Related
I want to write a code that multiplies lists representing a number, like:
?- times([1,1,1], [1,1], Res).
Res = [1,1,1,1,1,1].
times([], _, []). % base case
times([_|T], Lis, [Lis|H]) :-
times(T, Lis, H).
I already have the code above and it kinda does what I want but not really. For example when asking:
?- times([1,1,1], [1,1], Res)
Res = [[1,1],[1,1],[1,1]].
The idea is there, but I just don't know how to fix that, I understand why it's happening (I'm adding a list as head), so I just wondered if anybody could help me.
Thanks in advance.
[Lis|H] will use Lis as first element, regardless whether Lis is a list or not. You should take a look at append/3 [swi-doc] for example to append two lists:
times([], _, []).
times([_|T], Lis, R) :-
append(Lis, H, R),
times(T, Lis, H).
I have a problem with my prolog code. I need to reverse all atomic elements of list.
Example: [1,2,[3,4]] -> [[4,3],2,1]
My solution:
myReverse([], []).
myReverse([H|T], X) :- myReverse(T, RT), myAppend(RT, H, X).
But it only gives me: [[3,4],2,1]
I think, I need to use is_list function and recursive call list if it's not atomic... but I am stuck... do you guys know how to write it?
Nearly. Consider this solution:
myReverse([], []) :- !.
myReverse([H|T], X) :-
!,
myReverse(H, NewH),
myReverse(T, NewT),
append(NewT, [NewH], X).
myReverse(X, X).
The first clause is the base case, which includes a cut (!) to exclude choices left because of the last clause.
The second clause reverses the head H, which may be an atom or a list. If H is an atom, the recursive subgoal after the cut evaluates with the last clause, and atoms are passed through unchanged. If H is a list, it is evaluated with the second clause and all elements are reversed. The next subgoal does the same with the remainder of the list (the tail, T), then are finally concatenated using the built-in append/3. Note that the new head element NewH is singular, so needs to be added to a singleton list structure as [NewH] as per the definition of append/3 which operates on lists.
The last clause passes all other things (i.e., atoms, numbers, etc. - anything that isn't a list or a variable) through unchanged.
revall(L, Y) :-
revall(L, [], Y).
revall([], Y, Y).
revall([H|T], T2, Y) :-
is_list(H),!,
revall(H, Hr),
revall(T, [Hr|T2], Y).
revall([H|T], T2, Y) :-
revall(T, [H|T2], Y).
here without append
I am working on a scenario in Prolog (eclipse) wherein I need a list structure to be reformatted.
I have a list of the form:
MyList = [a,b,c].
I was trying to see if I can flatten the list to a single element with all the commas replaced with the + operator.
So my result list would look like:
ResultList = [a+b+c]
which is a single element list. The length of the initial list is arbitrary.
I know prolog is not suited for such operations, but can this be done?
here it is, in standard Prolog. I think there should be no difference with Eclipse:
list_to_op([X,Y|T], [R]) :-
list_to_op(T, X+Y, R).
edit: bug noted by false
list_to_op([X], [X]).
list_to_op([X], R, R+X).
list_to_op([X|T], R, Q) :-
list_to_op(T, R+X, Q).
test:
?- list_to_op([a,b,c],X).
X = [a+b+c] .
The accumulator is required to give the appropriate associativity: the simpler and more intuitive definition
list_to_op1([X], X).
list_to_op1([X|R], X+T) :-
list_to_op1(R, T).
gives
?- list_to_op1([a,b,c],X).
X = a+ (b+c) .
If evaluation order is important, use list_to_op.
edit:
there is a bug: list_to_op([a,b],X) fails.
here the correction, as often happens, it's a simplification:
list_to_op([], R, R).
list_to_op([X|T], R, Q) :-
list_to_op(T, R+X, Q).
This may help
flatten_list(A,[B]) :- flatten_list_inner(A,B).
flatten_list_inner([A],A).
flatten_list_inner([H|T],H+Y) :- flatten_list_inner(T,Y).
The output is slightly different from what you wanted. It is currently [a + (b + c)]
How about this non-recursive version..
list_to_op(L, Res) :-
concat_atom(L, '+', Atom),
Res = [Atom].
?- list_to_op([a,b,c], X).
X = ['a+b+c'].
Edit: This works in Swi-prolog.. not sure about Eclipse.
I am trying to write a predicate that given the following list in Prolog:
[[1,a,b],[2,c,d],[[3,e,f],[4,g,h],[5,i,j]],[6,k,l]]
will produce the following list:
[[6,k,l],[[5,i,j],[4,g,h],[3,e,f]],[2,c,d],[1,a,b]]
As you can see I would like to preserve the order of the elements at the lowest level, to produce elements in the order 1, a, b and NOT b, a, 1.
I would also like to preserve the depth of the lists, that is, lists that are originally nested are returned as such, but in reverse order.
I have managed to achieve the desired order with the following code, but the depth is lost, i.e. lists are no longer nested correctly:
accRev([F,S,T],A,R) :- F \= [_|_], S \= [_|_], T \= [_|_],
accRev([],[[F,S,T]|A],R).
accRev([H|T],A,R) :- accRev(H,[],R1), accRev(T,[],R2), append(R2,R1,R).
accRev([],A,A).
rev(A,B) :- accRev(A,[],B).
I would appreciate help in correcting the code to preserve the correct nesting of lists. Thanks!
Two suggestions. First, here's one (rev_lists/2) which uses a bunch of SWI-PROLOG built-ins:
rev_lists(L, RL) :-
forall(member(M, L), is_list(M)), !,
maplist(rev_lists, L, L0),
reverse(L0, RL).
rev_lists(L, L).
This one works by testing if all elements of a list L are themselves lists (M); if so, it will recursively apply itself (via maplist) over all individual sub-lists, else it will return the same list. This has the required effect.
Secondly, here's rev_lists/2 again, but written such that it doesn't rely on built-ins except member/2 (which is common):
rev_lists(L, RL) :-
reversible_list(L), !,
rev_lists(L, [], RL).
rev_lists(L, L).
rev_lists([], Acc, Acc).
rev_lists([L|Ls], Acc, R) :-
( rev_lists(L, RL), !
; RL = L
),
rev_lists(Ls, [RL|Acc], R).
reversible_list(L) :-
is_a_list(L),
\+ (
member(M, L),
\+ is_a_list(M)
).
is_a_list([]).
is_a_list([_|_]).
It's basically the same strategy, but uses an accumulator to build up reverse lists at each level, iff they are comprised exclusively of lists; otherwise, the same list is returned.
question is:
when we key in mem([1,2,3,4,5]).
we will get the output as bellow:
odd=3
even=2
my coding is like that but cannot run. can help me check where is my mistake??
mem(X,[X|L]).
mem(X,[element|L]):-
mem([X,L]).
count([],L,L).
count([X|H],L1,L2):-
write(even),
X%2=0,nl,
write(odd),
X%2>=1,nl,
count([H],[X|L1],L2).
thanks for your helping.
The procedures you have written do two different things and don't actually belong together. mem/2 is equivalent to the usually builtin member/2 except that your definition contains an error: in the second clause element is an atom instead of a variable so it will not match other elements of the list. The usual definition is
member(X, [X|_]).
member(X, [_|L]) :- member(X, L).
Note that this definition will not only test if a term is an element of a list but can even be use to generate a list.
What exactly are you trying to do in count/3: split the list into two lists, one containing odd and the other containing even; or count the number of odd and even elements? The splitting could be done with something like:
count([], [], []).
count([X|L], O, E) :- X rem 2 =/= 0, count(L, [X|O], E).
count([X|L], O, E) :- X rem 2 =:= 0, count(L, O, [X|E]).
Note that =/= /2 and =:= / 2 force evaluation of arguments as arithmetic expressions while = /2 attempts to unify its arguments.
Counting the number of odds and evens can be done in a similar fashion, and is left as an exercise for the reader. :-)