Related
I need to find the combinations in a list of lists. For example, give the following list,
List = [[1, 2], [1, 2, 3]]
These should be the output,
Comb = [[1,1],[1,2],[1,3],[2,1],[2,2],[2,3]]
Another example:
List = [[1,2],[1,2],[1,2,3]]
Comb = [[1,1,1],[1,1,2],[1,1,3],[1,2,1],[1,2,2],[1,2,3]....etc]
I know how to do it for a list with two sublists but it needs to work for any number of sublists.
I'm new to Prolog, please help.
This answer hunts the bounty offered "for a pure solution that also takes into account for Ess".
Here we generalize this previous
answer like so:
list_crossproduct(Xs, []) :-
member([], Xs).
list_crossproduct(Xs, Ess) :-
Ess = [E0|_],
same_length(E0, Xs),
maplist(maybelonger_than(Ess), Xs),
list_comb(Xs, Ess).
maybelonger_than(Xs, Ys) :-
maybeshorter_than(Ys, Xs).
maybeshorter_than([], _).
maybeshorter_than([_|Xs], [_|Ys]) :-
maybeshorter_than(Xs, Ys).
list_crossproduct/2 gets bidirectional by relating Xs and Ess early.
?- list_comb(Xs, [[1,2,3],[1,2,4],[1,2,5]]).
nontermination % BAD!
?- list_crossproduct(Xs, [[1,2,3],[1,2,4],[1,2,5]]).
Xs = [[1],[2],[3,4,5]] % this now works, too
; false.
Sample query having multiple answers:
?- list_crossproduct(Xs, [[1,2,3],[1,2,4],[1,2,5],X,Y,Z]).
X = [1,2,_A],
Y = [1,2,_B],
Z = [1,2,_C], Xs = [[1],[2],[3,4,5,_A,_B,_C]]
; X = [1,_A,3],
Y = [1,_A,4],
Z = [1,_A,5], Xs = [[1],[2,_A],[3,4,5]]
; X = [_A,2,3],
Y = [_A,2,4],
Z = [_A,2,5], Xs = [[1,_A],[2],[3,4,5]]
; false.
For completeness, here is the augmented version of my comment-version. Note nilmemberd_t/2 which is inspired by memberd_t/2.
nilmemberd_t([], false).
nilmemberd_t([X|Xs], T) :-
if_(nil_t(X), T = true, nilmemberd_t(Xs, T)).
nil_t([], true).
nil_t([_|_], false).
list_comb(List, []) :-
nilmemberd_t(List, true).
list_comb(List, Ess) :-
bagof(Es, maplist(member,Es,List), Ess).
Above version shows that "only" the first clause was missing in my comment response. Maybe even shorter with:
nilmemberd([[]|_]).
nilmemberd([[_|_]|Nils]) :-
nilmemberd(Nils).
This should work for Prologs without constraints. With constraints, bagof/3 would have to be reconsidered since copying constraints is an ill-defined terrain.
Here's a way to do it using maplist/3 and append/2:
list_comb([], [[]]).
list_comb([Xs|Xss], Ess) :-
Xs = [_|_],
list_comb(Xss, Ess0),
maplist(aux_x_comb(Ess0), Xs, Esss1),
append(Esss1, Ess).
aux_x_comb(Ess0, X, Ess1) :-
maplist(head_tail_list(X), Ess0, Ess1).
head_tail_list(X, Xs, [X|Xs]).
Sample query:
?- list_comb([[a,b],[f,g],[x,y,z]], Ess).
Ess = [[a,f,x],[a,f,y],[a,f,z],
[a,g,x],[a,g,y],[a,g,z],
[b,f,x],[b,f,y],[b,f,z],
[b,g,x],[b,g,y],[b,g,z]].
Here's how it works!
As an example, consider these goals:
list_comb([[a,b],[f,g],[x,y,z]], Ess)
list_comb([ [f,g],[x,y,z]], Ess0)
How can we get from Ess0 to Ess?
We look at the answers to the
latter query:
?- list_comb([[f,g],[x,y,z]], Ess0).
Ess0 = [[f,x],[f,y],[f,z], [g,x],[g,y],[g,z]].
... place a before [f,x], ..., [g,z] ...
?- maplist(head_tail_list(a),
[[f,x],[f,y],[f,z],
[g,x],[g,y],[g,z]], X).
X = [[a,f,x],[a,f,y],[a,f,z],
[a,g,x],[a,g,y],[a,g,z]].
... then do the same for b.
maplist(aux_x_comb) helps us handle all items:
?- maplist(aux_x_comb([[f,x],[f,y],[f,z],
[g,x],[g,y],[g,z]]),
[a,b], X).
X = [[[a,f,x],[a,f,y],[a,f,z],
[a,g,x],[a,g,y],[a,g,z]],
[[b,f,x],[b,f,y],[b,f,z],
[b,g,x],[b,g,y],[b,g,z]]].
To get from a list of lists to a list use append/2.
I hope this explanation was more eludicating than confusing:)
A twist in #false's approach:
%list_comb( ++LL, -Ess)
list_comb( LL, Ess):-
is_list( LL),
maplist( is_list, LL),
findall( Es, maplist( member, Es, LL), Ess).
Testing:
41 ?- list_comb( [[1,2],[1],[1]], X).
X = [[1, 1, 1], [2, 1, 1]].
42 ?- list_comb( [[1,2],[1],[1,2,3]], X).
X = [[1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 2], [1, 1, 3], [2, 1, 1], [2, 1, 2], [2, 1, 3]].
43 ?- list_comb( [[1,2],[],[1,2,3]], X).
X = [].
44 ?- list_comb( [[1,2],t,[1,2,3]], X).
false.
45 ?- list_comb( t, X).
false.
I have a list with an unknown number of zeros at the beginning of it, for example [0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 3]. I need this list to be stripped of leading zeros, so that it would look like [1, 2, 0 , 3].
Here's what I have:
lead([Head | _], _) :- Head =\= 0.
lead([0 | Tail], _) :-
lead(Tail, Tail).
The output of which is simply True. Reading the trace shows that it is running until it has a list with no leading zeros, but then the answer doesn't propagate back up the stack. I'm pretty new to Prolog, so I can't figure out how to make it do that.
Here is a solution that works in all directions:
lead([],[]).
lead([H|T],[H|T]) :-
dif(H,0).
lead([0|T],T2) :-
lead(T,T2).
Some queries:
?- lead([0,0,0,1,2,0,3], L).
L = [1, 2, 0, 3] ;
false.
?- lead(L, []).
L = [] ;
L = [0] ;
L = [0, 0] ;
L = [0, 0, 0] ;
...
?- lead(L0, L).
L0 = L, L = [] ;
L0 = L, L = [_G489|_G490],
dif(_G489, 0) ;
L0 = [0],
L = [] ;
L0 = [0, _G495|_G496],
L = [_G495|_G496],
dif(_G495, 0) ;
L0 = [0, 0],
L = [] ;
L0 = [0, 0, _G501|_G502],
L = [_G501|_G502],
dif(_G501, 0) ;
L0 = [0, 0, 0],
L = [] ;
...
EDIT This predicate actually doesn't work for e.g. lead(L0, [0,1,2]).
With library(reif):
:- use_module(reif).
remove_leading_zeros([], []).
remove_leading_zeros([H|T], Rest) :-
if_( H = 0,
remove_leading_zeros(T, Rest),
Rest = [H|T]).
Then:
?- remove_leading_zeros([0,0,0,1,2,0,3], R).
R = [1, 2, 0, 3].
?- remove_leading_zeros([2,0,3], R).
R = [2, 0, 3].
?- remove_leading_zeros(L, R).
L = R, R = [] ;
L = [0],
R = [] ;
L = [0, 0],
R = [] ;
L = [0, 0, 0],
R = [] . % and so on
Here is a solution that actually works for all possible inputs and doesn't leave unnecessary choice points:
lead(L0, L) :-
( nonvar(L),
L = [H|_] ->
dif(H,0)
;
true
),
lead_(L0, L).
lead_([], []).
lead_([H|T], L) :-
if_(H \= 0,
L = [H|T],
lead_(T,L)).
The initial check for nonvar(L) is the only solution I have been able to come up with that would prevent problems with e.g. lead(L0, [0,1,2,3]), while retaining the behavior of the predicate in all other situations.
This uses if_/3, part of library(reif)
if_(If_1, Then_0, Else_0) :-
call(If_1, T),
( T == true -> Then_0
; T == false -> Else_0
; nonvar(T) -> throw(error(type_error(boolean,T),
type_error(call(If_1,T),2,boolean,T)))
; throw(error(instantiation_error,instantiation_error(call(If_1,T),2)))
).
This also uses (\=)/3, that I came up with by simple modification of (=)/3 in library(reif).
\=(X, Y, T) :-
( X \= Y -> T = true
; X == Y -> T = false
; T = true, dif(X, Y)
; T = false,
X = Y
).
Some queries
?- lead([0,0,0,1,2,0,3],L). % No choice point
L = [1, 2, 0, 3].
?- lead([1,2,0,3],L).
L = [1, 2, 0, 3].
?- lead([0,0,0,0],L).
L = [].
?- lead([],L).
L = [].
?- lead(L0,[0,1,2,0,3]). % Correctly fails
false.
?- lead(L0,[1,2,0,3]).
L0 = [1, 2, 0, 3] ;
L0 = [0, 1, 2, 0, 3] ;
L0 = [0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 3] ;
…
?- lead(L0,L). % Exhaustively enumerates all cases:
L0 = L, L = [] ; % - LO empty
L0 = L, L = [_G2611|_G2612], % - L0 contains no leading 0
dif(_G2611, 0) ;
L0 = [0], % - L0 = [0]
L = [] ;
L0 = [0, _G2629|_G2630], % - L0 contains one leading 0
L = [_G2629|_G2630],
dif(_G2629, 0) ;
L0 = [0, 0], % - L0 = [0, 0]
L = [] ;
L0 = [0, 0, _G2647|_G2648], % - L0 contains two leading 0s
L = [_G2647|_G2648],
dif(_G2647, 0) ;
… % etc.
Here is a solution that doesn't generate any choice points. Its
using freeze/2, in a way that is not anticipated by dif/2. But using
freeze/2 here is quite appropriate, since one rule of thumb for freeze/2
is as follows:
Rule of Thumb for freeze/2: Use freeze/2 where the predicate would
generate uninstantiated solutions and a lot of choice points. The hope
is that a subsequent goal will specify the solution more, and the
freeze/2 will be woken up. Unfortunately doesn't work with CLP(FD) or
dif/2, since freeze/2 does not react to refinements implied by CLP(FD)
or dif/2, only unification will wake it up.
The code is thus:
lead(X, Y) :- var(X), !, freeze(X, lead(X,Y)).
lead([X|Y], Z) :- var(X), !, freeze(X, lead([X|Y],Z)).
lead([0|X], Y) :- !, lead(X, Y).
lead(X, X).
Here are some sample runs (SWI-Prolog without some import, Jekejeke Prolog use Minlog Extension and ?- use_module(library(term/suspend))):
?- lead([0,0,0,1,2,3], X).
X = [1, 2, 3].
?- lead([0,0|X], Y).
freeze(X, lead(X, Y)).
?- lead([0,0|X], Y), X = [0,1,2,3].
X = [0, 1, 2, 3],
Y = [1, 2, 3].
?- lead([Z,0|X], Y), X = [0,1,2,3].
X = [0, 1, 2, 3],
freeze(Z, lead([Z, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3], Y)).
?- lead([Z,0|X], Y), X = [0,1,2,3], Z = 0.
Z = 0,
X = [0, 1, 2, 3],
Y = [1, 2, 3].
In the above lead/2 implemetation only the first argument is handled. To handle multiple arguments simultaneously the predicate when/2 can be used. But for simplicity this is not shown here.
Also when using suspended goals, one might need a labeling like predicate at the end, since suspended goals cannot detect inconsistency among them.
The problem in your code is that the second parameter, your output, is specified as _, so your predicate is true for any output. What you want is a predicate that is true if and only if it is the input minus leading zeroes.
lead([], []).
lead([0 | Tail], Tail2) :- !, lead(Tail, Tail2).
lead([Head | Tail], [Head | Tail]) :- Head =\= 0.
The ! in the first line is optional. It prunes the search tree so Prolog does not consider the second line (which would fail) if the first line matches.
Here's how I'd phrase it. First, establish constraints: either X or Y must be bound to a list. Anything else fails.
If X is bound, we don't care about Y: it can be bound or unbound. We just strip any leading zeros from X and unify the results with Y. This path has a single possible solution.
If X is unbound and Y is bound, we shift into generative mode. This path has an infinite number of possible solutions.
The code:
strip_leading_zeros(X,Y) :- listish(X), !, rmv0( X , Y ) .
strip_leading_zeros(X,Y) :- listish(Y), !, add0( Y , X ) .
rmv0( [] , [] ) .
rmv0( [D|Ds] , R ) :- D \= 0 -> R = [D|Ds] ; rmv0(Ds,R) .
add0( X , X ) .
add0( X , Y ) :- add0([0|X],Y ) .
listish/1 is a simple shallow test for listish-ness. Use is_list/1 if you want to be pedantic about things.
listish( L ) :- var(L), !, fail.
listish( [] ) .
listish( [_|_] ) .
Edited to note: is_list/1 traverses the entire list to ensure that it is testing is a properly constructed list, that is, a ./2 term, whose right-hand child is itself either another ./2 term or the atom [] (which denotes the empty list). If the list is long, this can be an expensive operation.
So, something like [a,b,c] is a proper list and is actually this term: .(a,.(b,.(c,[]))). Something like [a,b|32] is not a proper list: it is the term .(a,.(b,32)).
This is the code for deleting or removing an element from a given list:
remove_elem(X,[],[]).
remove_elem(X,L1,L2) :-
L1 = [H|T],
X == H,
remove_elem(X,T,Temp),
L2 = Temp.
remove_elem(X,L1,L2) :-
L1 = [H|T],
X \== H,
remove_elem(X,T,Temp),
L2 = [H|Temp].
How can I modify it, so that I can delete every occurrence of a sub list from a list?
When I tried to put a list in an element, it only deletes the element and only once.
It should be this:
?- remove([1,2],[1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],L).
L = [3,4,5,6,1]. % expected result
Inspired by #CapelliC's implementation I wrote the following code based on
and_t/3:
append_t([] ,Ys,Ys, true).
append_t([X|Xs],Ys,Zs,Truth) :-
append_aux_t(Zs,Ys,Xs,X,Truth).
append_aux_t([] ,_ ,_ ,_,false). % aux pred for using 1st argument indexing
append_aux_t([Z|Zs],Ys,Xs,X,Truth) :-
and_t(X=Z, append_t(Xs,Ys,Zs), Truth).
One append_t/4 goal can replace two prefix_of_t/3 and append/3 goals.
Because of that, the implementation of list_sublist_removed/3 gets a bit simpler than before:
list_sublist_removed([] ,[_|_] ,[]).
list_sublist_removed([X|Xs],[L|Ls],Zs) :-
if_(append_t([L|Ls],Xs0,[X|Xs]),
(Zs = Zs0 , Xs1 = Xs0),
(Zs = [X|Zs0], Xs1 = Xs)),
list_sublist_removed(Xs1,[L|Ls],Zs0).
Still deterministic?
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],[1,2],L).
L = [3,4,5,6,1].
Yes! What about the following?
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],X,[3,4,5,6,1]).
X = [1,2] ; % succeeds with useless choice-point
false.
Nope. So there is still room for potential improvement...
This logically pure implementation is based on the predicates if_/3 and (=)/3.
First, we build a reified version of prefix_of/2:
prefix_of_t([],_,true).
prefix_of_t([X|Xs],Zs,T) :-
prefix_of_t__aux(Zs,X,Xs,T).
prefix_of_t__aux([],_,_,false).
prefix_of_t__aux([Z|Zs],X,Xs,T) :-
if_(X=Z, prefix_of_t(Xs,Zs,T), T=false).
Then, on to the main predicate list_sublist_removed/3:
list_sublist_removed([],[_|_],[]).
list_sublist_removed([X|Xs],[L|Ls],Zs) :-
if_(prefix_of_t([L|Ls],[X|Xs]), % test
(Zs = Zs0, append([L|Ls],Xs0,[X|Xs])), % case 1
(Zs = [X|Zs0], Xs0 = Xs)), % case 2
list_sublist_removed(Xs0,[L|Ls],Zs0).
A few operational notes on the recursive clause of list_sublist_removed/3:
First (test), we check if [L|Ls] is a prefix of [X|Xs].
If it is present (case 1), we strip it off [X|Xs] yielding Xs0 and add nothing to Zs.
If it is absent (case 2), we strip X off [X|Xs] and add X to Zs.
We recurse on the rest of [X|Xs] until no more items are left to process.
Onwards to some queries!
The use case you gave in your question:
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],[1,2],L).
L = [3,4,5,6,1]. % succeeds deterministically
Two queries that try to find the sublist that was removed:
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],Sub,[ 3,4,5,6,1]).
Sub = [1,2] ? ;
no
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],Sub,[1,3,4,5,6,1]).
no
Next, let's find a suitable Ls in this query:
?- list_sublist_removed(Ls,[1,2],[3,4,5,6,1]).
% a lot of time passes ... and nothing happens!
Non-termination! This is unfortunate, but within expectations, as the solution set is infinite. However, by a-priori constraining the length of Ls, we can get all expected results:
?- length(Ls,_), list_sublist_removed(Ls,[1,2],[3,4,5,6,1]).
Ls = [ 3,4,5,6,1] ?
; Ls = [1,2, 3,4,5,6,1] ?
; Ls = [3, 1,2, 4,5,6,1] ?
; Ls = [3,4, 1,2, 5,6,1] ?
; Ls = [3,4,5, 1,2, 6,1] ?
; Ls = [3,4,5,6, 1,2, 1] ?
; Ls = [3,4,5,6,1, 1,2 ] ?
; Ls = [1,2, 1,2, 3,4,5,6,1] ? ...
<rant>
So many years I study Prolog, still it deserves some surprises... your problem it's quite simple to solve, when you know the list library, and you have a specific mode (like the one you posted as example). But can also be also quite complex to generalize, and it's unclear to me if the approach proposed by #repeat, based on #false suggestion (if_/3 and friends) can be 'ported' to plain, old Prolog (a-la Clocksin-Mellish, just to say).
</rant>
A solution, that has been not so easy to find, based on old-school Prolog
list_sublist_removed(L, S, R) :-
append([A, S, B], L),
S \= [],
list_sublist_removed(B, S, T),
append(A, T, R),
!
; L = R.
some test:
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],[1,2],L).
L = [3, 4, 5, 6, 1].
?- list_sublist_removed([1,2,3,4,1,2,5,6,1,2,1],X,[3, 4, 5, 6, 1]).
X = [1, 2].
?- length(X,_), list_sublist_removed(X,[1,2],[3, 4, 5, 6, 1]).
X = [3, 4, 5, 6, 1] ;
X = [3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 1] ...
I want to access list permutation and pass it as argument to other functions.
This is the permutation code:
takeout(X,[X|R],R).
takeout(X,[F|R],[F|S]) :-
takeout(X,R,S),
write(S).
perm([X|Y],Z) :-
perm(Y,W),
takeout(X,Z,W).
perm([],[]).
To start with, let's redefine your predicates so they don't do any unnecessary I/O:
takeout(X,[X|R],R).
takeout(X,[F |R],[F|S]) :- takeout(X,R,S).
perm([X|Y],Z) :- perm(Y,W), takeout(X,Z,W).
perm([],[]).
Now you have what could be considered a "pure" permutation function:
?- perm([1,2,3], X).
X = [1, 2, 3] ;
X = [2, 1, 3] ;
X = [2, 3, 1] ;
X = [1, 3, 2] ;
X = [3, 1, 2] ;
X = [3, 2, 1] ;
false.
So, suppose you have a max_heap function that takes a list of values and produces a tree. I'll let you worry about that, so let's just posit that it exists and is called max_heap/2 and let's further posit that you have a way to display this attractively called display_heap/1. To "take" the permutation and "send" it as a parameter to these functions, you're really saying in math-ese: suppose P is a permutation of X, let's make a max_heap with it and display it. Or, suppose P is a permutation of X, H is a max heap made from X, let's display H:
show_heaps(List) :- perm(List, P), max_heap(P, H), display_heap(H).
This says the same thing as my English sentence: suppose P is a permutation of the list, then H is a heap representation of it, then display it. Technically, display_heap/1 is still a predicate which could be true or false for a given heap. In practice, it will always be true, and if you run this you'll still have to hit ; repeatedly to say, give me another solution, unless you use a failure-driven loop or an extralogical predicate like findall/3 to cause all the solutions to be found.
Edit: Let's discuss failure-driven loops and findall/3. First let me add some new predicates, because I don't know exactly what you're doing, but it doesn't matter for our purposes.
double([X|Xs], [Y|Ys]) :- Y is X*2, double(Xs, Ys).
double([],[]).
showlist(Xs) :- print(Xs).
So now I have a predicate double/2 which doubles the values in the list and a predicate showlist/1 that prints the list on standard output. We can try it out like so:
?- perm([1,2,3], X), double(X, Y), showlist(Y).
[2,4,6]
X = [1, 2, 3],
Y = [2, 4, 6] ;
[4,2,6]
X = [2, 1, 3],
Y = [4, 2, 6] ;
[4,6,2]
X = [2, 3, 1],
Y = [4, 6, 2] ;
[2,6,4]
X = [1, 3, 2],
Y = [2, 6, 4] ;
[6,2,4]
X = [3, 1, 2],
Y = [6, 2, 4] ;
[6,4,2]
X = [3, 2, 1],
Y = [6, 4, 2] ;
false.
When you type ; you're saying, "or?" to Prolog. In other words, you're saying "what else?" You're telling Prolog, in effect, this isn't the answer I want, try and find me another answer I like better. You can formalize this process with a failure-driven loop:
?- perm([1,2,3], X), double(X, Y), showlist(Y), fail.
[2,4,6][4,2,6][4,6,2][2,6,4][6,2,4][6,4,2]
false.
So now you see the output from each permutation having gone through double/2 there, and then Prolog reported false. That's what one means by something like this:
show_all_heaps(List) :- perm(List, X), double(X, Y), showlist(Y), nl, fail.
show_all_heaps(_).
Look at how that works:
?- show_all_heaps([1,2,3]).
[2,4,6]
[4,2,6]
[4,6,2]
[2,6,4]
[6,2,4]
[6,4,2]
true.
The other option is using findall/3, which looks more like this:
?- findall(Y, (perm([1,2,3], X), double(X, Y)), Ys).
Ys = [[2, 4, 6], [4, 2, 6], [4, 6, 2], [2, 6, 4], [6, 2, 4], [6, 4, 2]].
Using this to solve your problem is probably beyond the scope of whatever homework it is you're working on though.
We can define list_permutation/2 based on same_length/2 and select/3 like this:
:- use_module(library(lists),[same_length/2,select/3]).
list_permutation(As,Bs) :-
same_length(As,Bs), % redundant goal helps termination
list_permutation_(As,Bs).
list_permutation_([],[]).
list_permutation_([A|As],Bs0) :-
select(A,Bs0,Bs),
list_permutation_(As,Bs).
Thanks to same_length/2, both of the following queries1,2 terminate universally:
?- list_permutation([1,2,3],Ys).
Ys = [1,2,3]
; Ys = [1,3,2]
; Ys = [2,1,3]
; Ys = [3,1,2]
; Ys = [2,3,1]
; Ys = [3,2,1]
; false.
?- list_permutation(Xs,[1,2,3]).
Xs = [1,2,3]
; Xs = [1,3,2]
; Xs = [2,1,3]
; Xs = [2,3,1]
; Xs = [3,1,2]
; Xs = [3,2,1]
; false.
So far, so good. But what does the answer sequence look like if there are duplicate list items?
?- list_permutation([1,1,1],Ys).
Ys = [1,1,1]
; Ys = [1,1,1]
; Ys = [1,1,1]
; Ys = [1,1,1]
; Ys = [1,1,1]
; Ys = [1,1,1]
; false.
5/6 answers are redundant! What can we do? We simply use selectd/3 instead of select/3!
list_permuted(As,Bs) :-
same_length(As,Bs),
list_permuted_(As,Bs).
list_permuted_([],[]).
list_permuted_([A|As],Bs0) :-
selectd(A,Bs0,Bs), % use selectd/3, not select/3
list_permuted_(As,Bs).
Let's re-run above query that gave us 5 redundant solutions before!
?- list_permuted([1,1,1],Ys).
Ys = [1,1,1]
; false.
?- list_permuted(Xs,[1,1,1]).
Xs = [1,1,1]
; false.
Better! All redundant answers are gone.
Let's compare the solution set for some sample case:
?- _Xs = [1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1],
setof(Ys,list_permutation(_Xs,Ys),Yss),
setof(Ys,list_permuted(_Xs,Ys),Yss),
length(Yss,N).
N = 84, Yss = [[1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2],[1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,2],[...|...]|...].
OK! How about empirical runtime measurements with a problem of a slightly bigger size?
We use call_time/2 for measuring the runtime in milli-seconds T_ms.
?- call_time(\+ (list_permutation([1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1],_),false),T_ms).
T_ms = 8110.
?- call_time(\+ (list_permuted( [1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1],_),false),T_ms).
T_ms = 140.
OK! And with proper compilation of if_/3 and (=)/3, list_permuted/2 is even faster!
Footnote 1: Using SICStus Prolog version 4.3.2 (x86_64-linux-glibc2.12).
Footnote 2: The answers given by the Prolog toplevel have been post-processed for the sake of readability.
If you just want to explore the permutations without the "False" in the end, this code might be helpful
takeout(X,[F |R],[F|S]) :- F\=X, takeout(X,R,S).
takeout(X,[X|R],R).
perm([X|Y],Z) :- perm(Y,W), takeout(X,Z,W).
perm([],[]).
So, the output of perm([a,b],B) would be
B=[a,b]
B=[b,a]
I am trying to fill a list of given length N with numbers 1,2,3,...,N.
I thought this could be done this way:
create_list(N,L) :-
length(L,N),
forall(between(1,N,X), nth1(X,L,X)).
However, this does not seem to work. Can anyone say what I am doing wrong?
First things first: Use clpfd!
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
In the following I present zs_between_and/3, which (in comparison to my previous answer) offers some more features.
For a start, let's define some auxiliary predicates first!
equidistant_stride([] ,_).
equidistant_stride([Z|Zs],D) :-
equidistant_prev_stride(Zs,Z,D).
equidistant_prev_stride([] ,_ ,_). % internal predicate
equidistant_prev_stride([Z1|Zs],Z0,D) :-
Z1 #= Z0+D,
equidistant_prev_stride(Zs,Z1,D).
Let's run a few queries to get a picture of equidistant_stride/2:
?- Zs = [_,_,_], equidistant_stride(Zs,D).
Zs = [_A,_B,_C], _A+D#=_B, _B+D#=_C.
?- Zs = [1,_,_], equidistant_stride(Zs,D).
Zs = [1,_B,_C], _B+D#=_C, 1+D#=_B.
?- Zs = [1,_,_], equidistant_stride(Zs,10).
Zs = [1,11,21].
So far, so good... moving on to the actual "fill list" predicate zs_between_and/3:
zs_between_and([Z0|Zs],Z0,Z1) :-
Step in -1..1,
Z0 #= Z1 #<==> Step #= 0,
Z0 #< Z1 #<==> Step #= 1,
Z0 #> Z1 #<==> Step #= -1,
N #= abs(Z1-Z0),
( fd_size(N,sup)
-> true
; labeling([enum,up],[N])
),
length(Zs,N),
labeling([enum,down],[Step]),
equidistant_prev_stride(Zs,Z0,Step).
A bit baroque, I must confess...
Let's see what features were gained---in comparison to my previous answer!
?- zs_between_and(Zs,1,4). % ascending consecutive integers
Zs = [1,2,3,4]. % (succeeds deterministically)
?- zs_between_and(Zs,3,1). % descending consecutive integers (NEW)
Zs = [3,2,1]. % (succeeds deterministically)
?- zs_between_and(Zs,L,10). % enumerates fairly
L = 10, Zs = [10] % both ascending and descenting (NEW)
; L = 9, Zs = [9,10]
; L = 11, Zs = [11,10]
; L = 8, Zs = [8,9,10]
; L = 12, Zs = [12,11,10]
; L = 7, Zs = [7,8,9,10]
...
?- L in 1..3, zs_between_and(Zs,L,6).
L = 3, Zs = [3,4,5,6]
; L = 2, Zs = [2,3,4,5,6]
; L = 1, Zs = [1,2,3,4,5,6].
Want some more? Here we go!
?- zs_between_and([1,2,3],From,To).
From = 1, To = 3
; false.
?- zs_between_and([A,2,C],From,To).
A = 1, From = 1, C = 3, To = 3 % ascending
; A = 3, From = 3, C = 1, To = 1. % descending
I don't have a prolog interpreter available right now, but wouldn't something like...
isListTo(N, L) :- reverse(R, L), isListFrom(N, R).
isListFrom(0, []).
isListFrom(N, [H|T]) :- M is N - 1, N is H, isListFrom(M, T).
reverse can be done by using e.g. http://www.webeks.net/prolog/prolog-reverse-list-function.html
So tracing isListTo(5, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5])...
isListTo(5, [1, 2, 3, 4, 5])
<=> isListFrom(5, [5, 4, 3, 2, 1])
<=> 5 is 5 and isListFrom(4, [4, 3, 2, 1])
<=> 4 is 4 and isListFrom(3, [3, 2, 1])
<=> 3 is 3 and isListFrom(2, [2, 1])
<=> 2 is 2 and isListFrom(1, [1])
<=> 1 is 1 and isListFrom(0, [])
QED
Since PROLOG will not only evaluate truth, but find satisfying solutions, this should work. I know this is a vastly different approach from the one you are trying, and apologize if your question is specifically about doing loops in PROLOG (if that is the case, perhaps re-tag the question?).
Here's a logically pure implementation of predicate zs_from_to/3 using clpfd:
:- use_module(library(clpfd)).
zs_from_to([],I0,I) :-
I0 #> I.
zs_from_to([I0|Is],I0,I) :-
I0 #=< I,
I1 #= I0 + 1,
zs_from_to(Is,I1,I).
Let's use it! First, some ground queries:
?- zs_from_to([1,2,3],1,3).
true.
?- zs_from_to([1,2,3],1,4).
false.
Next, some more general queries:
?- zs_from_to(Zs,1,7).
Zs = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
; false.
?- zs_from_to([1,2,3],From,To).
From = 1, To = 3.
Now, let's have some even more general queries:
?- zs_from_to(Zs,From,2).
Zs = [], From in 3..sup
; Zs = [2], From = 2
; Zs = [1,2], From = 1
; Zs = [0,1,2], From = 0
; Zs = [-1,0,1,2], From = -1
; Zs = [-2,-1,0,1,2], From = -2
...
?- zs_from_to(Zs,0,To).
Zs = [], To in inf.. -1
; Zs = [0], To = 0
; Zs = [0,1], To = 1
; Zs = [0,1,2], To = 2
; Zs = [0,1,2,3], To = 3
; Zs = [0,1,2,3,4], To = 4
...
What answers do we get for the most general query?
?- zs_from_to(Xs,I,J).
Xs = [], J#=<I+ -1
; Xs = [I], I+1#=_A, J#>=I, J#=<_A+ -1
; Xs = [I,_A], I+1#=_A, J#>=I, _A+1#=_B, J#>=_A, J#=<_B+ -1
; Xs = [I,_A,_B], I+1#=_A, J#>=I, _A+1#=_B, J#>=_A, _B+1#=_C, J#>=_B, J#=<_C+ -1
...
Edit 2015-06-07
To improve on above implementation of zs_from_to/3, let's do two things:
Try to improve determinism of the implementation.
Extract a more general higher-order idiom, and implement zs_from_to/3 on top of it.
Introducing the meta-predicates init0/3 and init1/3:
:- meta_predicate init0(2,?,?).
:- meta_predicate init1(2,?,?).
init0(P_2,Expr,Xs) :- N is Expr, length(Xs,N), init_aux(Xs,P_2,0).
init1(P_2,Expr,Xs) :- N is Expr, length(Xs,N), init_aux(Xs,P_2,1).
:- meta_predicate init_aux(?,2,+). % internal auxiliary predicate
init_aux([] , _ ,_ ).
init_aux([Z|Zs],P_2,I0) :-
call(P_2,I0,Z),
I1 is I0+1,
init_aux(Zs,P_2,I1).
Let's see init0/3 and init1/3 in action!
?- init0(=,5,Zs). % ?- numlist(0,4,Xs),maplist(=,Xs,Zs).
Zs = [0,1,2,3,4].
?- init1(=,5,Zs). % ?- numlist(1,5,Xs),maplist(=,Xs,Zs).
Zs = [1,2,3,4,5].
Ok, where do we go from here? Consider the following query:
?- init0(plus(10),5,Zs). % ?- numlist(0,4,Xs),maplist(plus(10),Xs,Zs).
Zs = [10,11,12,13,14].
Almost done! Putting it together, we define zs_from_to/2 like this:
z_z_sum(A,B,C) :- C #= A+B.
zs_from_to(Zs,I0,I) :-
N #= I-I0+1,
init0(z_z_sum(I0),N,Zs).
At last, let's see if determinism has improved!
?- zs_from_to(Zs,1,7).
Zs = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. % succeeds deterministically
If I understood correctly, the built-in predicate numlist/3 would do.
http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?predicate=numlist/3