Related
My predicate below is working as I want it to, when the number 3 occurs in a list the neighbors should be +-1 of each other, if that is the case it returns true. But when I try to use labeling to find a solution things fall apart.
So my question is if there is a way to use 'is' with labeling. I do not see another way of checking for exactly +-1 without using 'is'.
bigger(A,B):- A is B+1.
bigger(A,B):- B is A+1.
neighCheck([_]).
neighCheck([A,B,C|T]):-
(B = 3
-> bigger(A,C)
; \+bigger(A,C)),
neighCheck([C|T]).
/*returns true*/
:- neighCheck(1,3,2,3,1).
:- N = 3,length(L,N),L ins 1..N,maplist(neighCheck, L),L=[_,3,_],labeling([],L).
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...
Good Day,
I have a task (not homework), but test preparation question. Given a value of n where n > 0. I need to find out what 3**n value is. I do have something that works.
% expo
expo([],[]).
expo([X|T], [Y|Result]):-
number(X),
Y is 3 ^ X,
expo(T,Result).
expo([ThrowAway|Tail], [ThrowAway|Result]):-
expo(Tail,Result).
last([X]):-
write("M = "),
write(X).
last([Y|Tail]):-
last(Tail).
do_list(N) :-
findall(Num, between(0, N, Num), L),
expo(L, E),
last(E).
When I run this at the console:
do_list(4).
M = 81
true.
So it does give me what I want. But is a recursive solution necessary? I just want to generate a sequence of numbers and use those numbers as my exponent which I have done, but I had to create two lists to this.
Ideally, I'd like to do:
do_list(4, M).
M = 81
true.
Is this possible to do this without two lists? Is it possible without recursion? I'm new to Prolog, so it's taking me a little getting used to "thinking" in Prolog.
TIA,
coson
If you want to do something in all elements of a list then yes most of the times you need recursion (except from cases like when you use predicates like fundall/3 which does the recursion ...).
If you want to return your result in an argument and not just print it then you need for the above predicate two lists (one is the input and the other one is the output).
Though I don't understand why not just writing:
find_pow(Input,Output):-Output is 3^Input.
From what I understood you calculate 3^i for every i<=n and keep last element which could be done independently. So if I understood corrctly what you're trying to do, this could be done without using lists and recursion (if you use predefined pow function ^ else if you write a predicate that computes the power 3^n then you would use recursion... ).
Example:
?- find_pow(4,X).
X = 81.
Kindly, could you help me in the following:
I am writing a Prolog program that takes two numbers digits then combine them as one number, for example:
Num1: 5
Num2: 1
Then the new number is 51.
Assume V1 is the first number digit and V2 is the second number digit. I want to combine V1 and V2 then multiply the new number with V3, so my question is how I can do it?
calculateR(R, E, V1, V2, V3, V4):-
R is V1 V2 * V3,
E is R * V4.
Your help is appreciated.
Here is another solution that is based on the idea of #aBathologist and that relies on ISO predicates only, and does not dependent on SWI's idiosyncratic modifications and extensions. Nor does it have most probably unwanted solutions like calculateR('0x1',1,1,17). nor calculateR(1.0e+30,0,1,1.0e+300). Nor does it create unnecessary temporary atoms.
So the idea is to restrict the definition to decimal numbers:
digit_digit_number(D1, D2, N) :-
number_chars(D1, [Ch1]),
number_chars(D2, [Ch2]),
number_chars(N, [Ch1,Ch2]).
Here is a version which better clarifies the relational nature of Prolog - using library(clpfd) which is available in many Prolog systems (SICStus, SWI, B, GNU, YAP). It is essentially the same program as the one with (is)/2 except that I added further redundant constraints that permit the system to ensure termination in more general cases, too:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
digits_radix_number(Ds, R, N) :-
digits_radix_numberd(Ds, R, 0,N).
digits_radix_numberd([], _, N,N).
digits_radix_numberd([D|Ds], R, N0,N) :-
D #>= 0, D #< R,
R #> 0,
N0 #=< N,
N1 #= D+N0*R,
digits_radix_numberd(Ds, R, N1,N).
Here are some uses:
?- digits_radix_number([1,4,2],10,N).
N = 142.
?- digits_radix_number([1,4,2],R,142).
R = 10.
?- digits_radix_number([1,4,2],R,N).
R in 5..sup, 4+R#=_A, _A*R#=_B, _A in 9..sup, N#>=_A,
N in 47..sup, 2+_B#=N, _B in 45..sup.
That last query asks for all possible radices that represent [1,4,2] as a number. As you can see, not anything can be represented that way. The radix has to be 5 or larger which is not surprising given the digit 4, and the number itself has to be at least 47.
Let's say we want to get a value between 1450..1500, what radix do we need to do that?
?- digits_radix_number([1,4,2],R,N), N in 1450..1500.
R in 33..40, 4+R#=_A, _A*R#=_B, _A in 37..44,
N in 1450..1500, 2+_B#=N, _B in 1448..1498.
Gnah, again gibberish. This answer contains many extra equations that have to hold. Prolog essentially says: Oh yes, there is a solution, provided all this fine print is true. Do the math yourself!
But let's face it: It is better if Prolog gives such hard-to-swallow answer than if it would say Yes.
Fortunately there are ways to remove such extra conditions. One of the simplest is called "labeling", where Prolog will "try out" value after value:
?- digits_radix_number([1,4,2],R,N), N in 1450..1500, labeling([],[N]).
false.
That is clear response now! There is no solution. All these extra conditions where essentially false, like all that fine print in your insurance policy...
Here's another question: Given the radix and the value, what are the required digits?
?- digits_radix_number(D,10,142).
D = [1,4,2]
; D = [0,1,4,2]
; D = [0,0,1,4,2]
; D = [0,0,0,1,4,2]
; D = [0,0,0,0,1,4,2]
; ... .
So that query can never terminate, because 00142 is the same number as 142. Just as 007 is agent number 7.
Here is a straight-forward solution that should work in any Prolog close to ISO:
digits_radix_to_number(Ds, R, N) :-
digits_radix_to_number(Ds, R, 0,N).
digits_radix_to_number([], _, N,N).
digits_radix_to_number([D|Ds], R, N0,N) :-
N1 is D+N0*R,
digits_radix_to_number(Ds, R, N1,N).
?- digits_radix_to_number([1,4,2],10,R).
R = 142.
Edit: In a comment, #false pointed out that this answer is SWI-Prolog specific.
You can achieve your desired goal by treating the numerals as atoms and concatenating them, and then converting the resultant atom into a number.
I'll use atom_concat/3 to combine the two numerals. In this predicate, the third argument with be the combination of atoms in its first and second arguments. E.g.,
?- atom_concat(blingo, dingo, X).
X = blingodingo.
Note that, when you do this with two numerals, the result is an atom not a number. This is indicated by the single quotes enclosing the the result:
?- atom_concat(5, 1, X).
X = '51'.
But 51 \= '51' and we cannot multiply an atom by number. We can use atom_number/2 to convert this atom into a number:
?- atom_number('51', X).
X = 51.
That's all there is to it! Your predicate might look like this:
calculateR(No1, No2, Multiplier, Result) :-
atom_concat(No1, No2, NewNoAtom),
atom_number(NewNoAtom, NewNo),
Result is NewNo * Multiplier.
Usage example:
?- calculateR(5, 1, 3, X).
X = 153.
Of course, you'll need more if you want to prompt the user for input.
I expect #Wouter Beek's answer is more efficient, since it doesn't rely on converting the numbers to and from atoms, but just uses the assumption that each numeral is a single digit to determine the resulting number based on their position. E.g., if 5 is in the 10s place and 1 is in the 1s place, then the combination of 5 and 1 will be 5 * 10 + 1 * 1. The answer I suggest here will work with multiple digit numerals, e.g., in calculateR(12, 345, 3, Result), Result is 1234 * 3. Depending on what you're after this may or may not be a desired result.
If you know the radix of the numbers involved (and the radix is the same for all the numbers involved), then you can use the reverse index of the individual numbers in order to calculate their positional summation.
:- use_module(library(aggregate)).
:- use_module(library(lists)).
digits_to_number(Numbers1, Radix, PositionalSummation):-
reverse(Numbers1, Numbers2),
aggregate_all(
sum(PartOfNumber),
(
nth0(Position, Numbers2, Number),
PartOfNumber is Number * Radix ^ Position
),
PositionalSummation
).
Examples of use:
?- digits_to_number([5,1], 10, N).
N = 51.
?- digits_to_number([5,1], 16, N).
N = 81.
(The code sample is mainly intended to bring the idea across. Notice that I use aggregate_all/3 from SWI-Prolog here. The same could be achieved by using ISO predicates exclusively.)
Here's a snippet on the classic SENDMORY crypt-arithmetic problem solutiong using prolog constraint solving mechanism-
:- lib(ic).
sendmore(Digits) :-
Digits = [S,E,N,D,M,O,R,Y],
Digits :: [0..9],
alldifferent(Digits),
S #\= 0,
M #\= 0,
1000*S + 100*E + 10*N + D
+ 1000*M + 100*O + 10*R + E
#= 10000*M + 1000*O + 100*N + 10*E + Y,
labeling(Digits).
Now, to execute this, I would send a goal/query like this:
?- sendmore(Digits).
And that would return me the possible solutions for the digits.
Now, my question is, I do not want to sort of "hard-code" the variables (like S,E,N,...) this way, but the goal/query would give the number of variables. For example, if the query I pass is something like:
?- sendmore(S,E,N,D,M).
then, it should compute only the values of SENDM and assume that the other variables are not applicable, and hence assign 0 to those variables and then proceed with the computation. And the next time I query, I may pass a different number of variables in the query.. like example:
?- sendmore(S,N,D,M,O,Y).
and the program should compute likewise.
What I am trying to achieve is a more generalised problem solver for the above scenario. Any directions on this is really appreciated. I am quite new to prolog,and am using ECLIPSE constraint solver.
Thank You.
Here are 2 ideas:
You can define sendmore() with different numbers of parameters, which would call the "real" version with the missing ones filled in. But you couldn't have different versions with the same NUMBER of parameters but DIFFERENT ones (since Prolog matches args to parameters by position).
You could expand/complicate your list format to allow the specification of which parameters you are passing; something line [(s,S),(e,E),(n,N),(d,D),(m,M)] for your middle example. A little tedious, but gives you the flexibility you seem to want.
Normally, variables in a goal and variables in a clause head are matched by their positions, not their names. So a call ?- sendmore0([S,E,N,D,M]). should be implemented as:
sendmore0([S,E,N,D,M]) :- sendmore([S,E,N,D,M,_,_,_]).
However, this would mean that you would need to implement this for every possible combination.
If you really want to implement what you describe, then you need to give the variable stable names. In ECLiPSe, you can do this with the library var_name. It's quite a hack, though...
:- lib(var_name).
sendmore0(L) :-
build_arg(["S","E","N","D","M',"O","R","Y"], L, A),
sendmore(A).
build_arg([], _, []) :- !.
build_arg([H|T], L, [HA|HT]) :-
match_arg(L, H, HA),
build_arg(T, L, HT).
match_arg([], _, _). % or use 0 as last argument if you want
match_arg([H|T], Base, A) :-
(
get_var_name(H, S),
split_string(S,"#","",[Base,_])
->
A = H
;
match_arg(T, Base, A)
).
Then you can call sendmore0/1 with a shorter list of variables. Don't forget to set the variable names!
?- set_var_name(S, "S"), set_var_name(E, "E"), sendmore0([S, E]).
S = 9
E = 5
Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more)
Disclaimer: this is not what stable names are for. They are meant for debugging purposes. If Joachim ever sees this, he'll give me a sharp clip round the ears...