Hi i have a rule based prolog system as shown below:
%forward chaining Production system
:-op(800,fx,if). %set operators for if
:-op(700,xfx,then). %then rules
:-op(300,xfy,or).
:-op(200,xfy,and).
%dynamic(....) allows predicate inside brackets fact to be asserted and retracted,
% here were are making fact (/1 means fact has 1 argument) dynamic so we can add and
% take facts from working memory.
:-dynamic(fact/1).
fact(has(smith,raisedIntraocularPressure)). %list of facts
fact(had(smith,previousHeatAttack)).
fact(has(smith,leftQuadraticPain)).
fact(is(smith,heavySmoker)).
fact(is(jones,asthmatic)).
fact(has(jones,raisedIntraocularPressure)).
fact(is(jones,heavySmoker)).
forward:-
new_fact(P),
!,
write('New fact '), write(P),nl,
asserta(fact(P)), %adds a fact to working memory
forward
;
write('no more facts').
new_fact(Action):-
if Condition then Action,
not(fact(Action)),
composedFact(Condition).
composedFact(Cond):-
fact(Cond).
composedFact(C1 and C2):-
composedFact(C1),
composedFact(C2).
composedFact(C1 or C2):-
composedFact(C1)
;
composedFact(C2).
print:-
if has(Person,riskOfHeartAttack) and has(Person,previousHeartAttack)
then need(Person,digitalis).
if has(Person,leftQuadraticPain) and has(Person,highBloodPressure)
then has(Person,riskOfHeartAttack).
if has(Person,leftQuadraticPain)then has(Person,highBloodPressure).
if has(Person,highBloodPressure) and is(Person,heavySmoker)
then has(Person,riskOfHeartAttack).
if is(Person,asthmatic) and has(Person,riskOfHeartAttack) and has(Person,previousHeatAttack)then give(Person,preminolv).
not(X):-
X,!,fail;true.
Okay first off i need it to create a command that prints the list of facts in the databases.
Secondly each rule is only used once. I need to change the code so that all the relevant facts are used. Apparently this can be done using a "bagof" function but i have no idea how to use it.
Thanks in advance =D
Print the list of facts:
print_facts :-
findall(F, fact(F), Facts),
maplist(writeln, Facts).
The findall/3 metapredicate is also the key to your second question, although you can also use bagof. See documentation, tutorial.
Related
I am quite new to Prolog and have had some trouble understanding it.
I have some facts named 'problem' I wish to first print out these facts to the user and then ask them to input a value, this value is then read and used later.
From my understanding thus far, it would be best to use a forall to print out these facts and then use read to read the value inputted, but I am having some issue implementing this. Here is what I have so far, any explanation would be appreciated
My question: How do I read in the input from the user regarding the problem and apply that into a variable for later use?
tellMeYourProblem:-
forall(problem(P),
writeln(P)),
answer = read(X),
problem('1').
problem('2').
problem('3').
problem('4').
problem('5').
problem('6').
problem('7').
problem('8').
problem('9').
problem('10').
Note: This answer uses SWI-Prolog.
How do I read in the input from the user regarding the problem?
You are doing that already with read(X), however read/1 reads terms (terms end with periods) and you probably want to read characters. If you are using SWI-Prolog take a look at Primitive character I/O for reading characters and Predicates that operate on strings for reading strings.
How do I apply that into a variable for later use?
When doing basic I/O with a user at a text level, a REPL is a good way to start. Adding a REPL is a bit more complicated so I will give you the code.
tellMeYourProblem :-
output_problems,
read_input.
output_problems :-
forall(problem(P),
writeln(P)).
read_input :-
repeat,
read_string(user_input, "\n", "\r\t ", _, Line),
process_input(Line).
process_input(Line) :-
string(Line),
atom_number(Line, N),
integer(N),
do_something_with(Line),
fail.
process_input("quit") :-
write('Finished'), nl,
!, true.
do_something_with(X) :-
writeln(X).
problem('1').
problem('2').
problem('3').
problem('4').
problem('5').
problem('6').
problem('7').
problem('8').
problem('9').
problem('10').
Also with Prolog, the style is to use snake casing so tellMeYourProblem should be tell_me_your_problem.
Normally in Prolog a REPL is done with ->/2, (Read Input till quit statement Prolog) , but I changed this to add more guard statements so that the exit condition would work, e.g.
string(Line),
atom_number(Line, N),
integer(N)
or putting the guard in the head, e.g.
process_input("quit")
When doing I/O to a screen and keyboard, the thought is to use stdIn and stdOut but for the keyboard SWI-Prolog uses user_input instead. See: Input and output
After all of the boiler plate code for the REPL is the next part you seek which is to do something with the input value, in this case just print it out.
do_something_with(X) :-
writeln(X).
The easiest to write out the facts of problem/1,
is to use the builtin listing/[0,1]. This builtin
accepts a so called predicate indicator. You can
write out the facts via:
?- listing(problem/1).
The predicate is supported by many Prolog systems
such as GNU Prolog, etc.. For how to read input see
for example the post by Guy Coder.
I am trying to implement a predicate replace(+OldFact,+NewFact)
which succeed only if the OldFact existed. If this succeeds then the
NewFact must be added to the set of clauses and the OldFact must be
deleted.
How do I do this?
I am not able to figure out clearly that how to achieve this
replacement using facts as well as how to use those assert and retract
database manipulation commands.
Thanks.
If I take the request at face value, you only need to use the predicates I mentioned in my comment. Your predicate would look something like this:
replace_existing_fact(OldFact, NewFact) :-
( call(OldFact)
-> retract(OldFact),
assertz(NewFact)
; true
).
I'm assuming that if the OldFact is not found, then you want the predicate simply to succeed. If failure of the predicate is acceptable if the old fact doesn't exist, this would be written simply:
replace_existing_fact(OldFact, NewFact) :-
call(OldFact),
retract(OldFact),
assertz(NewFact).
Note that if you have more than one same OldFact in the database, this predicate will backtrack for each one, replacing one occurrence on each backtrack. If you only want to replace one of them, you could use a cut:
replace_existing_fact(OldFact, NewFact) :-
call(OldFact), !, % Don't backtrack to find multiple instances of old fact
retract(OldFact),
assertz(NewFact).
Alternatively, if you want to replace each one without being prompted for backtracking:
replace_each_existing_fact(OldFact, NewFact) :-
forall(replace_existing_fact(OldFact, NewFact), true).
parent(mel, joan).
parent(jane, betty).
parent(jane, tom).
parent(richard, adam).
parent(richard, rosa).
parent(joan, fran).
For example someone asks me to find all ancestors of a parent. I give him the code:
ancestor(P,C) :- parent(P, C).
ancestor(P,C) :- ancestor(P,P1), parent(P1, C).
But my friend still doesn't know how to use the predicate. Does he call it like
ancestor(richard, C) or ancestor(C, richard) ?
Is there a way to annotate that P is the parameter while C is the return value? And in a complex case, there will be predicates with different names, how should my user know which predicate is the final predicate he wants to use?
To help the human-readable meaning, you could add an extra predicate documenting the parameters as readable name/value pairs:
entry_ancestor_of(ancestor=P, descendent=C) :-
ancestor(P,C).
?- entry_ancestor_of(ancestor=richard, descendent=C).
C = adam .
Above, the suffix *ancestor_of* suggests param 1 is ancestor of param 2, so naming the predicate carefully can make it clearer.
Usually(convention), input parameters are the earlier parameters, and output parameters are later parameters, but where the predicate 'works both ways', ie. either could be input or output, this rule can't hold. This is the case for your predicate:
?- entry_ancestor_of(ancestor=X, descendent=adam).
X = richard .
Either parameter could be input or output, so there is no need to codify/explain them as such, although you might want to comment that it works both ways.
I would usually comment these 'flexible' predicates by putting an example of both of the above usages in a comment next to the predicate.
For entrypoint labelling, just do one or more of the following:
explicitly name the predicate as an entrypoint, as above
document using comments in the code which are the entrypoints
arrange the entrypoints in the same physical section with a comment
block saying that the predicates below are entrypoints.
Edit: Extra things re: coding guidelines / other answers.
In Coding guidelines for Prolog, section 3.8, it says 'For example, mother_of(A, B) is ambiguous;', so I gave bad advice on that.. perhaps acapelli's suggestion would be more useful on that.
In that document, also have a look at:
3.5 Choose sensible names for auxiliary predicates
3.8 Choose predicate names to help show the argument order
3.13 Decide whether predicate names should carry the types on which they operate
4.1 Begin every predicate (except perhaps auxiliary predicates) with an introductory comment in a well-defined format
The '?' system for identifying parameter types that will ness mentioned is on page 21.
a useful convention, sponsored for instance by Markus Triska, builds a predicate functor by joining the parameters 'names' - in a wide, applicable sense. Your example could be
parent_child(mel, joan).
...
ancestor_descendant(P, C) :- parent_child(P, C).
ancestor_descendant(A, D) :- ancestor_descendant(A, I), parent_child(I, D).
Also ISO-Prolog, and - for instance - SWI-Prolog library, attempt to follow this strategy.
For instance
atom_codes(Atom, Codes) :- ...
WRT to declare the type and status of arguments, some Prolog provide declarations - for instance Turbo Prolog, ECLiPSe, others... Sometime such declarations are required - usually to check correctness, often to speed up the computation.
SWI-Prolog offers 'just' structured comments, that IDE process automatically, and there has been a contribution aiming to exploit such declarations with runtime check.
Yes, with comments, and/or meaningful argument names,
% ancestor( ?Ancestor, ?Descendent).
ancestor(P,C) :- parent(P, C).
ancestor(P,C) :- ancestor(P,P1), parent(P1, C).
? means the argument can be used both as input (already set when the call is made), or for output (not yet set when the call is made).
The convention promoted in The Art of Prolog (I think) is that you place the name of the predicate after its first argument, to get at the intended argument ordering: P "is" ancestor C. Presumably "ancestor_of". But if you use that name, someone unfamiliar with that convention might read ancestor_of(P,C) as "ancestor of P is C", so it's a double-edged sword.
I'm new to Prolog. These are my facts.
part_cost(Part, Supplier)
part_cost(top_tube ,cinelli).
part_cost(top_tube ,columbus).
part_cost(down_tube ,columbus).
part_cost(head_tube ,cinelli).
part_cost(head_tube ,columbus).
part_cost(seat_mast ,cinelli).
part_cost(seat_mast ,columbus).
I want to find a supplier who supplies all kinds of parts, which is actually columbus.
I don't know how to say "all" in Prolog language.
Any help is appreciated.
Update
Thank you, #Ankur and #Sergey Dymchenko. Your list approach inspired me! I can write rules:
supplyAllParts(Supplier, []):-true.
supplyAllParts(Supplier, [Part|PartRest]) :-
part_cost(Part, Supplier, _, _),
supplyAllParts(Supplier, PartRest).
and call it by
?- supplyAllParts(S,[top_tube, down_tube, head_tube, seat_mast]).
S = columbus.
Now can Prolog dynamically find the part list ([top_tube, down_tube, head_tube, seat_mast]) from the facts rather than I manually provide it?
supplies([],_).
supplies([H|T],S) :- part_cost(H,S), supplies(T,S).
| ?- setof(P,S^part_cost(P,S),R), supplies(R,Supplier).
R = [down_tube,head_tube,seat_mast,top_tube]
Supplier = columbus
First, you probably need to define a notion of "all parts" manually, because maybe there is some kind of "bottom_super_gravitsapa", that no one has:
% store in sorted order, to compare with setof results later
sort([top_tube, down_tube, head_tube, seat_mast], AllParts)
To get a list of all parts for every supplier we can use setof/3:
?- setof(Part, part_cost(Part, Supplier), Parts).
setof(Part, part_cost(Part, Supplier), Parts).
Supplier = cinelli
Parts = [head_tube,seat_mast,top_tube] ?;
Supplier = columbus
Parts = [down_tube,head_tube,seat_mast,top_tube]
yes
And now just add a condition that list of parts for a specific supplier and AllParts are the same:
Parts == AllParts
If you don't want to define AllParts manually and assume that there is a supplier for every possible part, you can use another setof to get AllParts from the facts before the main setof.
all is a big word, in any language, and what it means varies so much... Down to the earth , in Prolog we have findall/3 family, that outputs a list with all patterns we instruct to extract from succeeded queries. The output list then is further processed ... But for your case, library(aggregate) is more handy:
supplies_all(Supplier) :-
aggregate(max(N,S), count_part_cost(S,N), max(_, Supplier)).
count_part_cost(S,N) :-
aggregate(count, P^part_cost(P,S), N).
I used a service predicate count_part_cost/2, just to keep the main one clear...
If you try to 'inline' them, beware to variables usage. Study variables quantification until you are comfortable with it.
edit As noted by Sergey, my code is not correct. Here is my bet for a more appropriate definition:
supplies_all(Supplier) :-
setof(P, S^part_cost(P,S), Ps),
setof(P, part_cost(P,Supplier), Ps).
I think it highlights well what I intended above recommending about studying variable quantification...
edit another possible definition, less costly but with redundant multiple solution (well, we have setof for that...)
supplies_all(Supplier) :-
% peek any Supplier from catalog
part_cost(_,Supplier),
% check it has all parts available
forall(part_cost(P,_), part_cost(P,Supplier)).
How do I define a rule that the user cannot query?
I only want the program itself to call this rule through another rule.
Ex:
rule1():- rule2().
rule2():- 1<5.
?-rule1().
true
?-rule2().
(I don't know what the answer will be, I just want this query to fail!)
Use a Logtalk object to encapsulate your predicates. Only the predicates that you declare public can be called (from outside the object). Prolog modules don't prevent calling any predicate as using explcit qualification bypasses the list of explicitly exported predicates.
A simple example:
:- object(rules).
:- public(rule1/1).
rule1(X) :-
rule2(X).
rule2(X) :-
X < 5.
:- end_object.
After compiling and loading the object above:
?- rules::rule1(3).
true.
?- rules::rule2(3).
error(existence_error(predicate_declaration,rule2(3)),rules::rule2(3),user)
If you edit the object code and explicitly declare rule2/1 as private you would get instead the error:
?- rules::rule2(3).
error(permission_error(access,private_predicate,rule2(3)),rules::rule2(3),user)
More information and plenty of examples at http://logtalk.org/
First, some notes:
I think you mean "predicate" instead of "rule". A predicate is a name/k thing such as help/0 (and help/1 is another) and can have multiple clauses, among them facts and rules, e.g. length([], 0). (a fact) and length([H|T], L) :- ... . (a rule) are two clauses of one predicate length/2.
Do not use empty parenthesis for predicates with no arguments – in SWI-Prolog at least, this will not work at all. Just use predicate2 instead of predicate2() in all places.
If you try to call an undefined predicate, SWI-Prolog will say ERROR: toplevel: Undefined procedure: predicate2/0 (DWIM could not correct goal) and Sicstus-Prolog will say {EXISTENCE ERROR: predicate2: procedure user:predicate2/0 does not exist}
Now, to the answer. Two ideas come to my mind.
(1) This is a hack, but you could assert the predicate(s) every time you need them and retract them immediately afterwards:
predicate1 :-
assert(predicate2), predicate2, retractall(predicate2).
If you want a body and arguments for predicate2, do assert(predicate2(argument1, argument2) :- (clause1, clause2, clause3)).
(2) Another way to achieve this would be to introduce an extra argument for the predicate which you do not want to be called by the user and use it for an identification that the user cannot possibly provide, but which you can provide from your calling predicate. This might be a large constant number which looks random, or even a sentence. This even enables you to output a custom error message in case the wrong identification was provided.
Example:
predicate1 :-
predicate2("Identification: 2349860293587").
predicate2(Identification) :-
Identification = "Identification: 2349860293587",
1 < 5.
predicate2(Identification) :- Identification \= "Identification: 2349860293587",
write("Error: this procedure cannot be called by the user. Use predicate1/0 instead."),
fail.
I don't use the equivalent predicate2("Identification: 2349860293587") for the first clause of predicate2/0, because I'm not sure where the head of the clause might appear in Prolog messages and you don't want that. I use a fail in the end of the second clause just so that Prolog prints false instead of true after the error message. And finally, I have no idea how to prevent the user from looking up the source code with listing(predicate2) so that will still make it possible to simply look up the correct identification code if s/he really wants to. If it's just to keep the user from doing accidental harm, it should however suffice as a protection.
This reminds me to facility found in Java. There one can query the
curent call stack, and use this to regulate permissions of calling
a method. Translated to Prolog we find in the old DEC-10 Prolog the
following predicate:
ancestors(L)
Unifies L with a list of ancestor goals for the current clause.
The list starts with the parent goal and ends with the most recent
ancestor coming from a call in a compiled clause. The list is printed
using print and each entry is preceded by the invocation number in
parentheses followed by the depth number (as would be given in a
trace message). If the invocation does not have a number (this will
occur if Debug Mode was not switched on until further into the execution)
then this is marked by "-". Not available for compiled code.
Since the top level is usually a compiled predicate prolog/0, this could be
used to write a predicate that inspects its own call stack, and then decides
whether it wants to go into service or not.
rule2 :- ancestors(L), length(L,N), N<2, !, write('Don't call me'), fail.
rule2 :- 1<5.
In modern Prologs we don't find so often the ancestors/1 predicate anymore.
But it can be simulated along the following lines. Just throw an error, and
in case that the error is adorned with a stack trace, you get all you need:
ancestors(L) :- catch(sys_throw_error(ignore),error(ignore,L),true).
But beware stack eliminiation optimization might reduce the stack and thus
the list returned by ancestors/1.
Best Regards
P.S.: Stack elimination optimization is already explained here:
[4] Warren, D.H.D. (1983): An Abstract Prolog Instruction Set, Technical Note 309, SRI International, October, 1983
A discussion for Jekejeke Prolog is found here:
http://www.jekejeke.ch/idatab/doclet/prod/en/docs/10_pro08/13_press/03_bench/05_optimizations/03_stack.html