I'm trying to write a prolog program that determines whether one list is a permutation of another. Input is of the form perm(L,M), which will be true if and only if list L is a permutation of list M.
This is for my AI class, so I cannot just use the nifty little permutation predicate that gprolog already provides. Our professor noted that the member predicate might be useful, but any ideas I have that involve it seem to require very tricky and not-so-declarative things (and I'm assuming there is a way to solve this without getting too advanced, since the class is new to prolog.)
Anyway, one way to check would supposedly be to see that L and M are the same size, each L element is in M, and each M element is in L (there's a use of member!). However, this wouldn't be enough for cases like [2,2,4] and [4,4,2], among others.
Another way could be to ensure that the same counts of each element are in the opposite list, but my impression of prolog is that any kind of variable 'memory' is rather difficult business (in fact, it seems that the example programs I see that perform sorts, etc., aren't really manipulating data at all; they're just 'hypothetically' rearranging things and then telling you yes or no...?)
Mentally, one could just sort both lists and check elements side-by-side, but that, among tons of other ways to think of it, seems a little too object-oriented...
Any hints? My biggest trouble seems to be (as mentioned) the fact that doing "operations" seems to be more like asking about them and hoping that things stay true long enough to get where you want.
**UPDATE: gprolog does offer a delete functionality, but it comes with the declarative-related trouble I was expecting, given an attempt like this:
perm([LH|LT], R) :- member(LH,R), delete([LH|LT],LH,R), perm(LT,R).
In the manual, delete is defined like this: "delete(List1, Element, List2) removes all occurrences of Element in List1 to provide List2. A strict term equality is required, cf. (==)/2"
Execution:
{trace}
| ?- perm([1,2,3],[3,1,2]).
1 1 Call: perm([1,2,3],[3,1,2]) ?
2 2 Call: member(1,[3,1,2]) ?
2 2 Exit: member(1,[3,1,2]) ?
3 2 Call: delete([1,2,3],1,[3,1,2]) ?
3 2 Fail: delete([1,2,3],1,[3,1,2]) ?
2 2 Redo: member(1,[3,1,2]) ?
2 2 Fail: member(1,[3,1,2]) ?
1 1 Fail: perm([1,2,3],[3,1,2]) ?
(1 ms) no
**UPDATE 2: I think I might have figured it out! It's kind of verbose, but I have tested it for quite a few cases and haven't found a bad one yet. If someone sees a major issue, please point it out:
perm([],[]).
perm([LH|LT],R) :- length([LH|LT],A), length(R,B), A == B, member(LH,R), select(LH,[LH|LT],X), select(LH,R,Y), perm_recurse(X, Y), !.
perm_recurse([],X). %If we get here, all elements successfully matched
perm_recurse([LH|LT],R) :- member(LH,R), select(LH,[LH|LT],X), select(LH,R,Y), perm_recurse(X, Y), !.
I do like the cut operator..
Always good to define more general predicate and use it in a narrowed fashion:
perm(X,L):- mselect(X,L,[]).
mselect([A|B],L,R):- select(A,L,M), mselect(B,M,R).
mselect([],L,L).
member is no good as it leaves the second list unchanged. delete is no good either as it deletes the multiplicities.
You could use append though. :) It too combines picking and removing:
perm([A|B],L):- length(L,N), between(0,N,I),length(X,I),
append(X,[A],Y), append(Y,Z,L),
append(X,Z,M), perm(B,M).
perm([],[]).
perm(L, M) :- sort(L, X), sort(M, X).
This gets you pretty close and is fully declarative ("two lists are permutations of each other if they have the same sorted representation", but sorting in Prolog removes duplicates). However, it will succeed for cases like perm([1,2], [2,2,2,1]) which I'm not sure if you want. It will handle [2,2,4] and [4,4,2] though, since they both sort to [2,4]. Another solution would be something like this:
perm([], []).
perm([L|Ls], M) :- select(L, M, Ms), !, perm(Ls, Ms).
This version won't succeed for [2,2,4] and [4,4,2], but it will properly fail for [1,2] and [2,2,2,1]. I'm not sure which one you want, but I think one or the other of these is probably correct.
The usual model to follow is inductive.
If you know how to build all permutation of N-1 elements, then all permutations of N elements are obtained inserting the element in all available positions.
A 'trick of the trade' is using the select/3 builtin, that, like member, 'peek' an element, but removes it from the list and 'returns' the smaller list. Those verbs are not really appropriate for Prolog. Let's say that select/3 is a relation among an element, a list containing it, and an identical list where it's missing.
Then let Prolog do all the search... The resulting code is really tiny...
just sort both lists and compare result
Related
I currently working on some prolog problems, one is "subBag(x, y) tests whether x, considered as a bag, is a subbag of y". My code doesn't work at all and always true. Here is my code.
delete(X,[],[]).
delete(X,[X|T],T).
delete(X,[H|T],[H|Result]):-
delete(X,T,Result).
subBag([],[]).
subBag([],[H|T]).
subBag([X|S],[H|T]):-
member(X,[H|T]),
delete(X,[H|T],Result),
subBag(S,Result).
Thank you.
What is a subbag? I take that to mean, all the items in the subbag are present in at least the same quantities as they are in the containing bag. To state it inductively, let's break it into two cases: the case where I have an empty list. Is that a subbag? Yes, of any list:
subbag([], Bag) :- is_list(Bag).
Now, the inductive case. Let's break the subbag into an item and the rest of the subbag. If this item can be removed from the containing bag, and the rest form a subbag of the remainder from the containing bag, then we have a subbag. Like so:
subbag([X|Subbag], Bag) :-
select(X, Bag, RemainingBag),
subbag(Subbag, RemainingBag).
The magic predicate select/3 is a hugely useful utility here, allowing you in one statement to say X is in Bag, and the rest of the bag is in RemainingBag. This kind of situation seems to come up all the time in processing lists in Prolog. (Note that in the SWI Prolog documentation, there is often a little orange :- icon next to the name, which will take you to the source code for that predicate, in case you've been given a stupid requirement not to use a built-in predicate by a clueless professor.)
I want to warn you that the efficiency of this solution is not great, but I actually think the nature of this problem might just be that way. The number of solutions you'll obtain from an query (like subbag(X, [1,2,3,4,5])) is going to be large; I found it to be essentially the number of permutations of a set, using the OEIS (sequence A000522).
I dont understand completely how your code should work, but i think that there is for sure too much splitting into head and tail in places where it is not necessary.
Maybe this predicate will help you to solve your problem.
isSublist(Sublist,List) :-
append([_,Sublist,_],List).
This predicate uses append/2 build-in predicate, read about it here
I need to define a predicate calculator/2 that takes a list of English arithmetic expressions and yields a numerical result. The system should be able to handle numbers 1-20.
Example executions:
?- calculator([three,times,two],Total).
Total=6
yes
?- calculator([twenty,times,three,plus,five,divided_by,two], Total).
Total = 32.5
This is an extremely hard task for somebody who said "This is my first time experiencing prolog and I don't even know where to start."
I'll give you some things to start, but you really need to work through some Prolog tutorials (I've found 'Learn Prolog Now', mentioned by #mbratch in the comments, very good) to be able to do the task.
First, you can define some Prolog facts about number names (since you only have to handle only numbers 1-20, you can simply enumerate all he possibilities):
number(one, 1).
number(two, 2).
...
number(twenty, 20).
Then you can define some predicates that work for just two numbers:
calculator([A, plus, B], Result) :-
number(A, ValA), number(B, ValB), Result is ValA + ValB.
calculator([A, times, B], Result) :-
number(A, ValA), number(B, ValB), Result is ValA * ValB.
Judging from your example precedence rules of the operators are not used. Then if the list contains more than 2 numbers (more than 3 entries), you can apply above predicates to the first three list entries, and proceed recursively.
Hope you can continue from here after working through some Prolog tutorials.
I have this very simple problem: write a Prolog program that implement the append Prolog function, that concatenate two strings and that work in the following way:
append([a,b],[c,d],X). ---> X = [a,b,c,d]
append([a,b],X,[a,b,c,d]). ---> X = [c,d]
append([a,b],[X,d],[a,b,c,d]). ---> X=c
append(X,Y,[a,b,c,d]). ---> X=[] and Y=[a,b,c,d)
So I have the following two solutions and I am not so sure if my declarative interpretation is correct:
1) SOLUTION 1:
myappend1([],L,L).
myappend1([X|L1],L2,[X|L3]) :- myappend1(L1,L2,L3).
I think that I can read it in a declarative way as following:
The fact say that: if the first list (L1) is empty and the second list (L2) is not empty then it is TRUE that the concatenation of L1*L2 is L2
If the fact it is not true it means that the first list is not empty and so the concatenation of the first list and the second list it is not true that is the second list
So, let me call the first list L1, the second list L2 and the third list L3 then the rule responds TRUE if L3 is the concatenation of L1 and L2, false otherwise
I think that the declarative meaning of this rule is that: the head of the rule is true if the body of the rule is true.
In the head extract the first X element from the L1 list and from L3 list (and try to unify, if it matching go ahead, otherwise it means that the third list it is not the concatenation for the first and the second list)
In the body call the function on the first list without X element, the second list and the L3 list (that represent the concatenation)
When it reach the base case in which I have the demonstrated fact myappend1([],L,L). that is true, the program do backtracking at the previous past and because the X element of the first list unified with the X element of the third list it can do that also this computational pass it is TRUE and go back until reach the first assertion
Is this a correct declarative interpretation?
2) SECOND SOLUTION:
myappend2([],L,L).
myappend2(L1,L2,L3) :- L1=[X|T], % Dimostra questo predicato AND
L3=[X|L4], % Dimostra questo predicato AND
myappend2(T,L2,L4). % Dimostra questa funzione
As in the previous solution the fact simply say that: if the first list (L1) is empty and the second list (L2) is not empty then it is TRUE that the concatenation of L1*L2 is L2
If the fact it is not true it means that the first list is not empty and so the concatenation of the first list and the second list it is not true that is the second list
If the fact it is not true Prolog call the rule and this rule means that: the head of the rule is true if the body of the rule is true.
In this case I can read it in this way:
The concatenation of L1 and L2 is L3 is TRUE if it is true that:
The current first X element of L1 unifies with the current first element of concatenation list and myappend2 called on the first sublist, L2 and the third sublist it is true
Is it correct?
for me it is so difficult reasoning in declarative way :-(
Like last time, you're adding restrictions that aren't present in the code. Don't feel bad about it, Prolog is very different and it will take time to get used to it.
Let's start.
append([], L, L).
You said:
If the first list (L1) is empty and the second list (L2) is not empty then it is TRUE that the concatenation of L1*L2 is L2
In fact this rule says nothing about whether L2 is empty--or even a list!--or not. It simply says that the empty list appended to something else is that something else. Observe:
?- append([], foo, X).
X = foo.
The declarative reading here is "the empty list appended to L is L."
If the fact it is not true it means that the first list is not empty and so the concatenation of the first list and the second list it is not true that is the second list
Yes, this is correct, but Prolog isn't probing that deeply into the body. It just says "the first list is not empty, so this rule does not match; moving on."
The next rule:
myappend1([X|L1], L2, [X|L3]) :- myappend1(L1,L2,L3).
Your commentary seems excessively complex to me. I would say that this rule says: "myappend1 of the list [X followed by L1] to L2 is the list [X followed by L3], if myappend1 of the list L1 to L2 is L3." The consequences of this reading, however, are exactly as you describe.
Your understanding of what is happening in the first version is, therefore, correct.
The second solution is, mechanically, exactly the same as the first solution. The only difference is that we have moved the unification from the head of the clause into the body. This version is, to my eyes, clearly inferior, because all it has done is create extra work for the reader.
I think the problem you're having, so far, is that your declarative reasoning is intimately tied up with Prolog's engine of computation. A purer declarative reading like the ones I have supplied are simpler and look more like what the Prolog is saying (and have less to do with how it is evaluated).
It will take practice for you to separate these notions, but I think it will help you get better (clearly it's something you're concerned about). In the meantime there's nothing wrong with coming here and asking for help like you've been doing when you get confused. :)
Let me know if I can help more!
When you try to figure out the declarative meaning of a predicate, you are asking: For which solutions does this predicate hold?
Prolog's1 clauses contribute to the set of solutions independently. So making any connections between the clauses needs some extra scrutiny. It is very easy to make some assumptions that are not the case:
myappend1([],L,L).
If the fact it is not true it means that the first list is not empty and so ...
Consider a goal, myappend1([],[],[a]). The fact does not apply, still the first list is empty. Here, you are attempting to operationalize the meaning of the clause. It is very tempting to do this since the largest part of programming languages can only be understood by imagining how something happens step-by-step. The difficulty in Prolog lies in trying to ignore such details, without entirely ignoring procedural aspects.
myappend1([X|L1],L2,[X|L3]) :- myappend1(L1,L2,L3).
To read rules, in particular recursive rules, it is helpful to look at the :- which is a 1970s rendering of ← . So it is an arrow, but it goes from right-to-left. Therefore, you can read this rules as follows, starting with the right-hand-side:
Provided that myappend(L1,L2,L3) holds, now cross the :- over to the left side also myappend([X|L1],L2,[X|L3]) holds.
Sometimes, an even better way to read such a rule is to cover the head completely and ask
??? :- myappend1(L1,L2,L3).
Assume, I know some L1, L2, L3 that hold for myappend1(L1,L2,L3). what can I conclude out of this? Is there anything interesting? Is there anything related I can construct easily out of those 3 values?
This is something which is in the beginning a bit revolting, because you might say: But how do I know that such exists? Well, you don't. You are only assuming it exists. If it will never exist, then you will never be able to make that conclusion.
Many try to read the rules left-to-right, but while Prolog is actually executing them left-to-right, the meaning they cover is easier to understand going in the direction of the conclusion. When Prolog executes a rule left-to-right it does not know if this will work out or not. So the execution might be of entirely speculative nature. Think of append(L1,[z],[a,b,c,d,e]). Here, Prolog will apply this rule for each element of the list. But all such application is in vain. That is, ultimately it will fail.
Fine print
1 Actually, the pure, monotonic subset of Prolog.
I have a standard procedure for determining membership of a list:
member(X, [X|_]).
member(X, [_|T]) :- member(X, T).
What I don't understand is why when I pose the following query:
?- member(a,[a,b]).
The result is
True;
False.
I would have thought that on satisfying the goal using the first rule (as a is the head of the list) True would be returned and that would be the end of if. It seems as if it is then attempting to satisfy the goal using the second rule and failing?
Prolog interpreter is SWI-Prolog.
Let's consider a similar query first: [Edit: Do this without adding your own definition ; member/2 is already defined]
?- member(a,[b,a]).
true.
In this case you get the optimal answer: There is exactly one solution. But when exchanging the elements in the list we get:
?- member(a,[a,b]).
true
; false.
Logically, both are just the affirmation that the query is true.
The reason for the difference is that in the second query the answer true is given immediately upon finding a as element of the list. The remaining list [b] does not contain a fitting element, but this is not yet examined. Only upon request (hitting SPACE or ;) the rest of the list is tried with the result that there is no further solution.
Essentially, this little difference gives you a hint when a computation is completely finished and when there is still some work to do. For simple queries this does not make a difference, but in more complex queries these open alternatives (choicepoints) may accumulate and use up memory.
Older toplevels always asked if you want to see a further solution, even if there was none.
Edit:
The ability to avoid asking for the next answer, if there is none, is extremely dependent on the very implementation details. Even within the same system, and the same program loaded you might get different results. In this case, however, I was using SWI's built-in definition for member/2 whereas you used your own definition, which overwrites the built-in definition.
SWI uses the following definition as built-in which is logically equivalent to yours but makes avoiding unnecessary choice points easier to SWI — but many other systems cannot profit from this:
member(B, [C|A]) :-
member_(A, B, C).
member_(_, A, A).
member_([C|A], B, _) :-
member_(A, B, C).
To make things even more complex: Many Prologs have a different toplevel that does never ask for further answers when the query does not contain a variable. So in those systems (like YAP) you get a wrong impression.
Try the following query to see this:
?- member(X,[1]).
X = 1.
SWI is again able to determine that this is the only answer. But YAP, e.g., is not.
Are you using the ";" operator after the first result then pushing return? I believe this is asking the query to look for more results and as there are none it is coming up as false.
Do you know about Prolog's cut - !?
If you change member(X, [X|_]). to member(X, [X|_]) :- !. Prolog will not try to find another solution after the first one.
I am new to Prolog and I have some probably simple issue with a piece of code. This is a real world problem that arose last Friday and believe me this is not a CS Homework.
We want to print business cards and these can only be printed in blocks of 900 cards (100 sheets with 9 cards per sheet). The cards for anybody should not be distributed over several blocks. People ordered different amount of cards, E.G:
% "braucht" is german and means "needs"
braucht(anton,400).
braucht(berta,200).
braucht(claudia,400).
braucht(dorothee,100).
braucht(edgar,200).
braucht(frank,400).
braucht(georg,100).
I put together the following definition to find an appropriate block of 900 business cards:
block(0,[]).
block(N,[H|T]) :-
braucht(H,Nh),
% \+(member(H,T)),
D is N - Nh,
D >= 0,
block(D,T).
This produces a nice list of blocks of people whose cards fit together on a 900 cards block. But it stops working if I activate the commented line "\+member...." and just gives me a "false". But I need to assure that nobody is getting more than once on that block. What am I doing wrong here?
It seems that what you want to achieve is to set a constraint that H does not appear in the tail T of the list. However, T is still unbound when you call member/2, so that member(H, T) will succeed and hence \+ member(H,T) will fail.
If you don't want to use Constraint Programming, but use pure Prolog instead, you should use the check in the other direction and check whether H is already present in the list of people that has been aggregated up to that point. Something like:
block(0, List, List).
block(N, Rest, List) :-
braucht(H, Nh),
\+(memberchk(H, Rest)), % will fail when H is already in Rest
D is N-Nh,
D >= 0,
block(D, [H|Rest], List).
The predicate block/3 can be called from a predicate block/2:
block(N, List) :-
block(N, [], List).
If the second argument in your block predicate is the "output", then your problem is that T is a free variable, so member(_,T) will always succeed. For instance:
?- member(anton,T).
T = [anton|_]
T = [_,anton|_]
T = [_,_,anton|_]
and so on...