I am to write a program that does this:
?- pLeap(2,5,X,Y).
X = 2,
Y = 3 ;
X = 3,
Y = 4 ;
X = 4,
Y = 5 ;
X = 5,
Y = 5 ;
false.
(gives all pairs X,X+1 between 2 and 5, plus the special case at the end).
This is supposedly the solution. I don't really understand how it works, could anyone guide me through it?
pLeap(X,X,X,X).
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
L<H,
X is L,
Y is X+1.
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
L=<H,
L1 is L+1,
pLeap(L1,H,X,Y).
I'd do it simply like this:
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
X >= L,
X =< H,
Y is X+1.
Why doesn't it work (ignoring the special case at the end)?
You could use library clpfd for you problem.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
pLeap(L,H,X,Y) :-
X in L..H,
Y #= min(H, X+1),
label([X]).
Here is the output:
?- pLeap(2,5,X,Y).
X = 2,
Y = 3 ;
X = 3,
Y = 4 ;
X = 4,
Y = 5 ;
X = 5,
Y = 5.
The >= and =< operators don't instantiate their arguments, and you can only use them once the arguments have already been instantiated.
Put another way, in the given solution, X and Y are given values with is, and the < and =< operators are only used on L and H, whose values are given by the user. (On the given solution, try pLeap(L,H,2,3) and you'll get the same problem as you're having.)
In your case, though, you try to use >= and =< on X, which has no value yet, and so the interpreter complains.
Related
Trying to calculate the triangular number sequence in Prolog.
This is my solution:
where X is the nth position of the sequence and Y is the result.
triang(1, 1).
triang(X, Y) :-
X>0,
A is X - 1,
triang(A, B),
Y is B + X.
?- triang(5,X).
X = 15
But when i try to do for example triang(X,10) I receive an error
Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated.
I guess this is because X is not defined in the consult.
is there any recommendation how to solve this problem,thank you.
First of all, the result you got is not that bad. It says: sorry, I am unable to come to a conclusion and before producing an incorrect result, I prefer to produce an error.
The actual reason is the following goal
?- X > 0.
error(instantiation_error,(is)/2).
So here we ask for X that are greater than zero. And there are many, in fact infinitely many. There is no direct way to enumerate that set for this built-in and thus it prefers the error.
However, with library(clpz) or clpfd, there is a better way:
:- use_module(library(clpz)). % use clpfd for SWI instead
:- op(150, fx, #).
triang(0, 0).
triang(X, Y) :-
#X #>0,
#Y #>0,
#A #= #X - 1,
#Y #= #B + #X,
triang(A, B).
?- triang(X,15).
X = 5
; false.
?- triang(X,14).
false.
?- triang(X,X).
X = 0
; X = 1
; false.
?- triang(X,Y).
X = 0, Y = 0
; X = 1, Y = 1
; X = 2, Y = 3
; X = 3, Y = 6
; X = 4, Y = 10
; X = 5, Y = 15
; X = 6, Y = 21
; ... .
?- #X #> 0.
clpz:(X in 1..sup).
So now there is an answer to #X #> 0. The answer is often called a constraint. In this case it tells us that X must be in the interval 1 up to (kind of) infinity.
I am new to prolog and have am trying to write a program that will do the following tell me if a number is between 2 values I can do the following:
between(L, X, R) :-
X > L, X < R.
and doing between(1, 3, 5) works, but I would like it to be able to do between(1, X, 5) and have prolog return all the values in between so in this case X = 2, X = 3, X = 4, I get why my solution doesn't because it needs to be have been initialised, but I cannot think of a solution to this problem, can this type of thing just not be done in prolog?, and help would be great thanks
In case you don't want to predefine all numbers: let prolog create a list with possible entries and state your X has to be one of them. To understand the code you have to have knowledge about lists in prolog, especially Head and Tail notation of lists.
betweenList(L,R,[]):-
L>=R.
betweenList(L,R,[L|Rest]):-
L<R,
LL is L+1,
betweenList(LL,R,Rest).
between(L, X, R) :-
betweenList(L, R, [L| List]),
member(X, List).
?- between(1,X,5).
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
false.
betweenList(L,R,List) creates a List of all numbers between L and R, including L (as head element), excluding R. So if you want to generate a List without L, it is the easiest to just call betweenList(L, R, [L| List]) so List will not include L. Now X just has to be a member of List. The member/2 predicate can be easily written as well if you don't want to use the inbuild predicate.
One way to approach this:
digit(0).
digit(1).
digit(2).
digit(3).
digit(4).
digit(5).
digit(6).
digit(7).
digit(8).
digit(9).
between(L, X, U) :- digit(L), digit(X), digit(U), L < X, X < U.
Tests:
?- between(2, X, 5).
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
false.
?- between(2, 7, U).
U = 8 ;
U = 9.
Alternatively, you may want to look into Constraint logic programming.
Incidentally, Prolog already has a between/3:
?- between(1, 5, X).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 5.
although it's "illogical": you can't run it backwards, as the above definition.
I was wondering whether in prolog it is possible to get it to brute force all the possible calculations for something like this:
6 is Z + Q
Z = 1 Q = 5
Z = 2 Q = 4
Z = 3 Q = 3
I suggest to use, if your Prolog support it, a Finite Domain solver.
I usually use GProlog and I can obtain what you ask with something like
fd_domain([A, B], 1, 100),
6 #= A + B,
fd_labeling([A, B]),
where fd_domain/3 set the domain for variables A and B (from 1 to 100), 6 #= A + B set the constraint (A + B is 6) and fd_labelling/1 get all possibles calculations.
In Swi-Prolog is a little different.
First of all, you have to load the CLP(FD) library with
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
To set the variables and the domain, you can write
Vars = [A, B],
Vars ins 1..100,
Setting the constraint is equal
6 #= A + B,
and to get all possible combinations, you can write
label(Vars),
The generate-and-test approach also works. Of course, you still need some constraints, for example:
?- between(1, 6, X), % X is an integer between 1 and 6
between(1, 6, Y), % Y is an integer between 1 and 6
X =< Y, % X is not larger than Y
X + Y =:= 6. % the sum is 6
X = 1, Y = 5 ;
X = 2, Y = 4 ;
X = Y, Y = 3 ;
false.
The order of the subqueries is significant, so you could as well call it generate-then-test. If you are not afraid to hard-code some of the constraints, there might be ways to avoid generating some of the values, and make some of the tests unnecessary, for example:
?- between(1, 6, X), % X is an integer between 1 and 6
between(X, 6, Y), % Y is an integer between X and 6
X + Y =:= 6. % the sum is 6
X = 1, Y = 5 ;
X = 2, Y = 4 ;
X = Y, Y = 3 ;
false.
You should realize that going down that road far enough is about the same as implementing a constraint solver like CLP(FD) for example.
I'm exploring dependent structures of constraints like this one:
assign(X,Y) :-
X in 1..5,
((X mod 2 #= 1) #=> Y in 2..3),
((X mod 2 #= 0) #=> Y #= 5).
What I'm looking for is a representation of X's and Y's domains that is as sparse as possible - in this case it would be something along the lines of X in {1,3,5} and Y in {2,3} or X in {2,4} and Y = 5.
One way of doing that would be to detect all variables on the left side of the #=>, enumerate all their values and collect and merge them together, something like ?- assign(X, Y), findall(X-D, (indomain(X),fd_dom(Y,D)), C), do stuff with C, but maybe there is a more efficient way?
I've also encountered an error trying to label([X,Y]): Arguments are not sufficiently instantiated that goes away when I add another constraint on Y's domain.
When should I expect this error to occur? I feel I have a poor understanding of clpfd's mechanisms and limitations, are there any resources I could learn from? I already know the basics of constraint programming, arc consistency etc.
To keep clpfd enumeration predicates (like indomain/1, label/1, labeling/2, etc.) from ever throwing instantiation errors, simply ensure that all variables have been assigned some finite domain before any enumeration predicates is executed.
So how about directly translating what you wrote to code?
assign(X,Y) :- X in 1\/3\/5, Y in 2..3. % X in {1,3,5} and Y in {2,3}
assign(X,Y) :- X in 2..4, Y in 5. % or X in {2,4} and Y = 5
A simple query (with SWI-Prolog):
?- assign(X,Y), labeling([],[X,Y]).
X = 1, Y = 2
; X = 1, Y = 3
; X = 3, Y = 2
; X = 3, Y = 3
; X = 5, Y = 2
; X = 5, Y = 3
; X = 2, Y = 5
; X = 3, Y = 5
; X = 4, Y = 5.
I have this code that uses an upper bound variable N that is supposed to terminate for X and Y of the pythagorean triple. However it only freezes when it reaches the upper bound. Wasn't sure how to use the cut to stop the backtracking. Code is:
is_int(0).
is_int(X) :- is_int(Y), X is Y+1.
minus(S,S,0).
minus(S,D1,D2) :- S>0, S1 is S-1, minus(S1,D1,D3), D2 is D3+1.
pythag(X,Y,Z,N) :- int_triple(X,Y,Z,N), Z*Z =:= X*X + Y*Y.
int_triple(X,Y,Z,N) :- is_int(S), minus(S,X,S1), X>0, X<N,
minus(S1,Y,Z), Y>0, Y<N.
Will be called, for example with,
?- pythag(X,Y,Z,20).
First, let us test your solution:
?- pythag(X,Y,Z,20).
X = 4, Y = 3, Z = 5
; X = 3, Y = 4, Z = 5
; X = 8, Y = 6, Z = 10
; X = 6, Y = 8, Z = 10
; X = 12, Y = 5, Z = 13
; X = 5, Y = 12, Z = 13
; X = 12, Y = 9, Z = 15
; X = 9, Y = 12, Z = 15
; X = 15, Y = 8, Z = 17
; X = 8, Y = 15, Z = 17
; X = 16, Y = 12, Z = 20
; X = 12, Y = 16, Z = 20
; loops.
Looks perfect to me! All answers are correct solutions! ... up to and including this last solution. After that, your program loops.
Before we try to identify the problem, just hold on for a moment: You must be pretty patient to go through 12 (that is: twelve) answers only to find that loop. Do you think that this method will also work for bigger cases? How many answers are you willing to look at before you give up? Isn't there a simpler way to find out about the problem?
There is one interesting observation here: The answers found have (almost) nothing to do with the looping of the program! That is: By looking at the answers, you get (frequently – as in this case) no clue about the actual cause of the loop! So why not turn off all the answers and concentrate on the relevant part! In fact, we can do this as follows:
?- pythag(X,Y,Z,20), false.
loops.
Now, all answers have been removed due to the goal false. What remains is just the final outcome: either termination, or non-termination, or some error. Nothing else. This should facilitate our observations about termination a bit - no more blinding answers scrolling over the screen. Note that this does not solve the problem in general. After all, how long are we willing to wait? 1s ? 1m?
The actual reason of non-termination can be best understood by looking at a relevant failure slice. That is a fragment of the program whose non-termination implies the non-termination of the whole program. See this answer for more details. Here is the relevant failure slice of your program for query pythag(X,Y,Z,20), false:
pythag(X,Y,Z,N) :-
int_triple(X,Y,Z,N), false,
Z*Z =:= X*X + Y*Y.
int_triple(X,Y,Z,N) :-
is_int(S), false,
minus(S,X,S1), X>0, X<N,
minus(S1,Y,Z), Y>0, Y<N.
is_int(0) :- false.
is_int(X) :-
is_int(Y), false,
X is Y+1.
Note that there are not many things left of your program. E.g., the actual equation is gone (that's more or less the logic part...). Still, this fragment is relevant. And as long as you do not change something within that fragment, the problem will persist! That is guaranteed for a pure monotonic program as this one...
Here is my preferred solution: It uses length/2 and between/3, two frequently supported predicates of the Prolog prologue.
pythag2(X,Y,Z,N) :-
length(_, N),
between(1,N,X),
between(1,N,Y),
between(1,N,Z),
Z*Z =:= X*X + Y*Y.
I was recently as well thinking about a Prolog solution to
find Pythagorean triples. I came up with a slightly different
code. Assume we have a function:
isqrt(a) = floor(sqrt(a))
It is then enough to enumerate x and y, and to check whether
x*x+y*y is the square of some z. Namely to check for:
h = x*x+y*y, z = isqrt(h), z*z = h ?
The function isqrt can be implemented via bisection. For
symmetry breaking we can enumerate y after x. Assuming
N = 99 the resulting code is:
% between(+Integer, +Integer, -Integer)
between(Lo, Hi, _) :-
Lo > Hi, !, fail.
between(Lo, _, Lo).
between(Lo, Hi, X) :-
Lo2 is Lo+1, between(Lo2, Hi, X).
% bisect(+Integer, +Integer, +Integer, -Integer)
bisect(Lo, Hi, X, Y) :-
Lo+1 < Hi, !,
M is (Lo+Hi) // 2,
S is M*M,
(S > X -> bisect(Lo, M, X, Y);
S < X -> bisect(M, Hi, X, Y);
M = Y).
bisect(Lo, _, _, Lo).
% pythago(-List)
pythago(X) :-
X = [A,B,C],
between(1, 99, A),
between(A, 99, B),
H is A*A+B*B,
bisect(0, H, H, C),
C =< 99, H =:= C*C.
There should be 50 such Pythagorean tripples, see also Sloan's A046083:
?- findall(-, pythago(_), L), length(L, N).
N = 52.
One might like to cross check with the following
CLP(FD) solution.
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
% pythago3(-List)
pythago3(X) :-
X = [A,B,C],
X ins 1..99,
A*A+B*B #= C*C,
A #=< B,
label(X).
It gives the same number of solutions:
?- findall(-, pythago3(_), L), length(L, N).
N = 50.