Related
So far I've done my fair amount of research and I've tried different methods, however even after reading multiple stack overflow answers and even a PDF from Addison Wesley, I can't find the way to do it. Here is the code
use_module(library(func)).
% importing library "func"
scale([c, d, e, f, g, a, b]).
scale(c, major, [c, d, e, f, g, a, b]).
scale(c, minor, [c, d, e_b, f, g, a_b, b_b]).
%1st attempt
search(note, scale):- scale(note, scale).
%2nd attempt
scaleOf(note, type_scale):- scale(note, type_scale).
on(item,[item|rest]).
on(item,[disregardHead|tail]):-
scale(tail),
on(item, tail).
%3rd attempt
fatherOf(father,type, son):- scale(father, type, sons), search(son, type, sons).
search(son, type, []):- !, fail.
search(son, type, [son|l]):- !, true.
search(son, type, [c|l]):- search(son, type, l).
What am I attempting? Simple, something that can iterate through the predicate scale(c, [c, d, e, f, g, a, b]). But I can't get it right.
Edit: I have multiple predicates because someone else suggested creating a predicate that would differentiate one scale from the other. I thought I could cram it inside any algorithm but I guess PROLOG is not that lenient :p
You can do that with member/2 [swi-doc]. This can be used to search, unify with a member, or generate a list.
So you can search with:
search(Note, Scale, Item) :-
scale(Note, Scale, Items),
member(Item, Items).
It is important that Note, Scale, Item and Items start with an Uppercase, since identifiers with a lower case are constants or functors. Identifiers with an uppercase are variables.
This will thus unify Item with the items in the list, for the given sample data we for example obtain:
?- search(c, minor, Item).
Item = c ;
Item = d ;
Item = e_b ;
Item = f ;
Item = g ;
Item = a_b ;
Item = b_b.
I would have thought that a list of tuples could easily be flattened:
scala> val p = "abcde".toList
p: List[Char] = List(a, b, c, d, e)
scala> val q = "pqrst".toList
q: List[Char] = List(p, q, r, s, t)
scala> val pq = p zip q
pq: List[(Char, Char)] = List((a,p), (b,q), (c,r), (d,s), (e,t))
scala> pq.flatten
But instead, this happens:
<console>:15: error: No implicit view available from (Char, Char) => scala.collection.GenTraversableOnce[B].
pq.flatten
^
I can get the job done with:
scala> (for (x <- pq) yield List(x._1, x._2)).flatten
res1: List[Char] = List(a, p, b, q, c, r, d, s, e, t)
But I'm not understanding the error message. And my alternative solution seems convoluted and inefficient.
What does that error message mean and why can't I simply flatten a List of tuples?
If the implicit conversion can't be found you can supply it explicitly.
pq.flatten {case (a,b) => List(a,b)}
If this is done multiple times throughout the code then you can save some boilerplate by making it implicit.
scala> import scala.language.implicitConversions
import scala.language.implicitConversions
scala> implicit def flatTup[T](t:(T,T)): List[T]= t match {case (a,b)=>List(a,b)}
flatTup: [T](t: (T, T))List[T]
scala> pq.flatten
res179: List[Char] = List(a, p, b, q, c, r, d, s, e, t)
jwvh's answer covers the "coding" solution to your problem perfectly well, so I am not going to go into any more detail about that. The only thing I wanted to add was clarifying why the solution that both you and jwvh found is needed.
As stated in the Scala library, Tuple2 (which (,) translates to) is:
A tuple of 2 elements; the canonical representation of a Product2.
And following up on that:
Product2 is a cartesian product of 2 components.
...which means that Tuple2[T1,T2] represents:
The set of all possible pairs of elements whose components are members of two sets (all elements in T1 and T2 respectively).
A List[T], on the other hand, represents an ordered collections of T elements.
What all this means practically is that there is no absolute way to translate any possible Tuple2[T1,T2] to a List[T], simply because T1 and T2 could be different. For example, take the following tuple:
val tuple = ("hi", 5)
How could such tuple be flattened? Should the 5 be made a String? Or maybe just flatten to a List[Any]? While both of these solutions could be used, they are working around the type system, so they are not encoded in the Tuple API by design.
All this comes down to the fact that there is no default implicit view for this case and you have to supply one yourself, as both jwvh and you already figured out.
We needed to do this recently. Allow me to explain the use case briefly before noting our solution.
Use case
Given a pool of items (which I'll call type T), we want to do an evaluation of each one against all others in the pool. The result of these comparisons is a Set of failed evaluations, which we represent as a tuple of the left item and the right item in said evaluation: (T, T).
Once these evaluations are complete, it becomes useful for us to flatten the Set[(T, T)] into another Set[T] that highlights all the items that have failed any comparisons.
Solution
Our solution for this was a fold:
val flattenedSet =
set.foldLeft(Set[T]())
{ case (acc, (x, y)) => acc + x + y }
This starts with an empty set (the initial parameter to foldLeft) as the accumulator.
Then, for each element in the consumed Set[(T, T)] (named set) here, the fold function is passed:
the last value of the accumulator (acc), and
the (T, T) tuple for that element, which the case deconstructs into x and y.
Our fold function then returns acc + x + y, which returns a set containing all the elements in the accumulator in addition to x and y. That result is passed to the next iteration as the accumulator—thus, it accumulates all the values inside each of the tuples.
Why not Lists?
I appreciated this solution in particular since it avoided creating intermediate Lists while doing the flattening—instead, it directly deconstructs each tuple while building the new Set[T].
We could also have changed our evaluation code to return List[T]s containing the left and right items in each failed evaluation—then flatten would Just Work™. But we thought the tuple more accurately represented what we were going for with the evaluation—specifically one item against another, rather than an open-ended type which could conceivably represent any number of items.
My database follows this format:
aminotodna (Amincoacid, [DNA sequence]).
Here are a few examples from the database:
aminotodna(a,[g,c,a]).
aminotodna(a,[g,c,c]).
aminotodna(a,[g,c,g]).
aminotodna(a,[g,c,t]).
aminotodna(c,[t,g,c]).
aminotodna(c,[t,g,t]).
aminotodna(d,[g,a,c]).
aminotodna(d,[g,a,t]).
aminotodna(e,[g,a,a]).
aminotodna(e,[g,a,g]).
aminotodna(f,[t,t,c]).
aminotodna(f,[t,t,t]).
Some aminoacids have multiple DNA sequences.
Here is my question, so in a given list of amino acids for example [d,c,e,f], how can I append their DNA sequences together and give all combinations, as some have more than one sequence.
If it was just two I could do it, it'd just be
listamino(X,Y) :-
aminotodna(X,L),
aminotodna(Y,M),
append(L,M,Z),
print(Z).
hitting ; gives all combinations.
I've tired doing it with a list, but this is my attempt, and it didnt work:
listamino([]).
listamino([H|T]) :-
aminotodna(H,L),
aminotodna(T,M),
append(L,M,X),
print(X).
listamino(T).
When describing lists with Prolog, always consider using DCG notation for convenience and clarity. For example, using a subset of your examples, I first use DCG rules to describe the correspondence (note that I am using a name that makes sense in all directions):
amino_dna(a) --> [g,c,a].
amino_dna(a) --> [g,c,c].
amino_dna(c) --> [t,g,c].
amino_dna(c) --> [t,g,t].
an then I again use DCG rules to describe the concatenation of such lists:
aminos([]) --> [].
aminos([A|As]) --> amino_dna(A), aminos(As).
Sample query:
?- phrase(aminos([a,c]), As).
As = [g, c, a, t, g, c] ;
As = [g, c, a, t, g, t] ;
As = [g, c, c, t, g, c] ;
etc.
No append/3, no additional variables, no additional arguments, no nonsense. Use dcg!
You need an extra parameter to keep track of the current combination:
; invoke a version of listamino which tracks the current combination of DNA sequences, which is initially empty
listamino(X) :-
listamino(X,[]).
; If there are no ore aminos, print the DNA seq list, and we're done
listamino([],X) :-
print(X).
; Otherwise, append the DNA for the first amino to our list, and process the rest of the mains
listamino([H|T],X) :-
aminotodna(H,L),
append(X,L,X2),
listamino(T,X2).
I am studying prolog and was wondering if anybody give me guidance on how to go about doing this question, It's the first of many in this area and knowing how to do this question will really help me progress. Thank-you in advance.
Using Prolog define a predicate mapof(K, M, V) such that, when invoked with K instantiated to a key, and M instantiated to a mapping, mapof will instantiate the variable V to the value (or one of the values) associated with K in mapping M. The predicate should fail if K does not appear as a key in mapping M.
It really depends how you want to represent your "mapping". In Prolog, a table of facts is the most obvious approach. For two mappings m and n:
m(a, 1).
m(b, 2).
m(c, 3). % and so on
n(a, foo).
n(b, bar).
n(c, baz). % and so on
Then, your mapof would be something along the lines of:
mapof(K, m, V) :- m(K, V).
mapof(K, n, V) :- n(K, V).
or maybe:
mapof(K, M, V) :- call(M, K, V).
A list can be used to represent a mapping, as shown by #Yasel, but a list [a, b, c] in Prolog is a nested term like .(a, .(b, .(c, []))). You don't usually represent an associative array as a singly linked list, right?
In SWI-Prolog there is a library that is better than using a simple list for a backtrackable associative array represented as a Prolog term: library(assoc). With it, you can do:
mapof(K, M, V) :- gen_assoc(K, M, V).
This library represents the associative array as an AVL tree. You can find in the SWI-Prolog code source two more associative array implementations: one using RB-trees, and one that uses non-backtrackable RB-trees.
All three libraries mentioned here are probably more efficient than a simple list of key-value pairs [k1-v1, k2-v2...] if your associative array has more than say around 100 key-value pairs in it. This doesn't mean that using a list of pairs and doing member(Key-Value, List_of_pairs) is wrong; it is the cheapest solution for simple cases.
Using the built-in predicate member/2 you can build your predicate mapof/3 like this:
mapof(K, M, V):- member((K,V), M).
Consult:
?- mapof(k1, [(k, a),(k1,b),(k2,c),(k1,d)], V).
V = b ;
V = d.
I want to create a list from the facts. And the list should contains only one of the arity in the facts.
For example :
%facts
abc(a, b, c).
abc(d, e, f).
abc(g, h, i).
Sample :
?-lists(A).
A = [a, d, g];
No.
EDIT :
Using the suggestion by Vaughn Cato in the comment, the code become this :
%facts
abc(a, b, c).
abc(d, e, f).
abc(g, h, i).
lists(A) :-
findall(findall(X, abc(X, _, _), A).
The list is created, but how to sum up the list A ?
If sum of list for input from query,
sumlist([], 0).
sumlist([X|Y], Sum) :-
sumlist(Y, Sum1),
Sum is X + Sum1.
But if want to sum the existing list, how to define the predicate?
To sum a list of numbers such as that produced by your definition of lists/1, most Prolog systems (e.g., GNU, SWI) implement sum_list/2 which takes a list of numbers as the first argument and binds their sum in the second:
?- sum_list([1,2,3],Sum).
Sum = 6.
You can also solve it with aggregate_all/3. It eliminates need to build list in memory if you just need a sum.
sum_facts(Template, Arg, Sum) :-
aggregate_all(sum(X), (call(Template), arg(Arg, Template, X)), Sum).
In this example I use a generic call with defined Template:
sum_facts(abc(_, _, _), 1, Sum).
If you will always use it with the first arg of abc/3 this version will be enough:
sum_facts(Template, Arg, Sum) :-
aggregate_all(sum(X), abc(X, _, _), Sum).
As suggested by Vaughn Cato, it's help me a lot by using findall(X,abc(X, _ , _ ),A). to create the list I wanted to.