I have to simulate family tree in prolog.
And i have problem of symetrical predicates.
Facts:
parent(x,y).
male(x).
female(y).
age(x, number).
Rules:
blood_relation is giving me headache. this is what i have done:
blood_relation(X,Y) :- ancestor(X,Y).
blood_relation(X,Y) :- uncle(X,Y)
; brother(X,Y)
; sister(X,Y)
; (mother(Z,Y),sister(X,Z))
; (father(Z,Y),sister(X,Z))
; (father(Z,Y),brother(X,Z)).
blood_relation(X,Y) :- uncle(X,Z)
, blood_relation(Z,Y).
and I am getting i think satisfactory results(i have double prints - can i fix this), problem is that i want that this relation be symmetrical. It is not now.
blood_relation(johns_father, john):yes
blood_relation(john,johns_father): no
so..is there a way to fix this.
And i need query: All pairs that are not in blood_relation..
Update:
What kinds of relationships is the first statement supposed to satisfy?
blood_relation(X,Y):-blood_relation(X,Y).
sorry..it is a bad copy/paste..it
blood_relation(X,Y):-ancestor(X,Y).
Now fixed above.
here are other rules:
father(X,Y) :-
parent(X,Y),male(X).
mother(X,Y) :-
parent(X,Y),female(X).
brother(X,Y) :-
parent(Z,X),parent(Z,Y),
male(X).
sister(X,Y) :-
parent(Z,X),parent(Z,Y),
female(X).
grandFather(X,Y) :-
parent(Z,Y),parent(X,Z),
male(X).
grandMother(X,Y) :-
parent(Z,Y),
parent(X,Z),female(X).
uncle(X,Y) :-
mother(Z,Y),brother(X,Z).
ancestor(X,Y) :-
ancestor(X,Y).
ancestor(X,Y) :-
parent(X,Z),ancestor(Z,Y).
Mother's brother is in uncle definition. It's kind of strange. I've got rules that I need to implement, and I don't know how I can implement rules besides that. I'm just confused.
Any idea how to make blood_relation symmetric? And not_blood_relation is a new rule. And I need query. This one is really giving me headache. Maybe because relation is written like crap.
And there are no more facts. That's all. All rules, and all facts.
query.. not(blood_relation(X,Y)) doesn't work, and I really don't know why.
For example query:
age(X,Y), Y>18,
not(parent(X,Z)),write(X),nl,fail.
works just fine
The naive solution to making a particular predicate symmetric isn't that far from a decent one. For the sake of generality, let's look at a friendship relation so people don't get tripped up on uncles and the like.
Here are some facts detailing a friendship relation (where, say, the numbers are user ids and the particular ordering of the arguments came from who initiated the friendship).
friends(1,2).
friends(5,2).
friends(7,4).
You'd initially think a rule like "friends(A,B) :- friends(B,A)." would fix things right up, but this leads you to infinite recursion because it tells prolog that if it just swaps the argument one more time it might just work. There is a predicate called "#</2" that tells you whether one term (even a variable) comes before another in the "standard order of terms". The technical meaning isn't all that important here, but what we care about is that for two different terms it is only true for one ordering of them. We can use this to break the infinite recursion!
This single rule will take care of making "friend/2" symmetric.
friends(A,B) :- A #< B, friends(B,A).
As neat as this is, there is an approach way you should take for large projects. Recall that the ordering of the args in my list of facts had some actual meaning (who initiated the friendship). Adding the final rule destroyed future access to this information and, for other people reading the code, hides the symmetric property in a single line of code which is easy to ignore in the face of a block of hard-coded data.
Condsider the industrial-strength solution:
friended(1,2).
friended(5,2).
friended(7,4).
friends(A,B) :- friended(A,B).
friends(A,B) :- friended(B,A).
It is bulkier, but it reads cleanly without using obscure predicates and retains the original information (which you might want again someday in a real application).
--
As for finding pairs that don't have a specific property, make sure you always include some predicate to provide context in your rule when you use negation to look for actual individuals.
potential_enemies(A,B) :- user(A), user(B), \+ friends(A,B).
A bit looks like a homework, isn't it...
One trick which most of beginners of prolog don't think of is list pattern matching. Think of a tree like [a1,[[a2],[b2,[[e3],[f3]]],[c2]]] as in <tree>=[root,[<tree1>,<tree2>,...]]:
%Y is immediate child of X?
child(X,Y,[X|S]) :- member([Y|_],S).
%pick one tree in S and check
child(X,Y,[X|S]) :- member([Z|SS],S),child(Z,Y,[Z|SS]).
%X and Y end up with same root?
sib(X,Y,[R|T]) :- child(R,X,[R|T]), child(R,Y,[R|T]).
I think you can improve upon this like, using pairs as roots, adding genders, giving names to specific relations of members of the tree...
What kinds of relationships is the first statement supposed to satisfy?
blood_relation(X,Y):-blood_relation(X,Y).
That isn't telling you anything that you don't already "know" and is going to cause you recursion headaches. As for the 'no' answer, is looks like you've already gotten all of the answers from the query that you are going to get, and the interpreter is just telling you that there aren't any more.
You really should post more facts, and the definition of uncle/2, and is there a reason why you're not matching a mother's brother, just her sister? You have lots of other issues to work on :-).
For everything that is not a blood relation, try this:
not_blood_relation(X, Y) :- blood_relation(X, Y), !, fail.
not_blood_relation(X, Y).
And ask yourself why it works!
Related
I'm working through Clocksin and Mellish to try and finally go beyond just dabbling in Prolog. FWIW, I'm running SWI-Prolog:
SWI-Prolog version 7.2.3 for x86_64-linux
Anyway, I implemented a diff/2 predicate as part of exercise 1.4. The predicate is very simple:
diff(X,Y) :- X \== Y.
And it works when used in the sister_of predicate, like this:
sister_of(X,Y) :-
female(X),
diff(X,Y),
parents(X, Mum, Dad ),
parents(Y, Mum, Dad ).
in that, assuming the necessary additional facts, doing this:
?- sister_of(alice,alice).
returns false as expected. But here's the rub. If I do this instead:
?- sister_of(alice, Who).
(again, given the additional facts necessary)
I get
Who = edward ;
Who = alice;
false
Even though, as already shown, the sister_of predicate does not treat alice as her own sister.
On the other hand, if I use the SWI provided dif/2 predicate, then everything works the way I would naively expect.
Can anyone explain why this is happening this way, and why my diff implementation doesn't work the way I'm expecting, in the case where I ask for additional unifications from that query?
The entire source file I'm working with can be found here
Any help is much appreciated.
As you note, the problem stems from the interplay between equality (or rather, inequality) and unification. Observe that in your definition of sister_of, you first find a candidate value for X, then try to constrain Y to be different, but Y is still an uninstantiated logic variable and the check is always going to succeed, like diff(alice, Y) will. The following constraints, including the last one that gives a concrete value to Y, come too late.
In general, what you need to do is ensure that by the time you get to the inequality check all variables are instantiated. Negation is a non-logical feature of Prolog and therefore potentially dangerous, but checking whether two ground terms are not equal is safe.
I got a database that looks like
hasChild(person1, person2).
hasChild(person1, person3).
hasChild(person4, person5).
Which means that (for example) person1 has child named person2.
I then create a predicate that identifies if the person is a parent
parent(A):- hasChild(A,_).
Which identifies if the person is a parent, i.e. has any children
Then I try to create a predicate childless(A) that should return true if the user doesn't have any children which is basically an inverse of parent(A).
So I have 2 questions here:
a) is it possible to somehow take an "inverse" of a predicate, like childless(A):-not(parent(A)). or in any other way bypass this using the hasChild or any other method?
b) parent(A) will return true multiple times if the person has multiple children. Is it possible to make it return true only once?
For problem 1, yes. Prolog is not entirely magically delicious to some because it conflates negation and failure, but you can definitely write:
childless(X) :- \+ hasChild(X, _).
and you will see "true" for people that do not have children. You will also see "true" for vegetables, minerals, ideologies, procedures, shoeboxes, beer recipes and unfeathered bipeds. If this is a problem for you, a simple solution is to improve your data model, but complaining about Prolog is a very popular alternative. :)
For problem 2, the simplest solution is to use once:
parent(A) :- once(hasChild(A, _)).
This is a safer alternative to using the cut operator, which would look like this:
parent(A) :- hasChild(A, _), !.
This has a fairly significant cost: parent/1 will only generate a single valid solution, though it will verify other correct solutions. To wit:
?- parent(X).
X = person1.
Notice it did not suggest person4. However,
?- childless(person4).
true.
This asymmetry is certainly a "code smell" to most any intermediate Prolog programmer such as myself. It's as though Prolog has some sort of amnesia or selective hearing depending on the query. This is no way to get invited to high society events!
I would suggest that the best solution here (which handles the mineral/vegetable problem above as well) is to add some more facts about people. After all, a person exists before they have kids (or do they?) so they are not "defined" by that relationship. But continuing to play the game, you may be able to circumvent the problem using setof/3 to construct a list of all the people:
parent(Person) :-
setof(X, C^hasChild(X, C), People),
member(Person, People).
The odd expression C^hasChild(X, C) tells Prolog that C is a free variable; this ensures that we get the set of all things in the first argument of hasChild/2 bound to the list People. This is not first-order logic anymore folks! And the advantage here is that member/2 will generate for us as well as check:
?- parent(person4).
true.
?- parent(X).
X = person1 ;
X = person4.
Is this efficient? No. Is it smart? Probably not. Is it a solution to your question that also generates? Yes, it seems to be. Well, one out of three ain't bad. :)
As a final remark, some Prolog implementations treat not/1 as an alias for \+/1; if you happen to be using one of them, I recommend you not mistake compatibility with pre-ISO conventions for a jovial tolerance for variety: correct the spelling of not(X) to \+ X. :)
Here's another way you could do it!
Define everything you know for a fact as a Prolog fact, no matter if it is positive or negative.
In your sample, we define "positives" like person/1 and "negatives" like childless/1. Of course, we also define the predicates child_of/2, male/1, female/1, spouse_husband/2, and so on.
Note that we have introduced quite a bit of redundancy into the database.
In return, we got a clearer line of knowns/unknowns without resorting to higher-order constructs.
We need to define the right data consistency constraints:
% There is no person which is neither male nor female.
:- \+ (person(X), \+ (male(X) ; female(X))).
% Nobody is male and female (at once).
:- \+ (male(X), female(X)).
% Nobody is childless and parental (at once).
:- \+ (childless(X), child_of(_,X)).
% There is no person which is neither childless nor parental.
:- \+ (person(X), \+ (childless(X) ; child_of(_,X))).
% There is no child which is not a person.
:- \+ (child_of(X,_), \+ person(X)).
% There is no parent which is not a person.
:- \+ (child_of(_,X), \+ person(X)).
% (...plus, quite likely, a lot more integrity constraints...)
This is just a rough sketch... Depending on your use-cases you could do the modeling differently, e.g. using relations like parental/1 together with suitable integrity constraints. YMMY! HTH
I've got a little problem and don't know where to find a solution. You probably heard of problem of flying birds:
bird(eagle).
bird(penguin).
can_fly(penguin):-!,fail.
can_fly(X):-bird(X).
I tried to modify and use this knowledge for some "love story". Imagine this
maried(a, b).
maried(c, d).
lovers(a, d).
likes(X, Y):-maried(X, Y).
Now I want to say something like "If X is maried with Y, but X is Z's lover, then X doesn't like Y, but likes Z".
I tried this:
likes(X, Y) :- lovers(X, Y).
likes(X, Y) :- maried(X, Y), lovers(X, _),!,fail.
likes(X, Y) :- maried(X, Y).
It works unless I want to evaluate a goal
likes(A, B).
If there is more facts in the database and Prolog finds first cheater, it will stop backtracking and I can't find any other solution. Maybe it will be obvious after, but now I have nothing on my mind..
Thanks in advance (and maybe sorry for my English :))
Already your first example is not too useful. You can ask:
is the eagle a bird?
is the penguin a bird?
can the eagle fly?
can the penguin fly?
but you can't even ask, "which birds can fly?":
?- can_fly(Bird).
false.
If you would want to be able to ask more general question, like, "which birds can fly?", or "which birds cannot fly?", you would need to either explicitly list the flying or non-flying birds. As most birds can fly, let's list explicitly the non-flying birds:
bird(eagle).
bird(penguin).
bird(ostrich).
bird(dodo).
bird(sparrow).
bird(pigeon).
flightless_bird(penguin).
flightless_bird(ostrich).
flightless_bird(dodo).
bird_of_pray(eagle).
extinct(dodo).
extinct(wooly_mammoth).
can_fly(Bird) :-
bird(Bird),
\+ flightless_bird(Bird).
extinct_bird(Bird) :-
bird(Bird),
extinct(Bird).
Note the use of the ISO predicate for negation, \+/1. It is true if the goal cannot be proven. It is much cleaner than the fail-cut combination you are using.
How you organize your knowledge is a totally different question. The example I have given is incomplete and not necessarily the best way to do it. As a general rule, you should try to keep your data in a normalized form, with facts and clauses of facts playing the role of tables and table rows.
Hopefully this answer points in the right direction.
The cut-fail thing is an antipattern that's misleading you. It would be much better to say something in the original like this:
bird(eagle).
bird(penguin).
flightless(penguin).
can_fly(X) :- bird(X), \+ flightless(X).
See #boris's answer for an excellent and much more detailed discussion of this problem.
So, you have this database. I'm going to put names in so that I can comprehend it a little better.
married(bill, hillary).
married(barack, michelle).
lovers(bill, michelle).
Now what you want to say is that married people like each other, unless they're cheating. Well, it would be better to define these terms in Prolog so we can reason with them. Create the language we need to use to define our domain. That's going to look like this:
cheating(Cheater, SpitedSpouse, Lover) :-
married(Cheater, SpitedSpouse),
lovers(Cheater, Lover),
SpitedSpouse \= Lover.
Now it's much easier to define likes/2!
likes(Husband, Wife) :- married(Husband, Wife), \+ cheating(Husband, Wife, _).
likes(Husband, Lover) :- cheating(Husband, _, Lover).
We can even define dislikes properly:
dislikes(SpitedSpouse, Lover) :- cheating(_, SpitedSpouse, Lover).
dislikes(Cheater, Spouse) :- cheating(Cheater, Spouse, _).
Look at what we've learned: what you really have is a marriage relationship between two people, or a cheating relationship between three people, and of your other predicates are just projections of these two fundamental relationships. That's pretty neat, yeah? :) cheating/3 is basically the classic "love triangle." That suggests ways we could evolve the program to be more potent: handling love quadrilaterals, of course! And so forth.
Notice something interesting? This code can't "catch" michelle—isn't she just as culpable as bill? This underscores a bigger problem: the gender/orientation limitation of the predicates. I think it helps to have concrete nouns like these to see the logical relationships, but it's a dangerous shortcut that should be resolved. An easy way to handle the logic would be to create a predicate like this:
spouse(X, Y) :- married(X, Y)
spouse(X, Y) :- married(Y, X).
Of course you then have to do more checks to make sure you don't have the same people repeated, but it's not hard, and then change your variables to be less gender-specific.
Clue
Four guests (Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum, Miss Scarlett, Ms. Green) attend a dinner party at the home of Mr. Boddy. Suddenly, the lights go out! When they come back, Mr Boddy lies dead in the middle of the table. Everyone is a suspect. Upon further examination, the following facts come to light:
Mr Boddy was having an affair with Ms. Green.
Professor Plum is married to Ms. Green.
Mr. Boddy was very rich.
Colonel Mustard is very greedy.
Miss Scarlett was also having an affair with Mr. Boddy.
There are two possible motives for the murder:
Hatred: Someone hates someone else if that other person is having an affair with his/her spouse.
Greed: Someone is willing to commit murder if they are greedy and not rich, and the victim is rich.
Part A: Write the above facts and rules in your Prolog program. Use the following names for the people: colMustard, profPlum, missScarlet, msGreen, mrBoddy. Be careful about how you encode (or don’t encode) symmetric relationships like marriage - you don’t want infinite loops! married(X,Y) :- married(Y,X) % INFINITE LOOP
?-suspect(Killer,mrBoddy)
Killer = suspect_name_1
Killer = suspect_name_2
etc.
Part B: Write a predicate, suspect/2, that determines who the suspects may be, i.e. who had a motive.
?-suspect(Killer,mrBoddy)
Killer = unique_suspect.
Part C: Add a single factto your database that will result in there being a unique suspect.
Clearly indicate this line in your source comments so that it can be removed/added for
grading.
?-suspect(Killer,mrBoddy)
Killer = unique_suspect.
Whenever I type in
suspect(Killer,mrBoddy).
I get
suspect(Killer,mrBoddy).
Killer = profPlum
I'm missing
Killer = colMustard.
Here's my source.
%8) Clue
%facts
affair(mrBoddy,msGreen).
affair(missScarlett, mrBoddy).
affair(X,Y) :- affair(X,Y), affair(Y,X).
married(profPlum, msGreen).
married(X,Y) :- married(X,Y), married(Y,X).
rich(mrBoddy).
greedy(colMustard).
%rules
hate(X,Y) :- married(X,Spouse), affair(Y,Spouse).
greed(X,Y) :- greedy(X), not(rich(X)), rich(Y).
%suspect
suspect(X,Y):- hate(X,Y).
suspect(X,Y):- greed(X,Y).
There are two kinds of problems with your program. One is on the procedural level: you observed that Prolog loops; the other is on the logical level — Prolog people call this rather the declarative level. Since the first annoying thing is this endless loop, let's first narrow that down. Actually we get:
?- suspect(Killer,mrBoddy).
Killer = profPlum ;
ERROR: Out of local stack
You have now several options to narrow down this problem. Either, go with the other answer and call up a tracer. While the tracer might show you the actual culprit it might very well intersperse it with many irrelevant steps. So many that your mind will overflow.
The other option is to manually modify your program by adding goals false into your program. I will add as many false goals as I can while still getting a loop. The big advantage is that this way you will see in your source the actual culprit (or to be more precise one of potentially many such culprits).1 After trying a bit, this is what I got as failure-slice:
?- suspect(Killer,mrBoddy), false.
married(profPlum, msGreen) :- false.
married(X,Y) :- married(X,Y), false, married(Y,X).
hate(X,Y) :- married(X,Spouse), false, affair(Y,Spouse).
suspect(X,Y):- hate(X,Y), false.
suspect(X,Y):- false, greed(X,Y).
All remaining parts of your program were irrelevant, that is, they are no longer used. So essentially the rule
married(X,Y) :- married(X,Y), married(Y,X).
is the culprit.
Now, for the declarative part of it. What does this rule mean anyway? To understand it, I will interpret :- as an implication. So provided what is written on the right-hand side is true, we conclude what is written on the left-hand side. In this case:
Provided X is married to Y and Y is married to X
we can conclude that
X is married to Y.
This conclusion concluded what we have assumed to be true anyway. So it does not define anything new, logically. You can just remove the rule to get same results — declaratively. So married(profPlum, msGreen) holds but married(msGreen, profPlum) does not. In other words, your rules are not correct, as you claim.
To resolve this problem, remove the rule, rename all facts to husband_wife/2 and add the definition
married(M,F) :- husband_wife(M,F).
married(F,M) :- husband_wife(M,F).
So the actual deeper problem here was a logical error. In addition to that Prolog's proof mechanism is very simplistic, turning this into a loop. But that is not much more than a welcome excuse to the original logical problem.2
Footnotes:1 This method only works for pure, monotonic fragments. Non-monotonic constructs like not/1 or (\+)/1 must not appear in the fragment.
2 This example is of interest to #larsmans.
The problem is the recursive rules of the predicates affair/2 and married/2. Attempting to use them easily leads to an endless loop (i.e. until the stack memory is exhausted). You must use a different predicate in each case to represent that if X is having an affair with Y, then Y is having an affair with X. You also need to change your definition of the suspect/2 predicate to call those new predicates.
To better understand why you get an endless loop, use the trace facilities of your Prolog system. Try:
?- trace, suspect(Killer, mrBoddy).
and go step by step.
I have a standard procedure for determining membership of a list:
member(X, [X|_]).
member(X, [_|T]) :- member(X, T).
What I don't understand is why when I pose the following query:
?- member(a,[a,b]).
The result is
True;
False.
I would have thought that on satisfying the goal using the first rule (as a is the head of the list) True would be returned and that would be the end of if. It seems as if it is then attempting to satisfy the goal using the second rule and failing?
Prolog interpreter is SWI-Prolog.
Let's consider a similar query first: [Edit: Do this without adding your own definition ; member/2 is already defined]
?- member(a,[b,a]).
true.
In this case you get the optimal answer: There is exactly one solution. But when exchanging the elements in the list we get:
?- member(a,[a,b]).
true
; false.
Logically, both are just the affirmation that the query is true.
The reason for the difference is that in the second query the answer true is given immediately upon finding a as element of the list. The remaining list [b] does not contain a fitting element, but this is not yet examined. Only upon request (hitting SPACE or ;) the rest of the list is tried with the result that there is no further solution.
Essentially, this little difference gives you a hint when a computation is completely finished and when there is still some work to do. For simple queries this does not make a difference, but in more complex queries these open alternatives (choicepoints) may accumulate and use up memory.
Older toplevels always asked if you want to see a further solution, even if there was none.
Edit:
The ability to avoid asking for the next answer, if there is none, is extremely dependent on the very implementation details. Even within the same system, and the same program loaded you might get different results. In this case, however, I was using SWI's built-in definition for member/2 whereas you used your own definition, which overwrites the built-in definition.
SWI uses the following definition as built-in which is logically equivalent to yours but makes avoiding unnecessary choice points easier to SWI — but many other systems cannot profit from this:
member(B, [C|A]) :-
member_(A, B, C).
member_(_, A, A).
member_([C|A], B, _) :-
member_(A, B, C).
To make things even more complex: Many Prologs have a different toplevel that does never ask for further answers when the query does not contain a variable. So in those systems (like YAP) you get a wrong impression.
Try the following query to see this:
?- member(X,[1]).
X = 1.
SWI is again able to determine that this is the only answer. But YAP, e.g., is not.
Are you using the ";" operator after the first result then pushing return? I believe this is asking the query to look for more results and as there are none it is coming up as false.
Do you know about Prolog's cut - !?
If you change member(X, [X|_]). to member(X, [X|_]) :- !. Prolog will not try to find another solution after the first one.