Related
So I have this mathematical language, it goes like this:
E -> number
[+,E,E,E] //e.g. [+,1,2,3] is 1+2+3 %we can put 2 to infinite Es here.
[-,E,E,E] //e.g. [-,1,2,3] is 1-2-3 %we can put 2 to infinite Es here.
[*,E,E,E] //e.g. [*,1,2,3] is 1*2*3 %we can put 2 to infinite Es here.
[^,E,E] //e.g. [^,2,3] is 2^3
[sin,E] //e.g. [sin,0] is sin 0
[cos,E] //e.g. [cos,0] is cos 0
and I want to write the set of rules that finds the numeric value of a mathematical expression written by this language in prolog.
I first wrote a function called "check", it checks to see if the list is written in a right way according to the language we have :
check1([]).
check1([L|Ls]):- number(L),check1(Ls).
check([L|Ls]):-atom(L),check1(Ls).
now I need to write the function "evaluate" that takes a list that is an expression written by this language, and a variable that is the numeric value corresponding to this language.
example:
?-evaluate([*,1,[^,2,2],[*,2,[+,[sin,0],5]]]],N) -> N = 40
so I wrote this:
sum([],0).
sum([L|Ls],N):- not(is_list(L)),sum(Ls,No),N is No + L.
min([],0).
min([L|Ls],N):-not(is_list(L)), min(Ls,No),N is No - L.
pro([],0).
pro([X],[X]).
pro([L|Ls],N):-not(is_list(L)), pro(Ls,No), N is No * L.
pow([L|Ls],N):-not(is_list(L)), N is L ^ Ls.
sin_(L,N):-not(is_list(L)), N is sin(L).
cos_(L,N):-not(is_list(L)), N is cos(L).
d([],0).
d([L|Ls],N):- L == '+' ,sum(Ls,N);
L == '-',min(Ls,N);
L == '*',pro(Ls,N);
L == '^',pow(Ls,N);
L == 'sin',sin_(Ls,N);
L == 'cos',cos_(Ls,N).
evaluate([],0).
evaluate([L|Ls],N):-
is_list(L) , check(L) , d(L,N),L is N,evaluate(Ls,N);
is_list(L), not(check(L)) , evaluate(Ls,N);
not(is_list(L)),not(is_list(Ls)),check([L|Ls]),d([L|Ls],N),
L is N,evaluate(Ls,N);
is_list(Ls),evaluate(Ls,N).
and it's working for just a list and returning the right answer , but not for multiple lists inside the main list, how should my code be?
The specification you work with looks like a production rule that describes that E (presumably short for Expression) might be a number or one of the 6 specified operations. That is the empty list [] is not an expression. So the fact
evaluate([],0).
should not be in your code. Your predicate sum/2 almost works the way you wrote it, except for the empty list and a list with a single element, that are not valid inputs according to your specification. But the predicates min/2 and pro/2 are not correct. Consider the following examples:
?- sum([1,2,3],X).
X = 6 % <- correct
?- sum([1],X).
X = 1 % <- incorrect
?- sum([],X).
X = 0 % <- incorrect
?- min([1,2,3],X).
X = -6 % <- incorrect
?- pro([1,2,3],X).
X = 6 ? ; % <- correct
X = 0 % <- incorrect
Mathematically speaking, addition and multiplication are associative but subtraction is not. In programming languages all three of these operations are usually left associative (see e.g. Operator associativity) to yield the mathematically correct result. That is, the sequence of subtractions in the above query would be calculated:
1-2-3 = (1-2)-3 = -4
The way you define a sequence of these operations resembles the following calculation:
[A,B,C]: ((0 op C) op B) op A
That works out fine for addition:
[1,2,3]: ((0 + 3) + 2) + 1 = 6
But it doesn't for subtraction:
[1,2,3]: ((0 - 3) - 2) - 1 = -6
And it is responsible for the second, incorrect solution when multiplying:
[1,2,3]: ((0 * 3) * 2) * 1 = 0
There are also some other issues with your code (see e.g. #lurker's comments), however, I won't go into further detail on that. Instead, I suggest a predicate that adheres closely to the specifying production rule. Since the grammar is describing expressions and you want to know the corresponding values, let's call it expr_val/2. Now let's describe top-down what an expression can be: It can be a number:
expr_val(X,X) :-
number(X).
It can be an arbitrarily long sequence of additions or subtractions or multiplications respectively. For the reasons above all three sequences should be evaluated in a left associative way. So it's tempting to use one rule for all of them:
expr_val([Op|Es],V) :-
sequenceoperator(Op), % Op is one of the 3 operations
exprseq_op_val(Es,Op,V). % V is the result of a sequence of Ops
The power function is given as a list with three elements, the first being ^ and the others being expressions. So that rule is pretty straightforward:
expr_val([^,E1,E2],V) :-
expr_val(E1,V1),
expr_val(E2,V2),
V is V1^V2.
The expressions for sine and cosine are both lists with two elements, the first being sin or cos and the second being an expression. Note that the argument of sin and cos is the angle in radians. If the second argument of the list yields the angle in radians you can use sin/1 and cos/2 as you did in your code. However, if you get the angle in degrees, you need to convert it to radians first. I include the latter case as an example, use the one that fits your application.
expr_val([sin,E],V) :-
expr_val(E,V1),
V is sin(V1*pi/180). % radians = degrees*pi/180
expr_val([cos,E],V) :-
expr_val(E,V1),
V is cos(V1*pi/180). % radians = degrees*pi/180
For the second rule of expr_val/2 you need to define the three possible sequence operators:
sequenceoperator(+).
sequenceoperator(-).
sequenceoperator(*).
And subsequently the predicate exprseq_op_val/3. As the leading operator has already been removed from the list in expr_val/2, the list has to have at least two elements according to your specification. In order to evaluate the sequence in a left associative way the value of the head of the list is passed as an accumulator to another predicate exprseq_op_val_/4
exprseq_op_val([E1,E2|Es],Op,V) :-
expr_val(E1,V1),
exprseq_op_val_([E2|Es],Op,V,V1).
that is describing the actual evaluation. There are basically two cases: If the list is empty then, regardless of the operator, the accumulator holds the result. Otherwise the list has at least one element. In that case another predicate, op_val_args/4, delivers the result of the respective operation (Acc1) that is then recursively passed as an accumulator to exprseq_op_val_/4 alongside with the tail of the list (Es):
exprseq_op_val_([],_Op,V,V).
exprseq_op_val_([E1|Es],Op,V,Acc0) :-
expr_val(E1,V1),
op_val_args(Op,Acc1,Acc0,V1),
exprseq_op_val_(Es,Op,V,Acc1).
At last you have to define op_val_args/4, that is again pretty straightforward:
op_val_args(+,V,V1,V2) :-
V is V1+V2.
op_val_args(-,V,V1,V2) :-
V is V1-V2.
op_val_args(*,V,V1,V2) :-
V is V1*V2.
Now let's see how this works. First your example query:
?- expr_val([*,1,[^,2,2],[*,2,[+,[sin,0],5]]],V).
V = 40.0 ? ;
no
The simplest expression according to your specification is a number:
?- expr_val(-3.14,V).
V = -3.14 ? ;
no
The empty list is not an expression:
?- expr_val([],V).
no
The operators +, - and * need at least 2 arguments:
?- expr_val([-],V).
no
?- expr_val([+,1],V).
no
?- expr_val([*,1,2],V).
V = 2 ? ;
no
?- expr_val([-,1,2,3],V).
V = -4 ? ;
no
The power function has exactly two arguments:
?- expr_val([^,1,2,3],V).
no
?- expr_val([^,2,3],V).
V = 8 ? ;
no
?- expr_val([^,2],V).
no
?- expr_val([^],V).
no
And so on...
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)
Hello can anyone help me compute the sum of the first n numbers. For example n=4 => sum = 10.
So far I've wrote this
predicates
sum(integer,integer)
clauses
sum(0,0).
sum(N,R):-
N1=N-1,
sum(N1,R1),
R=R1+N.
This one works but I need another implementation. I don't have any ideas how I could make this differen . Please help
What #mbratch said.
What you're computing is a triangular number. If your homework is about triangular numbers and not about learning recursive thinking, you can simply compute it thus:
triangular_number(N,R) :- R is N * (N+1) / 2 .
If, as is more likely, you're learning recursive thought, try this:
sum(N,R) :- % to compute the triangular number n,
sum(N,1,0,R) % - invoke the worker predicate with its counter and accumulator properly seeded
.
sum(0,_,R,R). % when the count gets decremented to zero, we're done. Unify the accumulator with the result.
sum(C,X,T,R) :- % otherwise,
C > 0 , % - assuming the count is greater than zero
T1 is T+X , % - increment the accumulator
X1 is X+1 , % - increment the current number
C1 is C-1 , % - decrement the count
sum(C1,X1,T1,R) % - recurse down
. % Easy!
Edited to add:
Or, if you prefer a count down approach:
sum(N,R) :- sum(N,0,R).
sum(0,R,R). % when the count gets decremented to zero, we're done. Unify the accumulator with the result.
sum(N,T,R) :- % otherwise,
N > 0 , % - assuming the count is greater than zero
T1 is T+N , % - increment the accumulator
N1 is N-1 , % - decrement the count
sum(N1,T1,R) % - recurse down
. % Easy!
Both of these are tail-recursive, meaning that the prolog compiler can turn them into iteration (google "tail recursion optimization" for details).
If you want to eliminate the accumulator, you need to do something like this:
sum(0,0).
sum(N,R) :-
N > 0 ,
N1 is N-1 ,
sum(N1,R1) ,
R is R1+N
.
A little bit simpler, but each recursion consumes another stack frame: given a sufficiently large value for N, execution will fail with a stack overflow.
sum(N, Sum) :-
Sum is (N + 1) * N / 2 .
Since you already got plenty of advice about your code, let me throw in a snippet (a bit off-topic).
Counting, and more generally, aggregating, it's an area where Prolog doesn't shine when compared to other relational,declarative languages (read SQL). But some vendor specific library make it much more pleasant:
?- aggregate(sum(N),between(1,4,N),S).
S = 10.
This is the "heart" of your program:
sum(N,R):-
R=R+N,
N=N-1,
sum(N,R).
The =/2 predicate (note the /2 means it accepts 2 arguments) is the instantiation predicate, not an assignment, or logical equal. It attempts to unify its arguments to make them the same. So if N is anything but 0, then R=R+N will always fail because R can never be the same as R+N. Likewise for N=N-1: it will always fail because N and N-1 can never be the same.
In the case of =/2 (unification), expressions are not evaluated. They are just terms. So if Y = 1, then X = Y + 1 unifies X with 1+1 as a term (equivalently written +(1,1)).
Because of the above issues, sum will always fail.
Numerical assignment of an arithmetic expression is done in Prolog with the is/2 predicate. Like this:
X is Y + 1.
This operator unifies the value of X to be the same as the value of the evaluated expression Y+1. In this case, you also cannot have X is X+1 for the same reason given above: X cannot be made the same as X+1 and Prolog does not allow "re-instantiation" of a variable inside of a clause. So you would need something like, X1 is X + 1. Also note that for is/2 to work, everything in the expression on the right must be previously instantiated. If any variables in the expression on the right do not have a value, you will get an instantiation error or, in the case of Turbo Prolog, Free variable in expression....
So you need to use different variables for expression results, and organize the code so that, if using is/2, variables in the expression are instantiated.
EDIT
I understand from Sergey Dymchenko that Turbo Prolog, unlike GNU or SWI, evaluates expressions for =/2. So the = will work in the given problem. However, the error regarding instantiation (or "free variable") is still caused by the same issue I mentioned above.
sum(N, N, N).
sum(M, N, S):-
N>M,
X is M+1,
sum(X, N, T),
S is M+T.
?- sum(1,5,N).
N = 15 .
How is the 'is/2' Prolog predicate implemented?
I know that
X is 3*4
is equivalent with
is(X, 3*4)
But is the predicate implemented using imperative programming?
In other words, is the implementation equivalent with the following C code?
if(uninstantiated(x))
{
X = 3*4;
}
else
{
//signal an error
}
Or is it implemented using declarative programming and other predicates?
Depends on your Prolog, obviously, but any practical implementation will do its dirty work in C or another imperative language. Part of is/2 can be simulated in pure Prolog:
is(X, Expr) :-
evaluate(Expr, Value),
(var(X) ->
X = Value
;
X =:= Value
).
Where evaluate is a huge predicate that knows about arithmetic expressions. There are ways to implement large parts of it in pure Prolog too, but that will be both slow and painful. E.g. if you have a predicate that adds integers, then you can multiply them as well using the following (stupid) algorithm:
evaluate(X + Y, Value) :-
% even this can be done in Prolog using an increment predicate,
% but it would take O(n) time to do n/2 + n/2.
add(X, Y, Value).
evaluate(X * Y, Value) :-
(X == 0 ->
Value = 0
;
evaluate(X + -1, X1),
evaluate(X1, Y, Value1),
evaluate(Y + Value1, Value)
).
None of this is guaranteed to be either practical or correct; I'm just showing how arithmetic could be implemented in Prolog.
Would depend on the version of Prolog; for example, CProlog is (unsurprisingly) written in C, so all built-in predicates are implemented in a imperative language.
Prolog was developed for language parsing. So, a arithmetic expression like
3 + - ( 4 * 12 ) / 2 + 7
after parsing is just a prolog term (representing the parse tree), with operator/3 providing the semantics to guide the parser's operation. For basic arithmetic expressions, the terms are
'-'/2. Negation
'*'/2, '/'/2. Multiplication, division
'+'/2, '-'/2. Addition, subtraction
The sample expression above is parsed as
'+'( '+'( 3 , '/'( '-'( '*'(4,12) ) , 2 ) ) , 7 )
'is'/2 simply does a recursive walk of the parse tree representing the right hand side, evaluating each term in pretty much the same way an RPN (reverse polish notation) calculator does. Once that expression is evaluated, the result is unified with the left hand side.
Each basic operation — add, subtract, multiply, divide, etc. — has to be done in machine code, so at the end of the day, some machine code routine is being invoked to compute the result of each elemental operation.
Whether is/2 is written entirely in native code or written mostly in prolog, with just the leaf operations written in native code, is pretty much an implementation choice.
here is the plus code that i don't understand
plus(0,X,X):-natural_number(X).
plus(s(X),Y,s(Z)) :- plus(X,Y,Z).
while given :
natural_number(0).
natural_number(s(X)) :- natural_number(X).
I don't understand this recursion. If I have plus(s(0),s(s(s(0))),Z) how can i get the answer of 1+3=4?
I need some explanation for the first code. I try that plus(0,X,X) will stop the recursion but I think that I do it wrong.
So, let's start with natural_number(P). Read this as "P is a natural number". We're given natural_number(0)., which tells us that 0 is always a natural number (i.e. there are no conditions that must be met for it to be a fact). natural_number(s(X)) :- natural_number(X). tells us that s(X) is a natural number if X is a natural number. This is the normal inductive definition of natural numbers, but written "backwards" as we read Prolog "Q := P" as "Q is true if P is true".
Now we can look at plus(P, Q, R). Read this as "plus is true if P plus Q equals R". We then look at the cases we're given:
plus(0,X,X) :- natural_number(X).. Read as Adding 0 to X results in X if X is a natural number. This is our inductive base case, and is the natural definition of addition.
plus(s(X),Y,s(Z)) :- plus(X,Y,Z). Read as "Adding the successor of X to Y results in the successor Z if adding X to Y is Z'. If we change the notation, we can read it algebraically as "X + 1 + Y = Z + 1 if X + Y = Z", which is very natural again.
So, to answer you direct question "If I have plus(s(0),s(s(s(0))),z), how can i get the answer of 1+3=4?", let's consider how we can unify something with z each step of the induction
Apply the second definition of plus, as it's the only one that unifies with the query. plus(s(0),s(s(s(0))), s(z')) is true if plus(0, s(s(s(0))), z') is true for some z
Now apply the first definition of plus, as it's the only unifying definition: plus(0, s(s(s(0))), z') if z' is s(s(s(0))) and s(s(s(0))) is a natural number.
Unwind the definition of natural_number a few times on s(s(s(0))) to see that is true.
So the overall statement is true, if s(s(s(0))) is unified with z' and s(z') is unified with z.
So the interpreter returns true, with z' = s(s(s(0))) and z = s(z'), i.e. z = s(s(s(s(0)))). So, z is 4.
That code is a straightforward implementation of addition in Peano arithmetic.
In Peano arithmetic, natural numbers are represented using the constant 0 and the unary function s. So s(0) is a representation of 1, s(s(s(0))) is representation of 3. And plus(s(0),s(s(s(0))),Z) will give you Z = s(s(s(s(0)))), which is a representation of 4.
You won't get numerical terms like 1+3=4, all you get is the term s/1 which can embed itself to any depth and thus can represent any natural number. You can combine such terms (using plus/3) and thereby achieve summing.
Note that your definition of plus/3 has nothing to do with SWI-Prolog's built-in plus/3 (which works with integers and not with the s/1 terms):
?- help(plus).
plus(?Int1, ?Int2, ?Int3)
True if Int3 = Int1 + Int2.
At least two of the three arguments must be instantiated to integers.