I want to generate all the sublists of a given list with the given property that they have a certain length mentioned as argument and also they have as a containing element a given element which is passed as a parameter. I have managed to do this but with the help of two predicates, and in terms of optimality is very slow:
sublist([], []).
sublist([A|T], [A|L]):-
sublist(T, L).
sublist(T, [_|L]):-
sublist(T, L).
choose(T, L):-
sublist(T, L),
(dimension(2, T); dimension(1, T)),
belongs(f, T).
In here I would like to return through the T parameter of the choose predicate all the sublists of the L list which have the dimension 2 or 1 and which contains the f element. The predicates dimension and member has the same usage as the predefined predicates length, respectively member.Can you please tell me how to incorporate this two conditions within the sublist predicate so that the program builds only those particular sublists?
The following builds subsequences of length MinLen =< Len =< MaxLen. I've no idea why you renamed length and member, so I'm going to use the originals. sublist/4 calls your sublist/2.
sublist(Sub,List,MinLen,MaxLen) :-
between(MinLen,MaxLen,Len),
length(Sub,Len),
sublist(Sub,List).
Note that length is called on two variables, so you get an iterative deepening search. choose/2 can now be defined as
choose(Sub,List) :-
sublist(Sub,List,1,2),
member(f,Sub).
This is the clean solution. If it's is not fast enough, then roll all the conditions into one predicate:
choose(Sub,List),
(Sub = [f] ; Sub = [f,_] ; Sub = [_,f]),
sublist(Sub,List).
Related
I am trying to make a List of Lists of Lists without values. If N_meses = 4 I want List =[[[A,B,C,D]]].
I get what I want ( List = [[[]]] ) but every lists have the same values as you can see in the print I attached. How can I change this code so every lists have a different "value"?
I am doing this
generate_table(Num_investigadores, Num_actividades, N_Meses, Tabela) :-
length(Row, Num_actividades),
length(X,N_Meses),
maplist(=(X), Row),
length(Tabela, Num_investigadores),
maplist(=(Row), Tabela).
The culprit is in essence the:
%% ...
maplist(=(X), Row),
%% ...
Here you basically defined a list X, and then you set with maplist/2 that all elements in Row are unified with that X. In the unification process. This thus means that all the elements of Row will in essence point to the same list.
Nevertheless, I think it would definitely help if you make the predicate less ambitious: implement helper predicates and let each predicate do a small number of things.
We can for example first design a predicate lengthlist/2 that is the "swapped" version of length/2, and thus has as first parameter the length and as second parameter the list, like:
lengthlist(N, L) :-
length(L, N).
Now we can construct a predicate that generates a 2d rectangular list, for example:
matrix(M, N, R) :-
lengthlist(M, R),
maplist(lengthlist(N), R).
here we thus first use lengthlist to construct a list with N elements, and then we use maplist/2 to call lengthlist(N, ...) on every element, such that every element is unified with a list of N elements. We thus construct a 2d list with M elements where every elements is a list of N elements.
Then finally we can construct a 3d tensor:
tensor3(L, M, N, T) :-
lengthlist(L, T),
maplist(matrix(M, N), T).
Here we thus construct an L×M×N tensor.
We can in fact generalize the above to construct a arbitrary deep cascade of lists that is "rectangular" (in the sense that for each dimension, the lists have the same number of elements), but I leave this as an exercise.
I am new to prolog, I am just learning about lists and I came across this question. The answer works perfect for a list of integers.
minimo([X], X) :- !.
minimo([X,Y|Tail], N):-
( X > Y ->
minimo([Y|Tail], N)
;
minimo([X|Tail], N)
).
How can I change this code to get the smallest int from a mixed list?
This
sint([a,b,3,2,1],S)
should give an answer:
S=1
you could just ignore the problem, changing the comparison operator (>)/2 (a binary builtin predicate, actually) to the more general (#>)/2:
minimo([X], X) :- !.
minimo([X,Y|Tail], N):-
( X #> Y ->
minimo([Y|Tail], N)
;
minimo([X|Tail], N)
).
?- minimo([a,b,3,2,1],S).
S = 1.
First of all, I don't think the proposed implementation is very elegant: here they pass the minimum found element thus far by constructing a new list each time. Using an additional parameter (we call an accumulator) is usually the way to go (and is probably more efficient as well).
In order to solve the problem, we first have to find an integer. We can do this like:
sint([H|T],R) :-
integer(H),
!,
sint(T,H,R).
sint([_|T],R) :-
sint(T,R).
So here we check if the head H is an integer/1. If that is the case, we call a predicate sint/3 (not to be confused with sint/2). Otherwise we call recursively sint/2 with the tail T of the list.
Now we still need to define sint/3. In case we have reached the end of the list [], we simply return the minum found thus far:
sint([],R,R).
Otherwise there are two cases:
the head H is an integer and smaller than the element found thus far, in that case we perform recursion with the head as new current minimum:
sint([H|T],M,R):
integer(H),
H < M,
!,
sint(T,H,R).
otherwise, we simply ignore the head, and perform recursion with the tail T.
sint([_|T],M,R) :-
sint(T,M,R).
We can put the recursive clauses in an if-then-else structure. Together with the earlier defined predicate, the full program then is:
sint([H|T],R) :-
integer(H),
!,
sint(T,H,R).
sint([_|T],R) :-
sint(T,R).
sint([],R,R).
sint([H|T],M,R):
(
(integer(H),H < M)
-> sint(T,H,R)
; sint(T,M,R)
).
The advantage of this approach is that filtering and comparing (to obtain the minimum) is done at the same time, so we only iterate once over the list. This will usually result in a performance boost since the "control structures" are only executed once: more is done in an iteration, but we only iterate once.
We can generalize the approach by making the filter generic:
filter_minimum(Filter,[H|T],R) :-
Goal =.. [Filter,H],
call(Goal),
!,
filter_minimum(Filter,T,H,R).
filter_minimum(Filter,[_|T],R) :-
filter_minimum(Filter,T,R).
filter_minimum(_,[],R,R).
filter_minimum(Filter,[H|T],M,R) :-
Goal =.. [Filter,H],
(
(call(Goal),H < M)
-> filter_minimum(Filter,T,H,R)
; filter_minimum(Filter,T,M,R)
).
You can then call it with:
filter_minimum(integer,[a,b,3,2,1],R).
to filter with integer/1 and calculate the minimum.
You could just write a predicate that returns a list with the numbers and the use the above minimo/2 predicate:
only_numbers([],[]).
only_numbers([H|T],[H|T1]):-integer(H),only_numbers(T,T1).
only_numbers([H|T],L):- \+integer(H),only_numbers(T,L).
sint(L,S):-only_numbers(L,L1),minimo(L1,S).
I want to create a rule in prolog that checks if there's a repeated number in a list.
For example:
for [1,2,3,4] it will return true.
for [1,2,3,3] it will return false because the 3 is repeated
I came up with this rule but it doesn't work
Different([]).
Different([H|T]):-
Member(H,T),
Different(T).
Any ideas?
a compact definition could be
all_diff(L) :- \+ (select(X,L,R), memberchk(X,R)).
i.e. all elements are different if we can't peek one and find it in the rest...
edit
Let's (marginally) improve efficiency: it's useless to check if X is member of the prefix sublist, so:
all_diff(L) :- \+ (append(_,[X|R],L), memberchk(X,R)).
The simplest way to check that all list members are unique is to sort list and check that length of the sorted list is equal of length of the original list.
different(X) :-
sort(X, Sorted),
length(X, OriginalLength),
length(Sorted, SortedLength),
OriginalLength == SortedLength.
Your solution doesn't work because of wrong syntax (facts and predicates should not begin with a capital letter) and a logic error. List is unique if head H is not a member of a tail T of a list and tail T is unique:
different([]).
different([H|T]):-
\+member(H,T),
different(T).
If all numbers in that list are integers, and if your Prolog implementation offers clpfd, there's no need to write new predicates of your own---simply use the predefined predicate all_different/1!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
Sample use:
?- all_different([1,2,3,4]).
true.
?- all_different([1,2,3,3]).
false.
Very Simple Answer...
The code:
unique([]).
unique([_,[]]).
unique([H|T]):-not(member(H,T)),unique(T).
Tests:
?-unique([1,2,3,4]).
true.
?-unique([1,2,3,3]).
false.
?-unique([a,b,12,d]).
true
?-unique([a,b,a]).
false
A neat way I came up with is the following:
If all members of a list are different from each other, then if I tell prolog to choose all pairs (I,J) such that I,J are members of the list and also I is equal to J, then for each element in the list it will only be able to find one such pair, which is the element with itself.
Therefore, if we can put all such pairs in a list, then the length of this list should be of the same length of the original list.
Here's my prolog code:
all_diff(L) :-
findall((I,J), (member(I, L), member(J, L), I == J), List),
length(L, SupposedLength),
length(List, CheckThis),
SupposedLength == CheckThis.
The rule provided in the question is very close to a correct answer with minimal library usage. Here's a working version that required only one change, the addition of \+ in the third row:
uniqueList([]).
uniqueList([H|T]):-
\+(member(H,T)),
uniqueList(T).
Explanation of the code for Prolog beginners: The member(H,L) predicate checks if element H is a member of the list L. \+ is Prolog's negation function, so the above code amounts to:
uniqueList([H|T]) returns true if: (H doesn't have a copy in T) and uniqueList(T)
Whereas the code by the original asker didn't work because it amounted to:
uniqueList([H|T]) returns true if: (H has a copy in T) and uniqueList(T)
*I renamed Different() to uniqueList() because it reads better. Convention is to reserve capital letters for variables.
This isn't very efficient, but for each number you can check if it appears again later. Like so:
Different([H|T]):-
CheckSingle(H, [T]),
Different([T]).
Checksingle(_,[]).
Checksingle(Elem, [H, T]):-
Elem != H,
Checksingle(Elem, [T]).
I am trying to define a function in prolog that takes arguments of the form combination(3,[a,b,c,d],L) , the result returns
L=a,b,c
L=a,b,d
L=a,c,d
L=b,c,d
My implementation is as follows:
combination(K,argList,L):-
unknown(X,argList,Y),
Z is select(X,argList),
length(Z,K),
L is Z,
combination(K,Z,L).
unknown(X,[X|L],L).
unknown(X,[_|L],R) :- unknown(X,L,R).
The unknown predicate behaves as follows:
![enter image description here][1]
Please help.
The simplest solution that comes to mind using your definition of unknown/3 is:
combination(0, _, []) :-
!.
combination(N, L, [V|R]) :-
N > 0,
NN is N - 1,
unknown(V, L, Rem),
combination(NN, Rem, R).
unknown(X,[X|L],L).
unknown(X,[_|L],R) :-
unknown(X,L,R).
Explanation: the second clause of combination/3 looks to select an element from the list L, which the predicate unknown/3 does in a linear manner, returning the remainder, Rem. Once the number of elements selected out of list L exceeds N, the base case is triggered (the first clause of combination/3) which terminates the branch. Note that the definition of combination/3 relies on the non-deterministic nature of unknown/3 which leaves choice-points for selecting alternate list elements.
I need to do the following: given a list of lists I need to find all possible combinations of the lists such that if some of these lists belong in such a combination, then they have no elements in common and the list created by appending the lists in the combination has a given length. Any ideas?
Example:
Say P= [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[2,5],[7,9],[7,10],[8],[10]].
N a given number, say N=10. I need to search through P in order to find appropriate lists, with no elements in common, and add them in a list L such that the length of the union of L is 10. So in the above example :
L=[[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,9],[8],[10]]. It might be very easy but I'm new in Prolog
Given nobody's answered, and it's been quite a while since I've written anything in Prolog and I figured I needed the practice, here's how you'd do it.
First, to make generating the combinations easier, we create a term to preprocess the lists to pair them with their lengths to avoid having to get the lengths multiple times. The cut avoids needless backtracking:
with_lengths([], []) :- !.
with_lengths([H|T1], [(Len, H)|T2]) :-
length(H, Len),
with_lengths(T1, T2).
Here's the comb/3 predicate, which you use for generating the combinations:
comb(L, R, Max) :-
with_lengths(L, L1),
comb1(L1, R, Max).
comb1/3 does the actual work. The comments explain what's going on:
% Combination works.
comb1([], [], 0).
% Try combining the current element with the remainder.
comb1([(Len, Elem)|T1], [Elem|T2], Max) :-
NewMax is Max - Len,
comb1(T1, T2, NewMax).
% Alternatively, ignore the current element and try
% combinations with the remainder.
comb1([_|T1], T2, Max) :-
comb1(T1, T2, Max).