Related
Lets consider I have two terms T1 and T2. I unified two terms and got result.
My question is: If I change places of terms and unify terms T2 and T1 - whether result will be the same or different?
I tried to change terms and got the same result. But in theory I can read: in Prolog sequence is important.
So how do you think - is the result the same or different and why?
A difference that shows simply by replacing X = Y by Y = X is highly unlikely.
As long as you consider syntactic unification (using the occurs-check) or rational tree unification, the only differences might be some minimal performance differences.
More visible differences are surfacing when going beyond these well defined relations:
when mixing both, unification may not terminate. I can only give you somewhat related examples in SWI and Scryer:
?- X = s(X), unify_with_occurs_check(X, s(X)).
X = s(X).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(X, s(X)), X = s(X).
false.
Above, commutativity of goals is broken. But then, we are mixing two incompatible theories with one another. So, we can't really complain.
?- Y = s(Y), unify_with_occurs_check(X-X,s(X)-Y).
false.
?- Y = s(Y), unify_with_occurs_check(X-X,Y-s(X)).
Y = s(Y), X = s(Y) % Scryer
| Y = X, X = s(X). % SWI
And here we just exchange the order of arguments. It is general intuition that exchanging (consistently) arguments of a functor should not produce a difference, but helas, here again the incompatible mix is the culprit.
when constraints and side-effects are involved. Still, I fail to produce such a case just replacing X = Y by Y = X.
I try to understand prolog right now. I want to give the input: convert(s(s(s(X))),Y) and the output should be Y = 3.
convert(s(0), 1).
convert(s(s(0)), 2).
convert(s(X),Y) :- convert(X,Y is (Y+1)).
Those are my rules right now, but only the inputs:
convert(s(0), 1). And
convert(s(s(0)), 2). work.
If my recursion would work right, I wouldn't need the rule: convert(s(s(0)), 2).
Can someone help me with that problem?
There are two problems here:
Y is Y+1, does not makes any sense in Prolog; and
note that you here actually have written a functor.
Prolog sees this as a call:
convert(X,is(Y,Y+1))
where is(Y,Y+1) is not called, but passed as a functor. In Prolog there is no clear input and output. You call predicates and through unification, you obtain results.
We can however solve the problem by using recursion: the convert/2 of 0 is of course 0:
convert(0,0).
and the convert of an s(X), is the convert of X plus one:
convert(s(X),R) :-
convert(X,Y),
R is Y+1.
Or putting these together:
convert(0,0).
convert(s(X),R) :-
convert(X,Y),
R is Y+1.
Now we can call the predicate to list all Peano numbers and the corresponding number, as well as converting a Peano number into a number. We can also validate if a Peano number is a normal number.
Unfortunately we can not use this predicate to obtain the Peano number from a given number: it will unify with the Peano number, but in a attempt to look for another Peano number, will get stuck into an infinite loop.
We can use the clpfd library to help us with this:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
convert(0,0).
convert(s(X),R) :-
R #> 0,
Y #= R-1,
convert(X,Y).
I'm trying to find a way to set the type of a variable before it has been bound to a value. Unfortunately, the integer/1 predicate cannot be used for this purpose:
%This goal fails if Int is an unbound variable.
get_first_int(Int,List) :-
integer(Int),member(Int,List),writeln(Int).
I wrote a predicate called is_int that attempts to check the type in advance, but it does not work as I expected. It allows the variable to be bound to an atom instead of an integer:
:- initialization(main).
%This prints 'a' instead of 1.
main :- get_first_int(Int,[a,b,c,1]),writeln(Int).
get_first_int(Int,List) :-
is_integer(Int),member(Int,List).
is_integer(A) :- integer(A);var(A).
Is it still possible to set the type of a variable that is not yet bound to a value?
In SWI-Prolog I have used when/2 for similar situations. I really don't know if it is a good idea, it definitely feels like a hack, but I guess it is good enough if you just want to say "this variable can only become X" where X is integer, or number, or atom and so on.
So:
will_be_integer(X) :- when(nonvar(X), integer(X)).
and then:
?- will_be_integer(X), member(X, [a,b,c,1]).
X = 1.
But I have the feeling that almost always you can figure out a less hacky way to achieve the same. For example, why not just write:
?- member(X, [a,b,c,1]), integer(X).
???
Specific constraints for integers
In addition to what Boris said, I have a recommendation for the particular case of integers: Consider using CLP(FD) constraints to express that a variable must be of type integer. To express only this quite general requirement, you can post a CLP(FD) constraint that necessarily holds for all integers.
For example:
?- X in inf..sup.
X in inf..sup.
From this point onwards, X can only be instantiated to an integer. Everything else will yield a type error.
For example:
?- X in inf..sup, X = 3.
X = 3.
?- X in inf..sup, X = a.
ERROR: Type error: `integer' expected, found `a' (an atom)
Declaratively, you can always replace a type error with silent failure, since no possible additional instantiation can make the program succeed if this error arises.
Thus, in case you prefer silent failure over this type error, you can obtain it with catch/3:
?- X in inf..sup, catch(X = a, error(type_error(integer,_),_), false).
false.
CLP(FD) constraints are tailor-made for integers, and let you express also further requirements for this specific domain in a convenient way.
Case-specific advice
Let us consider your specific example of get_first_int/2. First, let us rename it to list_first_integer/3 so that it is clear what each argument is, and also to indicate that we fully intend to use it in several directions, not just to "get", but also to test and ideally to generate lists and integers that are in this relation.
Second, note that this predicate is rather messy, since it impurely depends on the instantiation of the list and integer, a property which cannot be expressed in first-order logic but rather depends on something outside of this logic. If we accept this, then one quite straight-forward way to do what you primarily want is to write it as:
list_first_integer(Ls, I) :-
once((member(I0, Ls), integer(I0))),
I = I0.
This works as long as the list is sufficiently instantiated, which implicitly seems to be the case in your examples, but definitely need not be the case in general. For example, with fully instantiated lists, we get:
?- list_first_integer([a,b,c], I).
false.
?- list_first_integer([a,b,c,4], I).
I = 4.
?- list_first_integer([a,b,c,4], 3).
false.
In contrast, if the list is not sufficiently instantiated, then we have the following major problems:
?- list_first_integer(Ls, I).
nontermination
and further:
?- list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
false.
even though a more specific instantiation succeeds:
?- X = 0, list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
X = I, I = 0.
Core problem: Defaulty representation
The core problem is that you are reasoning here about defaulty terms: A list element that is still a variable may either be instantiated to an integer or to any other term in the future. A clean way out is to design your data representation to symbolically distinguish the possible cases. For example, let us use the wrapper i/1 to denote an integer, and o/1 to denote any other kind of term. With this representation, we can write:
list_first_integer([i(I)|_], I).
list_first_integer([o(_)|Ls], I) :-
list_first_integer(Ls, I).
Now, we get correct results:
?- list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
X = i(I) ;
X = o(_12702),
Y = i(I) ;
X = o(_12702),
Y = o(_12706),
Z = i(I) ;
false.
?- X = i(0), list_first_integer([X,Y,Z], I).
X = i(0),
I = 0 ;
false.
And the other examples also still work, if we only use the clean data representation:
?- list_first_integer([o(a),o(b),o(c)], I).
false.
?- list_first_integer([o(a),o(b),o(c),i(4)], I).
I = 4 ;
false.
?- list_first_integer([o(a),o(b),o(c),i(4)], 3).
false.
The most general query now allows us to generate solutions:
?- list_first_integer(Ls, I).
Ls = [i(I)|_16880] ;
Ls = [o(_16884), i(I)|_16890] ;
Ls = [o(_16884), o(_16894), i(I)|_16900] ;
Ls = [o(_16884), o(_16894), o(_16904), i(I)|_16910] ;
etc.
The price you have to pay for this generality lies in these symbolic wrappers. As you seem to care about correctness and also about generality of your code, I consider this a bargain in comparison to more error prone defaulty approaches.
Synthesis
Note that CLP(FD) constraints can be naturally used together with a clean representation. For example, to benefit from more finely grained type errors as explained above, you can write:
list_first_integer([i(I)|_], I) :- I in inf..sup.
list_first_integer([o(_)|Ls], I) :-
list_first_integer(Ls, I).
Now, you get:
?- list_first_integer([i(a)], I).
ERROR: Type error: `integer' expected, found `a' (an atom)
Initially, you may be faced with a defaulty representation. In my experience, a good approach is to convert it to a clean representation as soon as you can, for the sake of the remainder of your program in which you can then distinguish all cases symbolically in such a way that no ambiguity remains.
So far, I have always taken steadfastness in Prolog programs to mean:
If, for a query Q, there is a subterm S, such that there is a term T that makes ?- S=T, Q. succeed although ?- Q, S=T. fails, then one of the predicates invoked by Q is not steadfast.
Intuitively, I thus took steadfastness to mean that we cannot use instantiations to "trick" a predicate into giving solutions that are otherwise not only never given, but rejected. Note the difference for nonterminating programs!
In particular, at least to me, logical-purity always implied steadfastness.
Example. To better understand the notion of steadfastness, consider an almost classical counterexample of this property that is frequently cited when introducing advanced students to operational aspects of Prolog, using a wrong definition of a relation between two integers and their maximum:
integer_integer_maximum(X, Y, Y) :-
Y >= X,
!.
integer_integer_maximum(X, _, X).
A glaring mistake in this—shall we say "wavering"—definition is, of course, that the following query incorrectly succeeds:
?- M = 0, integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M).
M = 0. % wrong!
whereas exchanging the goals yields the correct answer:
?- integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M), M = 0.
false.
A good solution of this problem is to rely on pure methods to describe the relation, using for example:
integer_integer_maximum(X, Y, M) :-
M #= max(X, Y).
This works correctly in both cases, and can even be used in more situations:
?- integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M), M = 0.
false.
?- M = 0, integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M).
false.
| ?- X in 0..2, Y in 3..4, integer_integer_maximum(X, Y, M).
X in 0..2,
Y in 3..4,
M in 3..4 ? ;
no
Now the paper Coding Guidelines for Prolog by Covington et al., co-authored by the very inventor of the notion, Richard O'Keefe, contains the following section:
5.1 Predicates must be steadfast.
Any decent predicate must be “steadfast,” i.e., must work correctly if its output variable already happens to be instantiated to the output value (O’Keefe 1990).
That is,
?- foo(X), X = x.
and
?- foo(x).
must succeed under exactly the same conditions and have the same side effects.
Failure to do so is only tolerable for auxiliary predicates whose call patterns are
strongly constrained by the main predicates.
Thus, the definition given in the cited paper is considerably stricter than what I stated above.
For example, consider the pure Prolog program:
nat(s(X)) :- nat(X).
nat(0).
Now we are in the following situation:
?- nat(0).
true.
?- nat(X), X = 0.
nontermination
This clearly violates the property of succeeding under exactly the same conditions, because one of the queries no longer succeeds at all.
Hence my question: Should we call the above program not steadfast? Please justify your answer with an explanation of the intention behind steadfastness and its definition in the available literature, its relation to logical-purity as well as relevant termination notions.
In 'The craft of prolog' page 96 Richard O'Keef says 'we call the property of refusing to give wrong answers even when the query has an unexpected form (typically supplying values for what we normally think of as inputs*) steadfastness'
*I am not sure if this should be outputs. i.e. in your query ?- M = 0, integer_integer_maximum(0, 1, M). M = 0. % wrong! M is used as an input but the clause has been designed for it to be an output.
In nat(X), X = 0. we are using X as an output variable not an input variable, but it has not given a wrong answer, as it does not give any answer. So I think under that definition it could be steadfast.
A rule of thumb he gives is 'postpone output unification until after the cut.' Here we have not got a cut, but we still want to postpone the unification.
However I would of thought it would be sensible to have the base case first rather than the recursive case, so that nat(X), X = 0. would initially succeed .. but you would still have other problems..
I'm starting learning Prolog and I want a program that given a integer P gives to integers A and B such that P = A² + B². If there aren't values of A and B that satisfy this equation, false should be returned
For example: if P = 5, it should give A = 1 and B = 2 (or A = 2 and B = 1) because 1² + 2² = 5.
I was thinking this should work:
giveSum(P, A, B) :- integer(A), integer(B), integer(P), P is A*A + B*B.
with the query:
giveSum(5, A, B).
However, it does not. What should I do? I'm very new to Prolog so I'm still making lot of mistakes.
Thanks in advance!
integer/1 is a non-monotonic predicate. It is not a relation that allows the reasoning you expect to apply in this case. To exemplify this:
?- integer(I).
false.
No integer exists, yes? Colour me surprised, to say the least!
Instead of such non-relational constructs, use your Prolog system's CLP(FD) constraints to reason about integers.
For example:
?- 5 #= A*A + B*B.
A in -2..-1\/1..2,
A^2#=_G1025,
_G1025 in 1..4,
_G1025+_G1052#=5,
_G1052 in 1..4,
B^2#=_G406,
B in -2..-1\/1..2
And for concrete solutions:
?- 5 #= A*A + B*B, label([A,B]).
A = -2,
B = -1 ;
A = -2,
B = 1 ;
A = -1,
B = -2 ;
etc.
CLP(FD) constraints are completely pure relations that can be used in the way you expect. See clpfd for more information.
Other things I noticed:
use_underscores_for_readability_as_is_the_convention_in_prolog instead ofMixingTheCasesToMakePredicatesHardToRead.
use declarative names, avoid imperatives. For example, why call it give_sum? This predicate also makes perfect sense if the sum is already given. So, what about sum_of_squares/3, for example?
For efficiency sake, Prolog implementers have choosen - many,many years ago - some compromise. Now, there are chances your Prolog implements advanced integer arithmetic, like CLP(FD) does. If this is the case, mat' answer is perfect. But some Prologs (maybe a naive ISO Prolog compliant processor), could complain about missing label/1, and (#=)/2. So, a traditional Prolog solution: the technique is called generate and test:
giveSum(P, A, B) :-
( integer(P) -> between(1,P,A), between(1,P,B) ; integer(A),integer(B) ),
P is A*A + B*B.
between/3 it's not an ISO builtin, but it's rather easier than (#=)/2 and label/1 to write :)
Anyway, please follow mat' advice and avoid 'imperative' naming. Often a description of the relation is better, because Prolog it's just that: a relational language.