Is called Dyck Path.
It is a plane of x and y axis,
where each step will be only (x+1,y+1) or (x+1,y-1)
and will always stay above x-axis
K should means the peak of the Dyck path.
When K is 2 it should means that the peak is 2 and 3.
to form a legal sequence list of matching the parentheses a = '(', and b = ')' and has length 2N
Eg. [a,a,b,b] and [a,b,a,b] are the legal list for N = 2
[a,b,b,a] and [b,a,b,a] do not satisfies for N = 2
need to define the predicate
listFind(L,K,N) satisfies when L has list of order of 2N, for some k >= K
For example
|?- listFind(L,1,3).
L = [a,b,a,b,a,b] ? ;
L = [a,b,a,a,b,b] ? ;
L = [a,a,b,b,a,b] ? ;
L = [a,a,b,a,b,b] ? ;
L = [a,a,a,b,b,b] ? ;
no
|?- listFind(L,2,3).
L = [a,a,b,b,a,b] ? ;
L = [a,a,b,a,b,b] ? ;
L = [a,a,a,b,b,b] ? ;
no
Thanks in advance.
the role of K is unclear to me. Anyway, here is a snippet satisying your test case:
listFind(L, K, N) :-
N2 is N*2,
length(L, N2),
phrase(dyck, L),
% satisfy condition on K
run_length_encoded(L, RLE),
[X-a|_] = RLE, X >= K.
% DCG for Dyck' language over alphabet `a,b`
dyck --> [] ; [a], dyck, [b], dyck.
run_length_encoded([X|S], C) :-
run_length_encoded(S, X, 1, C).
run_length_encoded([Y|S], X, N, E) :-
( X == Y
-> M is N + 1,
run_length_encoded(S, X, M, E)
; E = [N-X|T],
run_length_encoded(S, Y, 1, T)
).
run_length_encoded([], X, C, [C-X]).
As you can see, the interpretation of K is
the sequence must start with at least K consecutives a
Related
Can someone explain how the logic of the composition of substitutions works with the following block of code?
plus2(0, X, X). % 0+X = X
plus2(s(X), Y, s(Z)) :-
plus2(Y, X, Z). % (X+1) + Y = Z+1 therefore Y+X=Z
Here is better naming:
% Reduced to zero
peano_add(0, Sum, Sum).
peano_add(s(N), M, s(Sum)) :-
% Decrement towards 0
% Swap N & M, because N + M is M + N
peano_add(M, N, Sum).
This is using Peano arithmetic, which represents natural numbers (i.e. integers starting from zero) in a relative way, as compound terms, as successors ultimately of 0. For example, s(s(0)) represents 2. Such relativity is convenient and elegant for Prolog, because it can be used ("reasoned with") in an uninstantiated (var) variable.
In swi-prolog, this produces:
?- peano_add(N, M, Sum).
N = 0,
M = Sum ; % When N is zero, M is same as Sum - could be 0 or successor
N = Sum, Sum = s(_),
M = 0 ; % When M is zero, N is same as Sum
N = s(0),
M = s(_A),
Sum = s(s(_A)) ; % 1 + 1 = 2
N = s(s(_A)),
M = s(0),
Sum = s(s(s(_A))) ; % 2 + 1 = 3
N = s(s(0)),
M = s(s(_A)),
Sum = s(s(s(s(_A)))) ; % 2 + 2 = 4
N = s(s(s(_A))),
M = s(s(0)),
Sum = s(s(s(s(s(_A))))) % 3 + 2 = 5 etc.
... and if we ask it how we can add two natural numbers to sum to 2:
?- peano_add(N, M, s(s(0))).
N = 0,
M = s(s(0)) ; % 0 + 2
N = s(s(0)),
M = 0 ; % 2 + 0
N = M, M = s(0) ; % 1 + 1
false.
Whereas if we don't swap the arguments:
% Reduced to zero
peano_add(0, Sum, Sum).
peano_add(s(N), M, s(Sum)) :-
% Decrement towards 0
% Not swapping args, to demonstrate weakness
peano_add(N, M, Sum).
... we get:
?- peano_add(N, M, Sum).
N = 0,
M = Sum ;
N = s(0),
Sum = s(M) ;
N = s(s(0)),
Sum = s(s(M)) ;
N = s(s(s(0))),
Sum = s(s(s(M))) ;
N = s(s(s(s(0)))),
Sum = s(s(s(s(M)))) ;
... which is still correct, but doesn't "involve" M as much as it could.
Both methods are counting from 0 upwards to infinity.
Swapping the parameters brings the advantage of checking the 2nd argument, to fail both fast and when appropriate:
?- peano_add(s(s(N)), z, Sum).
false. % Correct, because z is not valid
% Versus, when unswapped, this undesirable:
?- peano_add(s(s(N)), z, Sum).
N = 0,
Sum = s(s(z)) ; % Wrong - did not check whether z is valid
N = s(0),
Sum = s(s(s(z))) ; % Still wrong
N = s(s(0)),
Sum = s(s(s(s(z)))) ; % Will keep being wrong
Sadly, there is a common practice in Prolog example code of using meaningless variable names (such as A, B, X, Y), which adds confusion and should be generally avoided.
Having a list with independent variables, whose domain is 1..N, how can we use labeling/2 so it starts producing solutions starting from the middle?
The flags i tried are [bisect], [enum], [max], [min], [ff], but no matter which i picked, i can't make it work.
My code is:
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
combos(EMPLOYEES,POSTS,LIST):-
LIMIT is POSTS-EMPLOYEES+1,
length(LIST,EMPLOYEES),
LIST ins 1..LIMIT,
sum(LIST,#=,POSTS),
labeling([bisect],LIST).
after setting a query, for example:
?-combos(2,10,LIST).
i want it to return:
L = [5,5];
L = [4,6];
L = [6,4] ...
instead of:
L = [1,9];
L = [2,8];
L = [3,7] ...
As a rule of thumb, whenever you try to extend the functionality of clpfd, try to reuse as much as possible. It seems that you want solutions first whose sum of distances to the center is as small as possible.
combos2(EMPLOYEES,POSTS,LIST):-
LIMIT is POSTS-EMPLOYEES+1,
length(LIST,EMPLOYEES),
LIST ins 1..LIMIT,
sum(LIST,#=,POSTS),
Mid is (LIMIT+1) div 2, %%
maplist(dist(Mid), LIST, DISTS), %%
sum(DISTS,#=,Totaldist), %%
labeling([],[Totaldist|LIST]).
dist(Mid, E, D) :-
D #= abs(Mid-E).
?- combos2(2,10,L).
L = [5,5]
; L = [4,6]
; L = [6,4]
; L = [3,7]
; L = [7,3]
; ... .
Here you go!
combos(2,S,L) :- b2(S,L).
combos(C,S,[A|L]) :-
C > 2,
b2(S,[A,B]),
D is C-1,
combos(D,B,L).
b2(S,L) :- B is S-1, bisector(B,L).
bisector(Y,[A,B]) :-
odd(Y),
M is div(1+Y,2),
Z is M-1,
range(D,0,Z),
bisec1(D,M,A,B).
bisector(Y,[A,B]) :-
even(Y),
M is 1+Y,
Z is Y/2-1,
range(D,0,Z),
bisec2(D,M,A,B).
bisec1(0,M,M,M).
bisec1(D,M,A,B) :- D > 0, A is M + D, A > 0, B is M - D, B > 0.
bisec1(D,M,A,B) :- D > 0, A is M - D, A > 0, B is M + D, B > 0.
bisec2(D,M,A,B) :- A is (M+2*D+1)/2, A > 0, B is (M-2*D-1)/2, B > 0.
bisec2(D,M,A,B) :- A is (M-2*D-1)/2, A > 0, B is (M+2*D+1)/2, B > 0.
even(X) :- 0 is mod(X, 2).
odd(X) :- 1 is mod(X, 2).
range(M,M,_).
range(X,M,N) :- P is M + 1, P =< N, range(X,P,N).
Problem statement:
I'm trying to generate all pairs of natural numbers in Prolog (SWI-Prolog),
i.e. formally have a function f(X,Y), such that:
after calling f(X,Y) with unbound variables X, Y, for each pair of natural numbers (m, n) there exists an n0 such that after pressing semicolon n0 times, Prolog will return (X,Y)=(m,n).
Failed attempt:
I was hoping to write the function using Cantor's pairing function. In short, it enumerates the pairs as follows: (0,0), (1,0), (0,1), (2,0), (1,1), (0,2), (3,0), (2,1), (1,2), (0,3), (4,0)...
I expressed it as follows:
gen(0,0). % 'root'
gen(M,0) :- gen(0, X), M is X+1. % 'jump to the previous diagonal'
gen(M,N) :- gen(X, Y), M is X-1, N is Y+1, N > 0. % 'a step inside a diagonal'
However because of how Prolog search actually works, this ends up with the 2nd rule repeatedly invoking itself, ad infinitem, eventually crashing due to running out of stack space (the only results it returns before that are (0,0) and (1,0), then it gets stuck, repeatedly failing the 2nd rule on '0 is 0+1').
Do you have any ideas how to make this or any other elegant approach work?
Thank you.
Edit - my solution.
Based on the accepted answer (thanks!), I wrote the following code, working as intended:
range(Min, _, Min).
range(Min, Max, Val) :- NewMin is Min+1, Max >= NewMin, range(NewMin, Max, Val).
natnum(0).
natnum(N) :-
natnum(N0),
N is N0 + 1.
gen(A,B) :-
natnum(N),
range(0, N, B),
A is N - B.
When used:
?- gen(X,Y).
X = 0,
Y = 0 ;
X = 1,
Y = 0 ;
X = 0,
Y = 1 ;
X = 2,
Y = 0 ;
X = 1,
Y = 1 ;
X = 0,
Y = 2 ;
X = 3,
Y = 0
and so on...
I give you a start:
Let us start with a predicate that creates all natural numbers on backtracking, yielding a single such number with each solution:
natnum(0).
natnum(N) :-
N #= N0 + 1,
natnum(N0).
Sample query:
?- natnum(N).
N = 0 ;
N = 1 ;
N = 2 ;
N = 3 ;
etc.
Then, we observe that we can generate such pairs without falling into an infinite loop by restricting the sum of each pair. For example:
pair(A-B) :-
natnum(N),
N #>= A + B,
A #>= 0,
B #>= 0,
label([A,B]).
Sample query:
?- pair(P).
P = 0-0 ;
P = 0-0 ;
P = 0-1 ;
P = 1-0 ;
P = 0-0 ;
P = 0-1 ;
P = 0-2 ;
P = 1-0 ;
P = 1-1 ;
P = 2-0 ;
P = 0-0 ;
P = 0-1 ;
P = 0-2 ;
P = 0-3 ;
P = 1-0 ;
P = 1-1 .
This is obviously not perfect: For example, some pairs are reported redundantly. However, the general idea should be clear: Use a good building-block to keep the generation of pairs in check.
I have to make a predicate which will take 2 numbers N,M and will output "yes" when N,M are positive numbers and there are two numbers A,B such that A+B = M and A*B = N.
EDITED CODE:
For example M = 18, N = 45:
A = 0, B = 18, M = 0+18 (true), N = 0*18 (false) so it has to go next with A = 1 & B = 17 and check again...
numbers(M,N) :-
M>0 ,
N>0 ,
A is 0,
B is M,
numbers(N,M,A,B).
numbers(M,N,A,B) :-
M =:= A+B,
N =:= A*B.
numbers(M,N,A,B) :-
M =:= A+B,
not( N =:= A*B),
A is A+1,
B is B-1,
numbers(M,N,A,B).
I don't know how to enumerate A and B variables. Any help will be appreciated.
just add and multiply and check... see is/2 for arithmetic
edit my advice was a bit simplistic, I totally forgot a hint to easily generate integers ranges in Prolog, using nondeterminism:
numbers(M,N) :-
between(1,M,A),between(1,N,B), M =:= A+B, N =:= A*B, writeln((A,B)).
?- numbers(18,45).
3,15
true ;
15,3
true ;
false.
I look at it as a factoring problem:
%
% are M and N magic?
%
magic(M,N) :-
M > 0 ,
N > 0 ,
factor(N,A,B),
M is A+B
.
%
% factor/3: compute the factors of a positive integer
%
factor(N,F1,F2) :-
N > 0 ,
Limit is floor(sqrt(N)) ,
factor(1,Limit,N,F1,F2)
.
factor(F1,Limit,N,F1,F2) :-
F1 =< Limit ,
F2 is N div F1 ,
0 is N mod F1
.
factor(X,Limit,N,F1,F2) :-
X < Limit ,
X1 is X+1 ,
factor(X1,Limit,N,F1,F2)
.
I just started in Prolog and have the problem:
(a) Given a list L, an object X, and a positive integer K, it returns
the position of the K-th occurrence of X in L if X appears at least K
times in L otherwise 0.
The goal pos([a,b,c,b],b,2,Z) should succeed with the answer Z = 4.
So far I have:
pos1([],H,K,F).
pos1([H],H,1,F).
pos1([H|T],H,K,F):- NewK is K - 1, pos1(T,H,NewK,F), F is F + 1.
pos1([H|T],X,K,F):- pos1(T,X,K,F).
But I can't figure out why I'm getting:
ERROR: is/2: Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated
Any help would be much appreciated!
Use clpfd!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
We define pos/4 based on (#>)/2, (#=)/2, if_/3, dif/3, and (#<)/3:
pos(Xs,E,K,P) :-
K #> 0,
pos_aux(Xs,E,K,1,P).
pos_aux([X|Xs],E,K,P0,P) :-
P0+1 #= P1,
if_(dif(X,E),
pos_aux(Xs,E,K,P1,P),
if_(K #< 2,
P0 = P,
(K0+1 #= K,
pos_aux(Xs,E,K0,P1,P)))).
Sample query as given by the OP:
?- X = b, N = 2, pos([a,b,c,b],X,N,P).
X = b, N = 2, P = 4. % succeeds deterministically
How about the following more general query?
?- pos([a,b,c,b],X,N,P).
X = a, N = 1, P = 1
; X = b, N = 1, P = 2
; X = b, N = 2, P = 4 % (exactly like in above query)
; X = c, N = 1, P = 3
; false.
Let's take a high-level approach to it, trading the efficiency of the resulting code for the ease of development:
pos(L,X,K,P):-
numerate(L,X,LN,1), %// [A1,A2,A3...] -> [A1-1,A2-2,A3-3...], where Ai = X.
( drop1(K,LN,[X-P|_]) -> true ; P=0 ).
Now we just implement the two new predicates. drop1(K,L,L2) drops K-1 elements from L, so we're left with L2:
drop1(K,L2,L2):- K<2, !.
drop1(K,[_|T],L2):- K1 is K-1, drop1(K1,T,L2).
numerate(L,X,LN,I) adds an I-based index to each element of L, but keeps only Xs:
numerate([],_,[],_).
numerate([A|B],X,R,I):- I1 is I+1, ( A=X -> R=[A-I|C] ; R=C ), numerate(B,X,C,I1).
Testing:
5 ?- numerate([1,b,2,b],b,R,1).
R = [b-2, b-4].
6 ?- pos([1,b,2,b],b,2,P).
P = 4.
7 ?- pos([1,b,2,b],b,3,P).
P = 0.
I've corrected your code, without changing the logic, that seems already simple enough.
Just added a 'top level' handler, passing to actual worker pos1/4 and testing if worked, else returning 0 - a debatable way in Prolog, imo is better to allow to fail, I hope you will appreciate how adopting this (see comments) simplified your code...
pos(L,X,K,F):- pos1(L,X,K,F) -> true ; F=0.
% pos1([],H,K,F). useless: let it fail
% pos1([H],H,1,F). useless: already handled immediatly bottom
pos1([H|T],H,K,P):- K==1 -> P=1 ; NewK is K - 1, pos1(T,H,NewK,F), P is F + 1.
pos1([_|T],X,K,P):- pos1(T,X,K,F),P is F+1.
I hope you're allowed to use the if/then/else construct. Anyway, yields
7 ?- pos([a,b,c,b],b,2,Z).
Z = 4.
8 ?- pos([a,b,c,b],b,3,Z).
Z = 0.
Something like this. An outer predicate (this one enforces the specified constraints) that invokes an inner worker predicate:
kth( L , X , K , P ) :-
is_list( L ) , % constraint: L must be a list
nonvar(X) , % constriant: X must be an object
integer(K) , K > 0 % constraint: K must be a positive integer
kth( Ls , X , K , 1 , P ) % invoke the worker predicate with its accumulator seeded to 1
. % easy!
is_list/2 ensures you've got a list:
is_list(X) :- var(X) , !, fail .
is_list([]).
is_list([_|_]).
The predicate that does all the work is this one:
kth( [] , _ , _ , _ , 0 ) . % if we hit the end of the list, P is 0.
kth( [X|Ls] , X , K , K , K ) :- ! . % if we find the Kth desired element, succeed (and cut: we won't find another Kth element)
kth( [_|Ls] , X , K , N , P ) :- % otherwise
N < K , % - if we haven't got to K yet ...
N1 is N+1 , % - increment our accumulator , and
kth(Ls,X,K,N1,P) % - recurse down.
. % easy!
Though the notion of returning 0 instead of failure is Not the Prolog Way, if you ask me.