I'm attempting to write a Prolog meta-interpreter to choose the order of goal execution, for example executing first all goals with the minimum number of parameters.
I started from the vanilla meta-interpreter:
solve2(true).
solve2(A) :- builtin(A), !, A.
solve2((A,B)) :- solve2(A), solve2(B).
solve2(A) :- clause(A,B), solve2(B).
Then i went to something like
solve2(true).
solve2(A) :- builtin(A), !, A.
solve2((A,B)) :- count(A,Args), count(B,Args2), Args<Args2, solve2(A), solve2(B).
solve2((A,B)) :- count(A,Args), count(B,Args2), Args>Args2, solve2(B), solve2(A).
solve2(A) :- clause(A,B), solve2(B).
But if the 4th line is executed then the whole block B is executed before A which is wrong.
Ex. A=a(x,y), B=(b(x,y,z), c(x)) I'd like to execute c, then a, then b. - while in this method i'd get c, b and then a.
I'm thinking about transforming the goals in a list but i'm not too sure.
Any ideas?
Here is an (untested) vanilla meta interpreter, with conjunction order changed. I would be glad if you could try with your data.
solve2(true).
solve2(A) :- builtin(A), !, A.
solve2((A,B)) :- ordering(A,B, C,D), ! /* needed */, solve2(C), solve2(D).
solve2(A) :- clause(A,B), solve2(B).
ordering(A,B, C,D) :-
minargs(A, NA),
minargs(B, NB),
( NA =< NB -> C/D=A/B ; C/D=B/A ).
minargs((A,B), N) :-
minargs(A, NA),
minargs(B, NB),
!, ( NA =< NB -> N=NA ; N=NB ).
minargs(T, N) :-
functor(T, _, N).
edit I tested with this setting:
builtin(writeln(_)).
a(1):-writeln(1).
b(1,2):-writeln(2).
c(1,2,3):-writeln(3).
test :-
solve2((c(A,B,_),a(A),b(A,B))).
and got the expected output:
?- test.
1
2
3
true .
edit I had to resort to a list representation, but then it make sense to preprocess the clauses and get the right order before, then stick to plain vanilla interpreter:
test :-
sortjoin((b(A,B),a(A),c(A,B,_)), X),
solve2(X).
sortjoin(J, R) :-
findall(C-P, (pred(J, P), functor(P,_,C)), L),
sort(L, T),
pairs_values(T, V),
join(V, R).
join([C], C).
join([H|T], (H,R)) :- join(T, R).
pred((A, _), C) :-
pred(A, C).
pred((_, B), C) :-
!, pred(B, C).
pred(C, C).
where solve2((A,B)) :- ... it's the original solve2(A),solve2(B)
Related
I want to add in the DB a constant and a linked variable:
?- assertz(my(x, A))
So that in the future I can define A and get the only one entry. Sth like that:
?- assertz(my(x, A)), ..., A = 2.
?- my(A, B).
A = x,
B = 2.
Can this be done?
As I noted in the comments your idea of a link like a pointer is not the way to approach solving your problem.
A common solution is to walk the tree and construct a new tree as you walk the tree by replacing the leaf of the tree with a new leaf that contains the value from the input tree along with the associated value, what you are thinking should be linked.
Since you are somewhat new to Prolog I will do this with two examples. The first will just walk a tree and only return true when successfully walked. It can be used to understand how to walk a tree and run with gtrace to single step the code to understand it.
The second example will expand on the tree walk and add the type (link as you think) to the leaf item. The the old leaf for something simple like an atom a, will become a new leaf in the tree like (a,atom).
Also this was quickly written as a demonstration only. I am sure it will have problems if pressed into doing anything more than the single example.
:- module(example,
[
example/1
]).
example(walk) :-
Term = term_size(a(1,"Hello",'Atom',1+2,[a,$,T])),
walk(Term).
example(infer_type) :-
Term = term_size(a(1,"Hello",'Atom',1+2,[a,$,T])),
infer_type(Term,Is),
write(Is).
walk([]) :- !.
walk([T]) :- var(T), !.
walk(L) :- is_list(L), !, L = [H|T], walk(H), walk(T).
walk(T) :- compound(T), !, T =.. [_|Args], !, walk(Args).
walk(T) :- integer(T), !.
walk(T) :- var(T), !.
walk(T) :- atomic(T), !.
walk(T) :- T =.. [Arg|Args], !, walk(Arg), walk(Args).
infer_type([],[]) :- !.
infer_type([T],[(T,var)]) :- var(T), !.
infer_type(L,S) :- is_list(L), !, L = [H|T], infer_type(H,I), infer_type(T,Is), S = [I|Is].
infer_type(T,S) :- compound(T), !, T =.. [F|Args], !, infer_type(Args,Is), S =.. [F|Is].
infer_type(T,(T,integer)) :- integer(T), !.
infer_type(T,(T,var)) :- var(T), !.
infer_type(T,(T,atom)) :- atomic(T), !.
infer_type(T,S) :- T =.. [Arg|Args], !, infer_type(Arg,I), infer_type(Args,Is), S =.. [I|Is].
Example run
Note: I know there are warnings; it is a demo not production code.
Welcome to SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 8.5.3)
?- working_directory(_,'C:/Users/Groot').
true.
?- [example].
Warning: c:/users/Groot/example.pl:20:
Warning: Singleton variables: [T]
Warning: c:/users/Groot/example.pl:24:
Warning: Singleton variables: [T]
true.
?- example(walk).
true.
?- example(infer_type).
term_size(a((1,integer),(Hello,atom),(Atom,atom),(1,integer)+(2,integer),[(a,atom),(($),atom),(_25642,var)]))
true.
As an exercise I did not identify the string as a string, the change should be easy.
Assume we want to visualize this Prolog execution. No goals from the fidschi islands, or something else exotic assumed, only good old SLDNF
with the default selection rule:
p(a).
p(b).
?- \+ p(c).
Yes
But we have only a Prolog visualizer that can show derivations
without negation as failure, like here. How can we boost
the Prolog visualizer to also show negation as failure?
The good thing about negation as failure, writing a meta interpreter for negation as failure is much easier, than writing a meta interpreter for cut (!). So basically the vanilla interpreter for SLDNF can be derived from the vanilla interpreter for SLD by inserting one additional rule:
solve(true) :- !.
solve((A,B)) :- !, solve(A), solve(B).
solve((\+ A)) :- !, \+ solve(A). /* new */
solve(H) :- functor(H, F, A), sys_rule(F/A, H, B), solve(B).
We can now go on and extend solve/3 from here in the same vain. But we do something more, we also write out failure branches in the search tree, similar like Prolog visualizer does by strikethrough of a clause. So the amended solve/3 is as follows:
% solve(+Goal, +Assoc, +Integer, -Assoc)
solve(true, L, _, L) :- !.
solve((A, B), L, P, R) :- !, solve(A, L, P, H), solve(B, H, P, R).
solve((\+ A), L, P, L) :- !, \+ solve(A, L, P, _). /* new */
solve(H, L, P, R) :- functor(H, F, A), sys_rule(F/A, J, B),
callable_property(J, sys_variable_names(N)),
number_codes(P, U), atom_codes(V, [0'_|U]), shift(N, V, W),
append(L, W, M),
(H = J -> true; offset(P), write(fail), nl, fail), /* new */
reverse(M, Z), triage(M, Z, I, K),
offset(P), write_term(I, [variable_names(Z)]), nl,
O is P+1, solve(B, K, O, R).
Here is an example run:
?- ?- \+ p(c).
fail
fail
Yes
See also:
AI Algorithms, Data Structures and Idioms
CH6: Three Meta-Interpreters
Georg F. Luger - Addison-Wesley 2009
https://www.cs.unm.edu/~luger/
I am trying to write a program in Prolog to find a Latin Square of size N.
I have this right now:
delete(X, [X|T], T).
delete(X, [H|T], [H|S]) :-
delete(X, T, S).
permutation([], []).
permutation([H|T], R) :-
permutation(T, X),
delete(H, R, X).
latinSqaure([_]).
latinSquare([A,B|T], N) :-
permutation(A,B),
isSafe(A,B),
latinSquare([B|T]).
isSafe([], []).
isSafe([H1|T1], [H2|T2]) :-
H1 =\= H2,
isSafe(T1, T2).
using SWI-Prolog library:
:- module(latin_square, [latin_square/2]).
:- use_module(library(clpfd), [transpose/2]).
latin_square(N, S) :-
numlist(1, N, Row),
length(Rows, N),
maplist(copy_term(Row), Rows),
maplist(permutation, Rows, S),
transpose(S, T),
maplist(valid, T).
valid([X|T]) :-
memberchk(X, T), !, fail.
valid([_|T]) :- valid(T).
valid([_]).
test:
?- aggregate(count,S^latin_square(4,S),C).
C = 576.
edit your code, once corrected removing typos, it's a verifier, not a generator, but (as noted by ssBarBee in a deleted comment), it's flawed by missing test on not adjacent rows.
Here the corrected code
delete(X, [X|T], T).
delete(X, [H|T], [H|S]) :-
delete(X, T, S).
permutation([], []).
permutation([H|T], R):-
permutation(T, X),
delete(H, R, X).
latinSquare([_]).
latinSquare([A,B|T]) :-
permutation(A,B),
isSafe(A,B),
latinSquare([B|T]).
isSafe([], []).
isSafe([H1|T1], [H2|T2]) :-
H1 =\= H2,
isSafe(T1, T2).
and some test
?- latinSquare([[1,2,3],[2,3,1],[3,2,1]]).
false.
?- latinSquare([[1,2,3],[2,3,1],[3,1,2]]).
true .
?- latinSquare([[1,2,3],[2,3,1],[1,2,3]]).
true .
note the last test it's wrong, should give false instead.
Like #CapelliC, I recommend using CLP(FD) constraints for this, which are available in all serious Prolog systems.
In fact, consider using constraints more pervasively, to benefit from constraint propagation.
For example:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
latin_square(N, Rows, Vs) :-
length(Rows, N),
maplist(same_length(Rows), Rows),
maplist(all_distinct, Rows),
transpose(Rows, Cols),
maplist(all_distinct, Cols),
append(Rows, Vs),
Vs ins 1..N.
Example, counting all solutions for N = 4:
?- findall(., (latin_square(4,_,Vs),labeling([ff],Vs)), Ls), length(Ls, L).
L = 576,
Ls = [...].
The CLP(FD) version is much faster than the other version.
Notice that it is good practice to separate the core relation from the actual search with labeling/2. This lets you quickly see that the core relation terminates also for larger N:
?- latin_square(20, _, _), false.
false.
Thus, we directly see that this terminates, hence this plus any subsequent search with labeling/2 is guaranteed to find all solutions.
I have better solution, #CapelliC code takes very long time for squares with N length higher than 5.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
make_square(0,_,[]) :- !.
make_square(I,N,[Row|Rest]) :-
length(Row,N),
I1 is I - 1,
make_square(I1,N,Rest).
all_different_in_row([]) :- !.
all_different_in_row([Row|Rest]) :-
all_different(Row),
all_different_in_row(Rest).
all_different_in_column(Square) :-
transpose(Square,TSquare),
all_different_in_row(TSquare).
all_different_in_column1([[]|_]) :- !.
all_different_in_column1(Square) :-
maplist(column,Square,Column,Rest),
all_different(Column),
all_different_in_column1(Rest).
latin_square(N,Square) :-
make_square(N,N,Square),
append(Square,AllVars),
AllVars ins 1..N,
all_different_in_row(Square),
all_different_in_column(Square),
labeling([ff],AllVars).
I have a problem with predicate which works in that way that it takes list of atoms:
nopolfont([to,jest,tekśćik,'!'],L).
and in result
L = [to,jest,tekscik,'!'].
I have problem with make_swap and swap predicates. So far I have:
k(ś,s).
k(ą,a).
% etc.
swap(X,W) :- name(X,P), k(P,Y), !, name(Y,W).
swap(X,X).
make_swap(A,W)
:- atom(A),!,
name(A,L),
swap(L,NL),
name(W,NL).
nopolfont([],[]).
nopolfont([H|T],[NH|S]) :- make_swap(H,NH), nopolfont(T,S).
Is there any elegant way to do this?
This is also quite elegant:
polish_char_replacer(X, Y) :-
k(X, Y),
!.
polish_char_replacer(X, X).
nopolfont(Atoms1, Atoms2) :-
maplist(replace(polish_char_replacer), Atoms1, Atoms2).
replace(Goal, Atom1, Atom2) :-
atom_chars(Atom1, Chars1),
maplist(Goal, Chars1, Chars2),
atom_chars(Atom2, Chars2).
Probably as elegant as it can get:
k(ś,s).
k(ą,a).
swap(X,W) :- name(P,[X]), k(P,Y), !, name(Y,[W]).
swap(X,X).
list_swap([], []).
list_swap([H|T], [W|S]) :-
swap(H, W),
list_swap(T, S).
atom_swap(A,W) :-
atom(A), !,
name(A, L),
list_swap(L,S),
name(W, S).
nopolfont([],[]).
nopolfont([H|T],[NH|S]) :-
atom_swap(H,NH),
nopolfont(T,S).
Also, obviously define this, to get the expected result, but I assume this is in the % etc
k(ć, c).
I have a string like 'pen,pencil,eraser'. How can I make this predicate.
things(pen,pencil,eraser).
Do you have any idea? ( I use prolog)
Here's a small example of specialized Prolog code for your problem which should work on most implementations (not only SWI-Prolog, but GNU Prolog, SICStus, etc.):
make_term(Functor, StringArgs, Term) :-
split_atom(StringArgs, ',', Args),
Term =.. [Functor|Args].
split_atom(A, E, L) :-
atom_chars(A, C),
split_atom2(C, E, L).
split_atom2([], _, []).
split_atom2(C, E, [A|L]) :-
append(C0, [E|C1], C), !,
atom_chars(A, C0),
split_atom2(C1, E, L).
split_atom2(C, _, [A]) :-
atom_chars(A, C).
Testing it out:
?- make_term(things, 'pen,pencil,eraser', T).
T = things(pen, pencil, eraser).
if you use swi-prolog, you can create this first: 'things(pen,pencil,eraser)' and then use term_to_atom/2
so something like:
get_term(Term):-
atom_concat('things(','pen,pencil,eraser',Temp),
atom_concat(Temp,')',A),
term_to_atom(Term, A).