?- append([], [X1], [a,b]).
Why does this return no and not
X1 = a,b
Since
? - append([], [a,b], [a,b])
returns yes?
To understand a Prolog program you have two choices:
Think about the program as you do this in other programming languages by simulating the moves of the processor. This will lead to your mental exasperation very soon unless your name is Ryzen or in other words:
You are a processor
Let Prolog do the thinking and use Prolog to understand programs.
Whenever you see a failing goal, narrow down the reason why the goal fails by generalizing that goal (by replacing some term by a variable). You do not need to understand the precise definition at all. It suffices to try things out. In the case of your query
?- append([], [X1], [a,b]).
false.
We have three arguments. Maybe the first is the culprit? So I will replace it by a new variable:
?- append(Xs, [X1], [a,b]).
Xs = [a], X1 = b
; false.
Nailed it! Changing the first argument will lead to success. But what about the second argument?
?- append([], Ys, [a,b]).
Ys = [a, b].
Again, culprit, too. And now for the third:
?- append([], [X1], Zs).
Zs = [X1].
Verdict: All three kind-of guilty. That is, it suffices to blame one of them. Which one is up to you to choose.
Do this whenever you encounter a failing goal. It will help you gain the relational view that makes Prolog such a special language.
And if we are at it. It often helps to consider maximal failing generalizations. That is, generalizations that still fail but where each further step leads to success. In your example this is:
?- append([], [X1], [a,b]). % original query
false.
?- append([], [_], [_,_|_]). % maximal failing generalization
false.
From this you can already draw some conclusions:
The lists' elements are irrelevant.
Only the length of the three lists is of relevance
The third list needs to be two elements or longer.
See: append/3
append(?List1, ?List2, ?List1AndList2)
List1AndList2 is the concatenation of List1 and List2
So for
?- append([], [X1], [a,b]).
[] is the empty list and [X1] is a list with a variable X1
If you run the query like this
?- append([],[X1],A).
you get
A = [X1].
which means that A is the concatenation of [] and [X1].
In your query it is asking if the concatenation of [] and [X1] is [a,b] which is false, or no.
For your second query
? - append([], [a,b], [a,b])
it is asking if the concatenation of [] and [a,b] is [a,b] which is true, or yes.
I'm writing prolog code that finds a certain number; a number is the right number if it's between 0 and 9 and not present in a given list. To do this I wrote a predicate number/3 that has the possible numbers as the first argument, the list in which the Rightnumber cannot be present and the mystery RightNumber as third argument:
number([XH|XT], [H|T], RightNumber):-
member(XH, [H|T]), !,
number(XT, [H|T], RightNumber).
number([XH|_], [H|T], XH):-
\+ member(XH, [H|T]).
so this code basically says that if the Head of the possible numbers list is already a member of the second list, to cut of the head and continue in recursion with the tail.
If the element is not present in the second list, the second clause triggers and tells prolog that that number is the RightNumber. It's okay that it only gives the first number that is possible, that's how I want to use it.
This code works in theory, but I was wondering if there's a better way to write it down? I'm using this predicate in another predicate later on in my code and it doesn't work as part of that. I think it's only reading the first clause, not the second and fails as a result.
Does anybody have an idea that might improve my code?
sample queries:
?- number([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9], [1,2], X).
X = 3
?- number([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9], [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,0], X).
X = 9
First, the code does not work. Consider:
?- number(Xs, Ys, N).
nontermination
This is obviously bad: For this so-called most general query, we expect to obtain answers, but Prolog does not give us any answer with this program!
So, I first suggest you eliminate all impurities from your program, and focus on a clean declarative description of what you want.
I give you a start:
good_number(N, Ls) :-
N in 0..9,
maplist(#\=(N), Ls).
This states that the relation is true if N is between 0 and 9, and N is different from any integer in Ls. See clpfd for more information about CLP(FD) constraints.
Importantly, this works in all directions. For example:
?- good_number(4, [1,2,3]).
true.
?- good_number(11, [1,2,3]).
false.
?- good_number(N, [1,2,3]).
N in 0\/4..9.
And also in the most general case:
?- good_number(N, Ls).
Ls = [],
N in 0..9 ;
Ls = [_2540],
N in 0..9,
N#\=_2540 ;
Ls = [_2750, _2756],
N in 0..9,
N#\=_2756,
N#\=_2750 .
This, with only two lines of code, we have implemented a very general relation.
Also see logical-purity for more information.
First of all, your predicate does not work, nor does it check all the required constraints (between 0 and 9 for instance).
Several things:
you unpack the second list [H|T], but you re-pack it when you call member(XH, [H|T]); instead you can use a list L (this however slightly alters the semantics of the predicate, but is more accurate towards the description);
you check twice member/2ship;
you do not check whether the value is a number between 0 and 9 (and an integer anyway).
A better approach is to construct a simple clause:
number(Ns, L, Number) :-
member(Number, Ns),
integer(Number),
0 =< Number,
Number =< 9,
\+ member(Number, L).
A problem that remains is that Number can be a variable. In that case integer(Number) will fail. In logic we would however expect that Prolog unifies it with a number. We can achieve this by using the between/3 predicate:
number(Ns, L, Number) :-
member(Number, Ns),
between(0, 9, Number),
\+ member(Number, L).
We can also use the Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains library and use the in/2 predicate:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
number(Ns, L, Number) :-
member(Number, Ns),
Number in 0..9,
\+ member(Number, L).
There are still other things that can go wrong. For instance we check non-membership with \+ member(Number, L). but in case L is not grounded, this will fail, instead of suggesting lists where none of the elements is equal to Number, we can use the meta-predicate maplist to construct lists and then call a predicate over every element. The predicate we want to call over every element is that that element is not equal to Number, so we can use:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
number(Ns, L, Number) :-
member(Number, Ns),
Number in 0..9,
maplist(#\=(Number), L).
I'm trying to figure out a way to check if two lists are equal regardless of their order of elements.
My first attempt was:
areq([],[]).
areq([],[_|_]).
areq([H1|T1], L):- member(H1, L), areq(T1, L).
However, this only checks if all elements of the list on the left exist in the list on the right; meaning areq([1,2,3],[1,2,3,4]) => true. At this point, I need to find a way to be able to test thing in a bi-directional sense. My second attempt was the following:
areq([],[]).
areq([],[_|_]).
areq([H1|T1], L):- member(H1, L), areq(T1, L), append([H1], T1, U), areq(U, L).
Where I would try to rebuild the lest on the left and swap lists in the end; but this failed miserably.
My sense of recursion is extremely poor and simply don't know how to improve it, especially with Prolog. Any hints or suggestions would be appreciated at this point.
As a starting point, let's take the second implementation of equal_elements/2 by #CapelliC:
equal_elements([], []).
equal_elements([X|Xs], Ys) :-
select(X, Ys, Zs),
equal_elements(Xs, Zs).
Above implementation leaves useless choicepoints for queries like this one:
?- equal_elements([1,2,3],[3,2,1]).
true ; % succeeds, but leaves choicepoint
false.
What could we do? We could fix the efficiency issue by using
selectchk/3 instead of
select/3, but by doing so we would lose logical-purity! Can we do better?
We can!
Introducing selectd/3, a logically pure predicate that combines the determinism of selectchk/3 and the purity of select/3. selectd/3 is based on
if_/3 and (=)/3:
selectd(E,[A|As],Bs1) :-
if_(A = E, As = Bs1,
(Bs1 = [A|Bs], selectd(E,As,Bs))).
selectd/3 can be used a drop-in replacement for select/3, so putting it to use is easy!
equal_elementsB([], []).
equal_elementsB([X|Xs], Ys) :-
selectd(X, Ys, Zs),
equal_elementsB(Xs, Zs).
Let's see it in action!
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3],[3,2,1]).
true. % succeeds deterministically
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3],[A,B,C]), C=3,B=2,A=1.
A = 1, B = 2, C = 3 ; % still logically pure
false.
Edit 2015-05-14
The OP wasn't specific if the predicate
should enforce that items occur on both sides with
the same multiplicities.
equal_elementsB/2 does it like that, as shown by these two queries:
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2]).
true.
?- equal_elementsB([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2,3]).
false.
If we wanted the second query to succeed, we could relax the definition in a logically pure way by using meta-predicate
tfilter/3 and
reified inequality dif/3:
equal_elementsC([],[]).
equal_elementsC([X|Xs],Ys2) :-
selectd(X,Ys2,Ys1),
tfilter(dif(X),Ys1,Ys0),
tfilter(dif(X),Xs ,Xs0),
equal_elementsC(Xs0,Ys0).
Let's run two queries like the ones above, this time using equal_elementsC/2:
?- equal_elementsC([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2]).
true.
?- equal_elementsC([1,2,3,2,3],[3,3,2,1,2,3]).
true.
Edit 2015-05-17
As it is, equal_elementsB/2 does not universally terminate in cases like the following:
?- equal_elementsB([],Xs), false. % terminates universally
false.
?- equal_elementsB([_],Xs), false. % gives a single answer, but ...
%%% wait forever % ... does not terminate universally
If we flip the first and second argument, however, we get termination!
?- equal_elementsB(Xs,[]), false. % terminates universally
false.
?- equal_elementsB(Xs,[_]), false. % terminates universally
false.
Inspired by an answer given by #AmiTavory, we can improve the implementation of equal_elementsB/2 by "sharpening" the solution set like so:
equal_elementsBB(Xs,Ys) :-
same_length(Xs,Ys),
equal_elementsB(Xs,Ys).
To check if non-termination is gone, we put queries using both predicates head to head:
?- equal_elementsB([_],Xs), false.
%%% wait forever % does not terminate universally
?- equal_elementsBB([_],Xs), false.
false. % terminates universally
Note that the same "trick" does not work with equal_elementsC/2,
because of the size of solution set is infinite (for all but the most trivial instances of interest).
A simple solution using the sort/2 ISO standard built-in predicate, assuming that neither list contains duplicated elements:
equal_elements(List1, List2) :-
sort(List1, Sorted1),
sort(List2, Sorted2),
Sorted1 == Sorted2.
Some sample queries:
| ?- equal_elements([1,2,3],[1,2,3,4]).
no
| ?- equal_elements([1,2,3],[3,1,2]).
yes
| ?- equal_elements([a(X),a(Y),a(Z)],[a(1),a(2),a(3)]).
no
| ?- equal_elements([a(X),a(Y),a(Z)],[a(Z),a(X),a(Y)]).
yes
In Prolog you often can do exactly what you say
areq([],_).
areq([H1|T1], L):- member(H1, L), areq(T1, L).
bi_areq(L1, L2) :- areq(L1, L2), areq(L2, L1).
Rename if necessary.
a compact form:
member_(Ys, X) :- member(X, Ys).
equal_elements(Xs, Xs) :- maplist(member_(Ys), Xs).
but, using member/2 seems inefficient, and leave space to ambiguity about duplicates (on both sides). Instead, I would use select/3
?- [user].
equal_elements([], []).
equal_elements([X|Xs], Ys) :-
select(X, Ys, Zs),
equal_elements(Xs, Zs).
^D here
1 ?- equal_elements(X, [1,2,3]).
X = [1, 2, 3] ;
X = [1, 3, 2] ;
X = [2, 1, 3] ;
X = [2, 3, 1] ;
X = [3, 1, 2] ;
X = [3, 2, 1] ;
false.
2 ?- equal_elements([1,2,3,3], [1,2,3]).
false.
or, better,
equal_elements(Xs, Ys) :- permutation(Xs, Ys).
The other answers are all elegant (way above my own Prolog level), but it struck me that the question stated
efficient for the regular uses.
The accepted answer is O(max(|A| log(|A|), |B|log(|B|)), irrespective of whether the lists are equal (up to permutation) or not.
At the very least, it would pay to check the lengths before bothering to sort, which would decrease the runtime to something linear in the lengths of the lists in the case where they are not of equal length.
Expanding this, it is not difficult to modify the solution so that its runtime is effectively linear in the general case where the lists are not equal (up to permutation), using random digests.
Suppose we define
digest(L, D) :- digest(L, 1, D).
digest([], D, D) :- !.
digest([H|T], Acc, D) :-
term_hash(H, TH),
NewAcc is mod(Acc * TH, 1610612741),
digest(T, NewAcc, D).
This is the Prolog version of the mathematical function Prod_i h(a_i) | p, where h is the hash, and p is a prime. It effectively maps each list to a random (in the hashing sense) value in the range 0, ...., p - 1 (in the above, p is the large prime 1610612741).
We can now check if two lists have the same digest:
same_digests(A, B) :-
digest(A, DA),
digest(B, DB),
DA =:= DB.
If two lists have different digests, they cannot be equal. If two lists have the same digest, then there is a tiny chance that they are unequal, but this still needs to be checked. For this case I shamelessly stole Paulo Moura's excellent answer.
The final code is this:
equal_elements(A, B) :-
same_digests(A, B),
sort(A, SortedA),
sort(B, SortedB),
SortedA == SortedB.
same_digests(A, B) :-
digest(A, DA),
digest(B, DB),
DA =:= DB.
digest(L, D) :- digest(L, 1, D).
digest([], D, D) :- !.
digest([H|T], Acc, D) :-
term_hash(H, TH),
NewAcc is mod(Acc * TH, 1610612741),
digest(T, NewAcc, D).
One possibility, inspired on qsort:
split(_,[],[],[],[]) :- !.
split(X,[H|Q],S,E,G) :-
compare(R,X,H),
split(R,X,[H|Q],S,E,G).
split(<,X,[H|Q],[H|S],E,G) :-
split(X,Q,S,E,G).
split(=,X,[X|Q],S,[X|E],G) :-
split(X,Q,S,E,G).
split(>,X,[H|Q],S,E,[H|G]) :-
split(X,Q,S,E,G).
cmp([],[]).
cmp([H|Q],L2) :-
split(H,Q,S1,E1,G1),
split(H,L2,S2,[H|E1],G2),
cmp(S1,S2),
cmp(G1,G2).
A simple solution using cut.
areq(A,A):-!.
areq([A|B],[C|D]):-areq(A,C,D,E),areq(B,E).
areq(A,A,B,B):-!.
areq(A,B,[C|D],[B|E]):-areq(A,C,D,E).
Some sample queries:
?- areq([],[]).
true.
?- areq([1],[]).
false.
?- areq([],[1]).
false.
?- areq([1,2,3],[3,2,1]).
true.
?- areq([1,1,2,2],[2,1,2,1]).
true.