Related
i am a beginner in ocaml and I am stuck in my project.
I would like to count the number of elements of a list contained in a list.
Then test if the list contains odd or even lists.
let listoflists = [[1;2] ; [3;4;5;6] ; [7;8;9]]
output
l1 = even
l2 = even
l3 = odd
The problem is that :
List.tl listoflists
Gives the length of the rest of the list
so 2
-> how can I calculate the length of the lists one by one ?
-> Or how could I get the lists and put them one by one in a variable ?
for the odd/even function, I have already done it !
Tell me if I'm not clear
and thank you for your help .
Unfortunately it's not really possible to help you very much because your question is unclear. Since this is obviously a homework problem I'll just make a few comments.
Since you talk about putting values in variables you seem to have some programming experience. But you should know that OCaml code tends to work with immutable variables and values, which means you have to look at things differently. You can have variables, but they will usually be represented as function parameters (which indeed take different values at different times).
If you have no experience at all with OCaml it is probably worth working through a tutorial. The OCaml.org website recommends the first 6 chapters of the OCaml manual here. In the long run this will probably get you up to speed faster than asking questions here.
You ask how to do a calculation on each list in a list of lists. But you don't say what the answer is supposed to look like. If you want separate answers, one for each sublist, the function to use is List.map. If instead you want one cumulative answer calculated from all the sublists, you want a fold function (like List.fold_left).
You say that List.tl calculates the length of a list, or at least that's what you seem to be saying. But of course that's not the case, List.tl returns all but the first element of a list. The length of a list is calculated by List.length.
If you give a clearer definition of your problem and particularly the desired output you will get better help here.
Use List.iter f xs to apply function f to each element of the list xs.
Use List.length to compute the length of each list.
Even numbers are integrally divisible by two, so if you divide an even number by two the remainder will be zero. Use the mod operator to get the remainder of the division. Alternatively, you can rely on the fact that in the binary representation the odd numbers always end with 1 so you can use land (logical and) to test the least significant bit.
If you need to refer to the position of the list element, use List.iteri f xs. The List.iteri function will apply f to two arguments, the first will be the position of the element (starting from 0) and the second will be the element itself.
I am new to using arithmetic in Prolog.
I’ve done a few small programs, but mostly involving logic. I am trying to implement a function that will return true or false if the difference between every consecutive pair of elements is the same or not.
My input would look like this: sameSeqDiffs([3, 5, 7, 9], 2)
I feel like I need to split the first two elements from the list, find their difference, and add the result to a new list. Once all the elements have been processed, check if the elements of the new list are all the same.
I’ve been taught some Prolog with building relationships and querying those, but this doesn’t seem to fit in with Prolog.
Update1: This is what I've come up with so far. I am brand new to this syntax and am still getting an error on my code, but I hope it conveys the general idea of what I'm trying to do.
diff([X,Y|Rest], Result):-
diff([Y,Z|Rest], Result2):-
Result2 = Result,
Z - Y = Result.
Update2: I know I still have much to do on this code, but here is where I will remain until this weekend, I have some other stuff to do. I think I understand the logic of it a bit more, and I think I need to figure out how to run the last line of the function only if there is at least two more things in the rest of the list to process.
diff([X,Y|Rest], Result):-
number(Y),
Y-X=Result,
diff([Rest], Result).
Update3: I believe I have the function the way I want it to. The only quirk I noticed is that when I run and input like: sameSeqDiffs([3,5,7],2).I get true returned immediately followed by a false. Is this the correct operation or am I still missing something?
sameSeqDiffs([X,Y], Result):-
A is Y - X,
A = Result.
sameSeqDiffs([X,Y,Z|T], Result):-
sameSeqDiffs([Y,Z|T], Result).
Update 4: I posted a new question about this....here is the link: Output seems to only test the very last in the list for difference function
Prolog's syntax
The syntax is a bit off: normally a clause has a head like foo(X, Y, Z), then an arrow (:-), followed by a body. That body normally does not contain any arrows :-. So the second arrow :- makes not much sense.
Predicates and unification
Secondly in Prolog predicates have no input or output, a predicate is true or false (well it can also error, or got stuck into an infinite loop, but that is typically behavior we want to avoid). It communicates answers by unifying variables. For example a call sameSeqDiffs([3, 5, 7, 9], X). can succeed by unifying X with 2, and then the predicate - given it is implemented correctly - will return true..
Inductive definitions
In order to design a predicate, on typically first aims to come up with an inductive definition: a definition that consists out of one or more base cases, and one or more "recursive" cases (where the predicate is defined by parts of itself).
For example here we can say:
(base case) For a list of exactly two elements [X, Y], the predicate sameSeqDiffs([X, Y], D) holds, given D is the difference between Y and X.
In Prolog this will look like:
sameSeqDiffs([X, Y], D) :-
___.
(with the ___ to be filled in).
Now for the inductive case we can define a sameSeqDiffs/2 in terms of itself, although not with the same parameters of course. In mathematics, one sometimes defines a function f such that for example f(i) = 2×f(i-1); with for example f(0) = 1 as base. We can in a similar way define an inductive case for sameSeqDiffs/2:
(inductive case) For a list of more than two elements, all elements in the list have the same difference, given the first two elements have a difference D, and in the list of elements except the first element, all elements have that difference D as well.
In Prolog this will look like:
sameSeqDiffs([X, Y, Z|T], D) :-
___,
sameSeqDiffs(___, ___).
Arithmetic in Prolog
A common mistake people who start programming in Prolog make is they think that, like it is common in many programming languages, Prolog add semantics to certain functors.
For example one can think that A - 1 will decrement A. For Prolog this is however just -(A, 1), it is not minus, or anything else, just a functor. As a result Prolog will not evaluate such expressions. So if you write X = A - 1, then X is just X = -(A,1).
Then how can we perform numerical operations? Prolog systems have a predicate is/2, that evaluates the right hand side by attaching semantics to the right hand side. So the is/2 predicate will interpret this (+)/2, (-)/2, etc. functors ((+)/2 as plus, (-)/2 as minus, etc.).
So we can evaluate an expression like:
A = 4, is(X, A - 1).
and then X will be set to 3, not 4-1. Prolog also allows to write the is infix, like:
A = 4, X is A - 1.
Here you will need this to calculate the difference between two elements.
You were very close with your second attempt. It should have been
samediffs( [X, Y | Rest], Result):-
Result is Y - X,
samediffs( [Y | Rest], Result).
And you don't even need "to split the first two elements from the list". This will take care of itself.
How? Simple: calling samediffs( List, D), on the first entry into the predicate, the not yet instantiated D = Result will be instantiated to the calculated difference between the second and the first element in the list by the call Result is Y - X.
On each subsequent entry into the predicate, which is to say, for each subsequent pair of elements X, Y in the list, the call Result is Y - X will calculate the difference for that pair, and will check the numerical equality for it and Result which at this point holds the previously calculated value.
In case they aren't equal, the predicate will fail.
In case they are, the recursion will continue.
The only thing missing is the base case for this recursion:
samediffs( [_], _Result).
samediffs( [], _Result).
In case it was a singleton (or even empty) list all along, this will leave the differences argument _Result uninstantiated. It can be interpreted as a checking predicate, in such a case. There's certainly no unequal differences between elements in a singleton (or even more so, empty) list.
In general, ......
recursion(A, B):- base_case( A, B).
recursion( Thing, NewThing):-
combined( Thing, Shell, Core),
recursion( Core, NewCore),
combined( NewThing, Shell, NewCore).
...... Recursion!
I have a list of terms as below
[t('L', 76), t('I', 73), t('V', 86), t('E', 69)]
I want to write a predicate in prolog so that it will return the term with minimum second value. i.e. from above list it should return t('E', 69)
Below is what I tried. But this is not working.
minChar(L, Min) :-
setof(t(_, A), member(t(_, A), L), Li),
Li = [Min|_].
Here is the output it gives for above input.
?- minChar([t('L', 76), t('I', 73), t('V', 86), t('E', 69)], Min).
Min = t(_G14650, 69) ;
Min = t(_G14672, 73) ;
Min = t(_G14683, 76) ;
Min = t(_G14661, 86).
As lurker says, predicates can't start with a capital letter, so fix that first.
There are two basic problems here: first off all, the two underscores in your second line refers to different variables, so setof/3 doesn't know that you want the same variable both in the template and in the member/2 call.
Second, setof sorts the result (which is why you can extract the minimum like that), but the way you've constructed the template, it will sort it incorrectly. Sorting in swi-prolog uses the standard order of terms definition, and in your case, you're sorting compound terms of the type t(A, B), where A is an atom and B is a number. This will sort it lexicographically first on A and then on B, which is not what you want, you want to sort on B.
The standard trick here when you want to sort things with a key that isn't identical to the term itself is to extract the key you want, bind it with the (-)/2 functor, and then sort it. So, for your example, this should work:
minChar(L, Min) :-
setof(B-t(A, B), member(t(A, B), L), Li),
Li = [_-Min|_].
Remember here that in Prolog, when you say X - Y, you're not actually doing any subtraction, even though it looks you are. You are simply binding X and Y together using the (-)/2 functor. It only does subtraction if you specifically ask it to, but using some operator that forces arithmetic evaluation (such as =:=, <, > or is, for instance). This is why 1+1 = 2 is false in Prolog, because = is a unification operator, and doesn't do any arithmetic evaluation.
To be clear: you don't have to use - for this, you can use whatever functor you like. But it's traditional to use the minus functor for this kind of thing.
Edit: also, setof/3 will backtrack over any free variables not found in the template, and since the two underscores don't refer to the same free variables, it will backtrack over every possible assignment for the second underscore, and then throw that result away and assign a new free variable for the first underscore. That's why you can backtrack over the result and get a bunch of anonymous variables that you don't know where they came from.
Instead of using a setof which runs in O(n log n) (at least), you can also write a minChar predicate yourself:
minChar([X],X) :-
!.
minChar([t(_,V1)|T],t(A2,V2)) :-
minChar(T,t(A2,V2)),
V2 < V1,
!.
minChar([X|_],X).
Or you could further boost performance, by using an accumulator:
minChar([X|T],Min) :-
minChar(T,X,Min).
minChar([],X,X).
minChar([t(A2,V2)|T],t(_,V1),Min) :-
V2 < V1,
!,
minChar(T,t(A2,V2),Min).
minChar([_|T],X,Min) :-
minChar(T,X,Min).
The code works as follows: first you unify the list as [X|T], (evidently there must be at least one items, otherwise there is no minimum). Now you take X as the first minimum. You iterate over the list, and at each time you compare t(A2,V2) (the new head of the list), with t(A1,V1) (the currently found minimum). If the second attribute V2 is less than V1, we know we have found a new minimum, and we continue our search with that term. Otherwise, the quest is continued with the old current minimum. If we reach the end of the list, we simply return the current minimum.
Another performance hack, is placing the empty list case as the last one, and place the the current minimum is the smallest case first:
minChar([t(_,V2)|T],t(A1,V1),Min) :-
V1 <= V2,
!,
minChar(T,t(A1,V1),Min).
minChar([X|T],_,Min) :-
minChar(T,X,Min).
minChar([],X,X).
This because Prolog always first executes the predicates in the order defined. It will occur only once that you reach the empty list case (at the end of the list). And after a will, the odds of finding a smaller value will be reduced significantly.
You are a beginner in Prolog, so try to think Prolog.
What is the minimum of a list ? An element of this list, and no other element of this list is smaller.
So you can write
my_min(L, Min) :-
member(Min, L),
\+((member(X, L), X < Min)).
One will say : "it's not efficient !". Yes, but I think it's a good way to learn Prolog.
You should adapt this code to your case.
EDIT I said adapt :
min_of_list(L, t(X,Y)) :-
member(t(X, Y), L),
\+((member(t(_, Z), L), Z < Y)).
I have a little rule in prolog that has to check if an element is a member of a list and write it's position in the list,but it only works if the elemebt i'm looking for is in the 1 place.Need help please!
write_element(X,[X|_],1).
write_element(X,[_|Tail],N):-
N1 is N-1,
write_element(X,Tail,N1).
How exactly is this thing supposed to be called? It seems like N is going to have to be instantiated by me, or N1 is N-1 won't work. But similarly, N must unify with 1 in your base case, so if X is present in the list, N must equal one. So I think you have some basic confusion there surrounding how this is to be called. If you want to use N as a counter you probably can't also use it as a variable. You should revisit your thinking on decrementing though, because I don't see any reason to expect it to be called with a large value suitable for decrementing, unless there's a length/2 elsewhere in your code which you haven't shared.
Your second problem is that this does not write anything anywhere, and since you didn't include the actual problem statement I'm going to have to guess that what you probably actually want to do is just return the position, like nth1/3. We could use nth1/3 to implement this if you just want to print out the location if the element is present:
write_element(X, L, N) :- nth1(N, L, X), write(N).
Odds are good this isn't what is intended. If you want to implement something like nth1/3 it's going to be a little more interesting, because we need to keep separate the counter we're returning from the counter we're using. So it will wind up looking something like this:
write_element(X,L,N) :- write_element_loop(X,L,1,N).
write_element_loop(X, [X|_] , N, N).
write_element_loop(X, [_|Xs], N0, N) :-
N1 is N0+1,
write_element_loop(X, Xs, N1, N).
This is actually really close to your code, I've just made the distinction between the counter and the return value explicit. If you want to print the values instead of just unifying them, you could add that to the end of the first rule:
write_element_loop(X,[X|_],N,N) :- write(N), nl.
Hope this helps!
Since you report it's working only for the first position, here is the simpler correction possible to your code to make it work in other cases:
write_element(X,[X|_],1).
write_element(X,[_|Tail],N):-
write_element(X,Tail,N1),
N is N1 + 1.
but the answer from Daniel (+1) is what you should study.
I am trying to get a feel for Prolog programming by going through Ulle Endriss' lecture notes. When my solution to an exercise does not behave as expected, I find it difficult to give a good explanation. I think this has to do with my shaky understanding of the way Prolog evaluates expressions.
Exercise 2.6 on page 20 calls for a recursive implementation of a predicate last1 which behaves like the built-in predicate last. My attempt is as follows:
last1([_ | Rest], Last) :- last1(Rest, Last).
last1([Last], Last).
It gives the correct answer, but for lists with more than one element, I have to key in the semicolon to terminate the query. This makes last1 different from the built-in last.
?- last1([1], Last).
Last = 1.
?- last1([1, 2], Last).
Last = 2 ;
false.
If I switch the order in which I declared the rule and fact, then I need to key in the semicolon in both cases.
I think I know why Prolog thinks that last1 may have one more solution (thus the semicolon). I imagine it follows the evaluation sequence
last1([1, 2], Last).
==> last1([2], Last).
==> last1([], Last). OR Last = 2.
==> false OR Last = 2.
That seems to suggest that I should look for a way to avoid matching Rest with []. Regardless, I have no explanation why switching the order of declaration ought to have any effect at all.
Question 1: What is the correct explanation for the behavior of last1?
Question 2: How can I implement a predicate last1 which is indistinguishable from the built-in last?
Question 1:
Prolog systems are not always able to decide whether or not a clause will apply prior to executing it. The precise circumstances are implementation dependent. That is, you cannot rely on that decision in general. Systems do improve here from release to release. Consider as the simplest case:
?- X = 1 ; 1 = 2.
X = 1
; false.
A very clever Prolog could detect that 1 = 2 always fails, and thus simply answer X = 1. instead. On the other hand, such "cleverness" is very costly to implement and time is better spent for optimizing more frequent cases.
So why do Prologs show this at all? The primary reason is to avoid asking meekly for another answer, if Prolog already knows that there is no further answer. So prior to this improvement, you were prompted for another answer for all queries containing variables and got the false or "no" on each and every query with exactly one answer. This used to be so cumbersome that many programmers never asked for the next answer and thus were not alerted about unintended answers.
And the secondary reason is to keep you aware of the limitations of the implementation: If Prolog asks for another answer on this general query, this means that it still uses some space which might accumulate and eat up all your computing resources.
In your example with last1/2 you encounter such a case. And you already did something very smart, BTW: You tried to minimize the query to see the first occurrence of the unexpected behavior.
In your example query last1([1,2],X) the Prolog system does not look at the entire list [1,2] but only looks at the principal functor. So for the Prolog system the query looks the same as last1([_|_],X) when it decides which clauses to apply. This goal now fits to both clauses, and this is the reason why Prolog will remember the second clause as an alternative to try out.
But, think of it: This choice is now possible for all elements but the last! Which means that you pay some memory for each element! You can actually observe this by using a very long list. This I get on my tiny 32-bit laptop — you might need to add another zero or two on a larger system:
?- length(L,10000000), last1(L,E).
resource_error(_). % ERROR: Out of local stack
On the other hand, the predefined last/2 works smoothly:
?- length(L,10000000), last(L,E).
L = [_A,_B,_C,_D,_E,_F,_G,_H,_I|...].
In fact, it uses constant space!
There are now two ways out of this:
Try to optimize your definition. Yes, you can do this, but you need to be very smart! The definition by #back_dragon for example is incorrect. It often happens that beginners try to optimize a program when in fact they are destroying its semantics.
Ask yourself if you are actually defining the same predicate as last/2. In fact, you're not.
Question 2:
Consider:
?- last(Xs, X).
Xs = [X]
; Xs = [_A,X]
; Xs = [_A,_B,X]
; Xs = [_A,_B,_C,X]
; Xs = [_A,_B,_C,_D,X]
; ... .
and
?- last1(Xs, X).
loops.
So your definition differs in this case with SWI's definition. Exchange the order of the clauses.
?- length(L,10000000), last2(L,E).
L = [_A,_B,_C,_D,_E,_F,_G,_H,_I|...]
; false.
Again, this false! But this time, the big list works. And this time, the minimal query is:
?- last2([1],E).
E = 1
; false.
And the situation is quite similar: Again, Prolog will look at the query in the same way as last2([_|_],E) and will conclude that both clauses apply. At least, we now have constant overhead instead of linear overhead.
There are several ways to overcome this overhead in a clean fashion - but they all very much depend on the innards of an implementation.
SWI-Prolog attempts to avoid prompting for more solutions when it can determine that there are none. I think that the interpreter inspect the memory looking for some choice point left, and if it can't find any, simply state the termination. Otherwise it waits to let user choice the move.
I would attempt to make last1 deterministic in this way:
last1([_,H|Rest], Last) :- !, last1([H|Rest], Last).
last1([Last], Last).
but I don't think it's indistinguishable from last. Lurking at the source code of the library (it's simple as ?- edit(last).)
%% last(?List, ?Last)
%
% Succeeds when Last is the last element of List. This
% predicate is =semidet= if List is a list and =multi= if List is
% a partial list.
%
% #compat There is no de-facto standard for the argument order of
% last/2. Be careful when porting code or use
% append(_, [Last], List) as a portable alternative.
last([X|Xs], Last) :-
last_(Xs, X, Last).
last_([], Last, Last).
last_([X|Xs], _, Last) :-
last_(Xs, X, Last).
we can appreciate a well thought implementation.
this code would work:
last1([Last], Last).
last1([_ | Rest], Last) :- last1(Rest, Last), !.
it is because prolog things there might be more combinations but, with this symbol: !, prolog won't go back after reaching this point