Related
Title says it all, but here we are again. Trying to append recursively to a list in Prolog, and while I have previously gotten it to work by having "temporary buffers" (via nb_setval/nb_getval) I'd like to learn how to, in a slightly more appropriate way, recursively append to lists.
I've understood Prolog works all around bindings and once something is bound it's difficult to manipulate it, so initially I sat with this, but I've understood why that does not quite work:
recursiveAppend([], _).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
append(H, [], Output),
recursiveAppend(T, Output).
That made me change the code and go to the following:
recursiveAppend([], _).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
append(H, Output, NewOutput),
recursiveAppend(T, NewOutput).
Which I had hoped would work, as it made sense to myself and apparently to others while scouring other StackOverflow questions as well. Unfortunately, calling this predicate in SWI-Prolog only returns false.
?- recursiveAppend([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], L1). false
Expected/desired result would, in this case, be:
?- recursiveAppend([1, 2, 3, 4, 5], L1). L1 = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
For the sake of clarification, the runtime of the program should look something like this if "fleshed out":
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
% H is 1, Output is []
append(H, Output, NewOutput),
% NewOutput is [1]
recursiveAppend(T, NewOutput).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
% H is 2, Output is [1]
append(H, Output, NewOutput),
% NewOutput is [1, 2]
recursiveAppend(T, NewOutput).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
% H is 3, Output is [1, 2]
append(H, Output, NewOutput),
% NewOutput is [1, 2, 3]
recursiveAppend(T, NewOutput).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
% H is 4, Output is [1, 2, 3]
append(H, Output, NewOutput),
% NewOutput is [1, 2, 3, 4]
recursiveAppend(T, NewOutput).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Output):-
% H is 5, Output is [1, 2, 3, 4]
append(H, Output, NewOutput),
% NewOutput is [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
recursiveAppend(T, NewOutput).
recursiveAppend([], _). % First argument (list) is empty, and the second argument (list) has been populated (with [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]), program done.
Any and all help is appreciated, even though this question has probably been asked a million times before!
"Recursive append" is not something that often makes sense in Prolog. The question should include information about what problem you are trying to solve. Currently it is not about that; it is about how you are trying to solve your problem. That "how" is "recursive append", but this is almost certainly not how you should really solve that problem. We could offer better help if we knew what the problem was, not how you think you want to solve it.
Taking the example from the question and the solution from https://stackoverflow.com/a/64092447/4391743:
?- recursiveAppend([1, 2, 3], Ys).
Ys = [1, 2, 3].
?- recursiveAppend(Xs, [1, 2, 3]).
Xs = [1, 2, 3] ;
% nontermination after first answer
?- recursiveAppend([1, 2, X], [A, B, 3]).
X = 3,
A = 1,
B = 2.
?- recursiveAppend([1, 2 | Rest], [A, B, 3, 4]).
Rest = [3, 4],
A = 1,
B = 2 ;
% nontermination after first answer
If this is what you want, then what you seem to want is a "list copy" predicate. Here's a shorter, faster, more complete one:
list_copy([], []).
list_copy([X | Xs], [X | Ys]) :-
list_copy(Xs, Ys).
This doesn't have the non-termination issues that the above predicate has:
?- list_copy([1, 2, 3], Ys).
Ys = [1, 2, 3].
?- list_copy(Xs, [1, 2, 3]).
Xs = [1, 2, 3].
?- list_copy([1, 2, X], [A, B, 3]).
X = 3,
A = 1,
B = 2.
?- list_copy([1, 2 | Rest], [A, B, 3, 4]).
Rest = [3, 4],
A = 1,
B = 2.
If one of the arguments is a list and the other is a variable, a new list structure will be built up and bound to this variable.
But... why do you need a new list structure at all? In pure Prolog you can't tell whether two terms are the same (i.e., sharing the same memory location) or "just" structurally equal. Neither do (or should) you usually care. (There are uses for knowledge about sharing, and about explicit copying, in non-pure Prolog, but again we don't know what you're trying to do.)
So if we can't tell whether a "copy" is indeed a copy or just "an equal term", then we don't need to copy at all. We can get the exact same behavior as above with just unification:
?- [1, 2, 3] = Ys.
Ys = [1, 2, 3].
?- Xs = [1, 2, 3].
Xs = [1, 2, 3].
?- [1, 2, X] = [A, B, 3].
X = 3,
A = 1,
B = 2.
?- [1, 2 | Rest] = [A, B, 3, 4].
Rest = [3, 4],
A = 1,
B = 2.
No copying and certainly no "recursive append" is needed to achieve unification, Prolog knows how to do unification for you.
If this is not what you want, please tell us what the actual problem is. "Recursive append" is almost certainly not it.
Prolog is a different programming paradigm. It requires you to "forget" all you know about programming and learn with an open mind. Don't try to learn Prolog while using "ordinary" variables and reaffecting different values, Prolog variables has only one value or none. They may take different values only on backtracking, and trying to find another set of values to all variables in your program that satisfies all the given predicates.
Suggest you to read books like "learn Prolog Now". Numerous tutorials from state universities are available free on the internet.
Based on your latest edit giving an example to Calling recursiveAppend, here's a code conform with the example.
recursiveAppend(X, Y) :- recursiveAppend(X, [], Y).
recursiveAppend([], X, X).
recursiveAppend([H|T], Current, Output):-
append(Current, [H], NewTemp),
recursiveAppend(T, NewTemp, Output).
Your earlier codes returned false because append expects lists as arguments. So appending an integer (item of input list) will Always fail. I created a version recursiveAppend/3 to accumulate current list in the second arg. At the end of the list, the current list becomes the final output. Will you test it further with more examples and tell us if it is working as required.
I want to sort the sublists of a list which contains integers eliminating the duplicates. Example:
[1, 2, [4, 1, 4], 3, 6, [7, 10, 1, 3, 9], 5, [1, 1, 1], 7]
=>>>
[1, 2, [1, 4], 3, 6, [1, 3, 7, 9, 10], 5, [1], 7].
I know that i have to work with functor s(but i didn't really get it).
Here is my code : (the (insert+sorting) function works in a simple list of integers,but don't work here. i'm getting red false everytime)
insert(E,[],[E]).
insert(E,[H|T],[H|L]):-
E>H,
insert(E,T,L).
insert(E,[H|T],[H|T]):-
E=H,
!.
insert(E,[H|T],[E|[H|T]]):-
E<H,
!.
sort([],[]).
sort([i(H)|T],L):-
sort(T,L1),
insert(i(H),L1,L).
You could try a solution like this, it uses the the sort/2 predicate to sort sublists:
sort_sublists([], []).
sort_sublists([X|Xs], List) :-
(integer(X) ->
List = [X | List1]
;
sort(X, Sorted),
List = [Sorted | List1]
),
sort_sublists(Xs, List1).
Example call:
?- set_prolog_flag(answer_write_options,[max_depth(0)]).
true.
?- sort_sublists([1, 2, [4, 1, 4], 3, 6, [7, 10, 1, 3, 9], 5, [1, 1, 1], 7], X).
X = [1,2,[1,4],3,6,[1,3,7,9,10],5,[1],7].
#Eduard Adrian it's hard to answer in comments, so first thing you need to do is to remove duplicates from the nested lists.
Here i tried that and you can see different cases that you need to handle. One example:(Head of your list can be a list but it's tail will be empty this happends if last element of your list is a list) in that case you need to define another predicate which will match your recursive call.
Once you have removed duplicates you can use simple sorting algorithm but you have to check if the head is a list then you sort innner list first and place it to the same place otherwise call sort predicate.
As you asked how check if an element is_list or integer, for that you can always use built-in because those predicates you can't write by yourself.
So I'm experimenting with some stuff. I have the following simple predicate:
insert([],Y,[Y]).
insert([H|T],Y,[H,Y|T]).
So this'll insert my element Y into my list. However this always puts it in the same place, which is in the middle. But say I wanted it to be more like the following:
?- insert([1,2,3], 4, Zs).
should succeed four times and give the following answers:
Zs = [4, 1, 2, 3]
Zs = [1, 4, 2, 3]
Zs = [1, 2, 4, 3]
Zs = [1, 2, 3, 4].
How would I modify my predicate accordingly?
another useful builtin, extended in SWI-Prolog to handle insertion as well as selection:
?- nth1(_,X,a,[1,2,3]).
X = [a, 1, 2, 3] ;
X = [1, a, 2, 3] ;
X = [1, 2, a, 3] ;
X = [1, 2, 3, a] ;
false.
just ignore first argument (the index itself)
If you want to find possible position of an element in a list, then you have to find all possible concatenation of this list containing the element to insert. This can be described using append/3 predicate:
insert(X,Y,Z):- append(A, B, X), append(A, [Y|B], Z).
This predicate states that exists a concatenation of two sublist that returns list X, and this two sublist concatenated with the value Y in the head of the second sublist, returns list Z.
?- insert([1,2,3], 4, Z).
Z = [4, 1, 2, 3]
Z = [1, 4, 2, 3]
Z = [1, 2, 4, 3]
Z = [1, 2, 3, 4]
false
I just made up a program, doing following task: "Get elements, which values are equal to their indexes".
Here is the code:
% get element's index
get_index([Element|_], Element, 0).
get_index([_|T], Element, Index) :-
get_index(T, Element, Index1),
Index is Index1+1.
index_equals_to_element(List, List2) :-
member(X, List),
get_index(List, X, Index),
Index =:= X,
append([], [X], List2).
It works pretty well. But there is one problem. For list [0, 3, 2, 4, 0] my predicate index_equals_to_element returns [0, 2, 0].
Okay, let it happen. But when I'm trying to output only unique elements, I'm getting the same list without any changes. Example:
?- index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], List).
% Outputs [0, 2, 0]
?- sort(List, List2).
% Outputs [0, 2, 0] either, when expected [0, 2]
It's very strange for me, because this works fine:
?- sort([0, 2, 1, 0], List).
% Outputs [0, 1, 2].
Why sort doesn't work only with the list, generated by my predicate?
A simple solution is:
index_equals_to_element(List1, List2) :-
% assume that list position index starts at 0
index_equals_to_element(List1, 0, List2).
index_equals_to_element([], _, []).
index_equals_to_element([X| Xs], Index, List2) :-
NextIndex is Index + 1,
( X == Index ->
List2 = [X| Tail],
index_equals_to_element(Xs, NextIndex, Tail)
; index_equals_to_element(Xs, NextIndex, List2)
).
Example call:
?- index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], List).
List = [0, 2].
I suggest you study it by using the trace feature of your Prolog system by typing the query:
?- trace, index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], List).
Step trough the execution until is the predicate definition is clear for you.
Your index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], List). doesn't output [0, 2, 0] as you claim, but gives three answers [0], [2] and [0]:
?- index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], List).
List = [0] ;
List = [2] ;
List = [0] ;
false.
You can use findall to get what you want:
?- findall(X, index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], [X]), List).
List = [0, 2, 0].
Update. Here is what I think a better implementation of index_equals_to_element/2:
index_equals_to_element(List, List2) :-
index_equals_to_element(List, 0, List2).
index_equals_to_element([], _, []).
index_equals_to_element([X | Rest], I, Rest2) :-
Inext is I + 1,
index_equals_to_element(Rest, Inext, NewRest),
( X =:= I ->
Rest2 = [X | NewRest]
;
Rest2 = NewRest
).
Test run:
?- index_equals_to_element([0, 3, 2, 4, 0], List).
List = [0, 2].
?- index_equals_to_element([0, 1, 2, 2, 4, 5], List).
List = [0, 1, 2, 4, 5].
The other answers are best for learning the nuts and bolts of Prolog. But here's a more concise (but also easier to grok) solution using the higher-order predicate findall/3 and nth0/3 from the SWI-Prolog library(lists):
elements_equal_to_index(List, Elements) :-
findall(Index, nth0(Index, List, Index), Elements).
Edit:
As #Paulo Moura pointed out in a comment, the above answer is only equivalent to the others offered here if all argument are instantiated. I.e., if the above encounters a free variable in the list, I will bind that variable to its index in the list instead of rejecting it as an unsatisfactory element. The addition of a test for strong equality between the index and the list element should make the answer conform:
elements_equal_to_index(List, Elements) :-
findall( Index,
( nth0(Index, List, Elem),
Elem == Index ),
Elements
).
I'm new in Prolog world. I want to find out if a permutation is 'one-cycle'.
I'm trying to write a predicate to generate cycle from permutation. Here is my code (not working):
find_next([E|_], [N|_], E, N).
find_next([_|L1], [_|L2], E, N) :-
find_next(L1, L2, E, N).
find_cycle(L1, L2, E, C) :-
append(C, [E], C1),
find_next(L1, L2, E, N),
find_cycle(L1, L2, N, C1).
Permutations are represented by two lists (for example: [1, 2, 3, 4], [3, 4, 2, 1]).
find_next generates next cycle element (N) for element (E) (for example: E=1, N=3).
find_cycle looks for cycle (C) starting from element E.
Unfortunately I don't know how to stop my recurrence when find_next returns N same as first element of cycle C.
EDIT: some examples.
find_cycle([1, 2, 3, 4], [3, 4, 2, 1], 1, X).
should return:
X = [1, 3, 2, 4];
false.
and:
find_cycle([1, 2, 3, 4], [4, 2, 1, 3], 1, X).
should return:
X = [1, 4, 3];
false.
Why?
It is simple decomposition of permutation into disjointed cycles.
Let's analyze second permutation: [1, 2, 3, 4], [4, 2, 1, 3].
Take first element: 1.
1 goes into 4
4 goes into 3
3 goes into 1
end of cycle.
This permutation is not decomposable into one cycle (length of generated cycle is smaller than length of permutation).
To find all the cycles of the permutation:
perm_to_cycles(Perm, NPerm, Cycles):-
perm_struct(Perm, NPerm, PermS),
perm_to_cycles(PermS, [], [], Cycles),
!.
perm_to_cycles([], _, Cycles, Cycles).
%perm_to_cycles([p(Id, Id)|PermS], _, InCycles, Cycles):-
% perm_to_cycles(PermS, [], InCycles, Cycles). % This clause would remove fixed elements
perm_to_cycles([p(Id, Item)|PermS], Cycle, InCycles, Cycles):-
(select(p(Item, NId), PermS, NPermS) ->
perm_to_cycles([p(Item, NId)|NPermS], [Id|Cycle], InCycles, Cycles) ;
(
reverse([Id|Cycle], RCycle),
perm_to_cycles(PermS, [], [RCycle|InCycles], Cycles)
)
).
perm_struct([], [], []).
perm_struct([Item|Perm], [NItem|NPerm], [p(Item, NItem)|PermS]):-
perm_struct(Perm, NPerm, PermS).
The commented clause would remove fixed elements of list of cycles.
To get only one-cycle permutations you can constrain the third argument to be a one-element list. For example:
?- perm_to_cycles([1, 2, 3, 4], [3, 4, 2, 1], [X]).
X = [1, 3, 2, 4]
?- perm_to_cycles([1, 2, 3, 4], [4, 2, 1, 3], [X]).
false.
?- perm_to_cycles([1, 2, 3, 4], [4, 2, 1, 3], X).
X = X = [[2], [1, 4, 3]].
-Hi Dave, here is my solution to the problem. I followed your instructions like 1 goes to 4 , 4 goes to 3 etc and here is what I came up with. First I create arcs between the elements of the two lists(permutations) and then I simply move through the created graph using find_cycle (until our nodes start repeating ). I tried to use variable names that are self explanatory but if have hard time understanding the code let me know.
create_arcs([],[],[]).
create_arcs([H|T],[H1|T1],[arc(H,H1)|RezArc]) :- create_arcs(T,T1,RezArc).
find_cycle(Perm,Perm2,E,X) :- create_arcs(Perm,Perm2,Arcs),
find_cycle(E,Arcs,[],X).
find_cycle(StartNode,Arcs,LocRez,LocRez) :- member(arc(StartNode,NextNode),Arcs),
member(StartNode,LocRez).
find_cycle(StartNode,Arcs,LocRez,FinalRez) :- member(arc(StartNode,NextNode),Arcs),
not(member(StartNode,LocRez)),
append(LocRez,[StartNode],LocRezNew),
find_cycle(NextNode,Arcs,LocRezNew,FinalRez).