I am new to prolog.
I want my code in PROLOG to produce the expected output given below. Can some one please tell me where I am going wrong.
The code is basically to remove duplicates and produce o/p in required format.
remove_dups([],_L2,_L2).
remove_dups([A|B],L2,L3) :-
functor(A,Pr,Ar),(member(level(Pr,Ar,1) ,L2) -> remove_dups(B,L2,L2); append([level(Pr,Ar,1)],L2,L3),remove_dups(B,L3,L3)).
expected output:
?- remove_dups([a,b,a],[],L).
L = [level(a,0,1),level(b,0,1)].
For starters I would have preferred to separate the two steps: removal of duplicates and presentation of the levels.
remove_dups([],[]).
remove_dups([X|Xs],Ys) :- member(X,Xs), !, remove_dups(Xs,Ys).
remove_dups([X|Xs],[X|Ys]) :- remove_dups(Xs,Ys).
levels([],[]).
levels([X|Xs],[level(N,A,1)|Ys]):- functor(X,N,A), levels(Xs,Ys).
go(L,R):- remove_dups(L,RL), levels(RL,R).
I have to admit that the constant 1 in the level tripples puzzles me. Are you sure that it should not be somehow more meaningful?
I have also assumed that the order of the list elements is of no importance: remove_dups removes all occurrences of a duplicated element except for the last one. If you would like to keep the first occurrence, remove_dups has to be modified.
Related
I've found something about this in other questions, but mine is a bit different.
Given a string, I have to output another string with no adjacent duplicates.
E.g., given [a,a,b,b,c,d,a], my output will be [a,b,c,d,a].
Now, I've wrote the following recursive program to check if a certain given string has adjacent duplicates:
notequal(A,[]).
notequal(A,[X|S]) :- not(A=X).
noadj([]):-!.
noadj([A|S]) :- notequal(A,S), noadj(S).
How would I modify it in order to output what I described? I've tried multiple times but I'm new to prolog and I can't seem to get into its logic.
Of course, I'll need another variable, which would contain an element if notequal is true for that element.
So my idea is to iterate through the list and only add a certain term to the result if it passes the "notequal" test.
I'll edit this: I finally managed to do something like that by adding
noadjlist([X|S],[X|LS]) :- notequal(X,S), noadjlist(S,LS).
noadjlist([X|S],LS) :- noadjlist(S,LS).
noadjlist([],LS):-!.
However, my results are like:
?- noadjlist([1,2,2,3],LS).
LS = [1, 2, 3|_19316] .
why do I get that uninstantiated variable at the end?
noadjlist([],LS):-!.
should be
noadjlist([],[]):-!.
Trying to implement following predicate, which takes on input
list of lists - one list = one tested graph T (as edges)
graph G itself (as edges)
and tests whether T includes all of the vertices of G. If it does(true) should return it. Basically it's list filtering.
What I have so far is:
covb([],G).
covb([H|R],G) :-
isItCov(G,H), covb(R,G).
isItCov([],H).
isItCov([V-W|R],H) :-
vertex(V,H),
vertex(W,H),
isItCov(R,H).
vertex(V,[V-_|G]).
vertex(V,[_-V|G]).
vertex(V,[_|G]):- vertex(V,G).
For covb([[a-c,c-b,c-d]],[a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c]) works fine(true). For covb([[a-c]],[a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c]) works fine too (false). I got an issue while I call it with multiple lists like covb([[a-c,c-b,c-d],[a-c]],[a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c]). which should work only for the first one.
I actually got two questions -
Why does it work for one list only?
I want to return items of lists of lists which passed the condition and returned true (that's the filtering part). How should I do that?
First of all, your program has a number of singleton variable warnings. Do not ignore singleton variable warnings. They can hide real bugs. Also, since more experienced Prolog users here know that programs with singleton variable warnings are not even worth running, they will (a) just see the warnings and decide that they are no longer interested in trying to help you, or (b) fix the warnings on their side, but then by definition they will be working on a program that is no longer the program you posted!
Now for your questions.
Why does it work for one list only?
It's really not clear what you are asking here, or just above with "covb([[a-c,c-b,c-d],[a-c]],[a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c]). which should work only for the first one."
This query does fail:
?- covb([[a-c,c-b,c-d],[a-c]],[a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c]).
false.
This comes down to testing each of the two lists:
?- isItCov([a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c], [a-c,c-b,c-d]).
true .
?- isItCov([a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c], [a-c]).
false.
The first list does cover the graph, while the second doesn't. Overall, your definition of covb/2 is written to succeed if all lists cover the graph. This is not the case, so your covb/2 query fails.
Was this what you wanted to know?
I want to return items of lists of lists which passed the condition and returned true (that's the filtering part). How should I do that?
You could see if your Prolog's documentation has something for the word "filter". On SWI-Prolog you can do this:
?- apropos(filter).
true.
This will point you to the include/3 predicate, which seems to do what you want:
?- include(isItCov([a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c]), [[a-c,c-b,c-d],[a-c]], Covers).
Covers = [[a-c, c-b, c-d]].
If you want to write a filter predicate for your concrete application, it might look something like this:
graph_covers(_Graph, [], []).
graph_covers(Graph, [Nodes|NodesRest], Covers) :-
( isItCov(Graph, Nodes)
-> Covers = [Nodes|CoversRest]
; Covers = CoversRest ),
graph_covers(Graph, NodesRest, CoversRest).
This is similar to your predicate, it just adds an extra argument to collect those node lists for which isItCov/2 succeeded. If it did not succeed, it continues with a list not containing that current node list.
?- graph_covers([a-b,a-c,a-d,c-d,b-c], [[a-c,c-b,c-d],[a-c]], Covers).
Covers = [[a-c, c-b, c-d]] ;
false.
I am a total beginner at Prolog. I am struggling with creating a rule, which takes a list as parameter and passes the list onto another rule. Here is my code:
combine([], '').
combine([L|List], Total) :-
combine(List, CombinedRest),
atom_concat(L, CombinedRest, Total).
findHeadline([W|Words], Combined) :-
combine(Words, Combined).
findHeadline2([Words], Combined) :-
combine(Words, Combined).
findHeadline works as expected, but findHeadline2 does not. Here is the output:
1 ?- findHeadline([billig, enkeltmand], Combination).
Combination = enkeltmand.
2 ?- findHeadline2([billig, enkeltmand], Combination).
false.
The output I was expecting from findHeadline was:
Combination = billigenkeltmand.
How can it be that this does not work?
I tried to utilize trace in SWI-prolog, but it gave me no clue whatsoever, as the findHeadline rule just exits immediately and does not call the combine rule at all.
It is not very clear what it is exactly that you are after. If you just want to concatenate a list of atoms to get one atom, use atomic_list_concat/2 available in SWI-Prolog:
?- atomic_list_concat([foo, bar, baz], C).
C = foobarbaz.
At the moment, your findHeadline2/2 reads:
"Take a list containing exactly one element, and combine/2 that element."
This is not what you are after, I have the feeling.
Your findHeadline/2, on the other hand, says:
"Take a list of at least one element, and combine/2 all elements except the first".
This is important: never ever ignore compilation warnings. You get code that does something, but you can be almost certain that it does not do what you want it to do, which is bad, or that if someone else reads your code, they will be confused, which is also bad.
Hi I have to solve a problem in Prolog, that sounds like this: deletes all the sublists of a list that are increasing. For example the list [1,[2],[3,4],6] becomes [1,6].
So far I have tried this but it's not working. Any help please ?
domains
el=integer
list=el*
element=integer;list
lista=element*
goal
elim([1,[2],[3],4)],L),
write(L).
predicates
elim(lista,lista)
is_increasing(lista)
is_list(lista)
clauses
is_increasing([A,B|T]) :-
B>A,
is_increasing([B|T]).
is_list([_|_]).
is_list([]).
elim([],[]).
elim([E|Es],[E|Ts]) :-
is_list(E),
is_increasing(E),
elim(Es, Ts).
attempt to modularize your code: first write an is_increasing/1. Since it appears that a list of 1 element is increasing, you can do as simply as
is_increasing([A,B|T]) :- B > A, is_increasing([B|T]).
is_increasing([_]).
then you can use it to discard elements while copying. Beware to check that an element is a list before calling. Here is a possible definition
is_list([_|_]).
is_list([]).
edit
there is a bad declaration, as advised by mbratch
element=i(integer);l(list)
should be
element=integer;list
Also, you forgot is_increasing([_])., and anyway you're not using at all is_list or is_increasing.
The rule eliminating sublists of course should read
elim([E|Es], Ts) :- is_list(E), is_increasing(E), elim(Es, Ts).
just add the base case and a copy. i.e. elim is a 3 clauses predicate...
edit apart the rule above, you need only a base case
elim([],[]).
and a copy
elim([E|Es],[E|Ts]) :- elim(Es, Ts).
just try to understand why the order of rules is also important in Prolog...
I have a predicate "lookupOptions" which returns one by one some lists (Menus).
I'm trying to get it to satisfy the case of multiple inputs. I can return a single set of options as follows, by reading the head of the "list_places" list.
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :- lookupOptions(Restaurant,H,Menu), list_places(Town,[H|T])
But, I'm not able to get it to iterate.
I have tried a lot of things, these were my best efforts so far.
a) standard enough iteration, but it wont resolve ...
doStuff(X,[],_).
doStuff(Restaurant,[H|T],_):- lookupOptions(Resturant,H,_), doStuff(Restaurant,T,_).
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :- doStuff(Restaurant,[H|T],Menu), list_places(Town,[H|T]).
b) expanding the goal predicate ...
find_options(_,Town,[H|T],_)
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :- find_options(Restaurant,Town,[],Menu).
find_options(Restaurant,Town,X,Menu) :- list_places(Town,X).
find_options(Restaurant,Town,[H|T],Menu) :- lookupOptions(Restaurant,[H],Menu), find_options(Restaurant,Town,T,Menu).
Would either of these work ? if the pattern was written correctly. Or if there was an appropriate cut put in place?
Any help most appreciated ...
It's no clear on what you want iterate. Prolog uses backtracking to examine all alternatives, then you should start backtracking if you are after some alternative, or use the all solutions family.
Now I think you want simply declare there could be more find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu). Then try replacing the head match [H|T] with this:
find_options(Restaurant,Town,Menu) :-
lookupOptions(Restaurant,H,Menu),
list_places(Town, Places),
member(H, Places).
BTW T is a singleton in your original rule. This could be a hint for the need of generalize it.