, we can write for example: a(X)+n(Y). This is a generalization of the earlier term. However, it carries a lot more information than only X+Y, because in the latter case, we have lost track of what these variables stand for, while in the former case, this distinction is still available.
Now, assuming that this convention is used in expressions, it becomes straight-forward to describe the different cases:
expression_result(n(N), _, _, n(N)).
expression_result(a(A), A, N, n(N)).
expression_result(a(A), Var, _, a(A)) :-
dif(A, Var).
expression_result(X+Y, Var, Val, R) :-
expression_result(X, Var, Val, RX),
expression_result(Y, Var, Val, RY),
addition(RX, RY, R).
addition(n(X), n(Y), n(Z)) :- Z #= X + Y.
addition(a(X), Y, a(X)+Y).
addition(X, a(Y), X+a(Y)).
Note that we can now use pattern matching to distinguish the cases. No more if-then-elses, and no more atom/1 or number/1 tests are necessary.
Your test cases work as expected:
?- expression_result(a(a)+n(10), a, 1, Result).
Result = n(11) ;
false.
?- expression_result(a(a)+n(10), b, 1, Result).
Result = a(a)+n(10) ;
false.
And now the key advantage: With such a pure program (please see logical-purity for more information), we can also ask "What do results look like in general?"
?- expression_result(Expr, Var, N, R).
Expr = R, R = n(_1174) ;
Expr = a(Var),
R = n(N) ;
Expr = R, R = a(_1698),
dif(_1698, Var) ;
Expr = n(_1852)+n(_1856),
R = n(_1896),
_1852+_1856#=_1896 ;
Expr = n(_2090)+a(Var),
R = n(_2134),
_2090+N#=_2134 .
Here, I have used logical variables for all arguments, and I get quite general answers from this program. This is why I have used clpfd constraints for declarative integer arithmetic.
Thus, your immediate issue can be readily solved by using a clean representation, and using the code above.
Only one very small challenge remains: Maybe you actually want to use a defaulty representation such as c+10 (instead of a(c)+n(10)). The task you are then facing is to convert the defaulty representation to a clean one, for example via a predicate defaulty_clean/2. I leave this as an easy exercise. Once you have a clean representation, you can use the code above without changes.
So I have this exercise that I'm stuck on:
A formula is:
tru
fls
variable(V) iff V is an atom.
or(Flist) iff every element in the list is a formula
there are implies, and, neg too. the form looks similar.
We can represent a truth assignment (an assignment of values to variables) by a Prolog list of the form [Var1/Value1, Var2/Value2,...VarN/ValueN]. Write a predicate sub(?F,?Asst,?G) which succeeds iff G is a formula which is a result of substituting the variables of F with corresponding values from the assignment Asst. (You can assume that the truth assignment A is at least partially instantiated).
E.g.
sub(variable(x), [x/tru], tru).
true
sub(or([variable(a),variable(b)]), [a/tru,b/fls], G).
G = or(tru,fls)
true
I've tried
sub(variable(x),[x/value],G):-
G = variable(value).
But it just returns false.
Edit: Sorry I didn't make the question clear, Can someone explain to me if there's a way to assign values associated with variables in a list to another variable? I think it has something to do with unification.
Variables are placeholders.
Beware of case sensitivity: Prolog variable names start with an uppercase character or underscore, atoms with a lowercase character.
Your code snippet of sub/3 assumes that the list of
key-value pairs has exactly a length of one ([x/value]).
By using member/2 the lists can have arbitrary length.
When handling n-ary logical connectives like and / or, you probably want a short-circuit implementation that returns as soon as possible. Like so:
sub(tru,_,tru).
sub(fls,_,fls).
sub(variable(X),Assoc,Value) :-
member(X/Value,Assoc).
sub(or([]),_,fls).
sub(or([X|Xs]),Assoc,V) :-
sub(X,Assoc,T),
( T = tru, V = tru % short-circuit logical-or
; T = fls, sub(or(Xs),Assoc,V)
).
I have to implement some functions, one of which is f= ~p/\~q.
I have the following :
p(a). p(b).
q(a). q(b). q(c).
I found the function as:
f(X):-p(\X);q(\X).
When I verify it ( f(X). , f(a). , f(b). , f(c). ) it always returns false.
Shouldn't it return true for c since c is not of type p?
Thank you!
(\)/1 is an evaluable functor for bitwise complement. If you use it directly in an argument, it is only an uninterpreted functor. Evaluation is only performed with (is)/2, (>)/2 and other comparison operators.
In all current Prolog implementations you get:
?- X is \ 1.
X = -2.
Fine print: An ISO conforming system is free to define the value for \. That is, it is free, whether it uses 2's complement or another representation. However, there are only systems that use 2's complement.
Your implementation of that formula seems flawed.
You are required about f : (not p) and (not q)
A restricted negation is available in Prolog, using operator (\+)/1, and conjunction (X and Y) is expressed by comma i.e. (,)/2.
Semicolon i.e. (;)/2 means or, as for instance in the following test, that shows your initial assumption about f(c) is also wrong.
?- forall(member(X,[a,b,c,d]),(f(X)->writeln(y);writeln(n))).
n
n
n
y
(of course, after f/1 has been translated correctly)