I've read about it in a book but it wasn't explained at all. I also never saw it in a program. Is part of Prolog syntax? What's it for? Do you use it?
It represents implication. The righthand side is only executed if the lefthand side is true. Thus, if you have this code,
implication(X) :-
(X = a ->
write('Argument a received.'), nl
; X = b ->
write('Argument b received.'), nl
;
write('Received unknown argument.'), nl
).
Then it will write different things depending on it argument:
?- implication(a).
Argument a received.
true.
?- implication(b).
Argument b received.
true.
?- implication(c).
Received unknown argument.
true.
(link to documentation.)
It's a local version of the cut, see for example the section on control predicated in the SWI manual.
It is mostly used to implement if-then-else by (condition -> true-branch ; false-branch). Once the condition succeeds there is no backtracking from the true branch back into the condition or into the false branch, but backtracking out of the if-then-else is still possible:
?- member(X,[1,2,3]), (X=1 -> Y=a ; X=2 -> Y=b ; Y=c).
X = 1,
Y = a ;
X = 2,
Y = b ;
X = 3,
Y = c.
?- member(X,[1,2,3]), (X=1, !, Y=a ; X=2 -> Y=b ; Y=c).
X = 1,
Y = a.
Therefore it is called a local cut.
It is possible to avoid using it by writing something more wordy. If I rewrite Stephan's predicate:
implication(X) :-
(
X = a,
write('Argument a received.'), nl
;
X = b,
write('Argument b received.'), nl
;
X \= a,
X \= b,
write('Received unknown argument.'), nl
).
(Yeah I don't think there is any problem with using it, but my boss was paranoid about it for some reason, so we always used the above approach.)
With either version, you need to be careful that you are covering all cases you intend to cover, especially if you have many branches.
ETA: I am not sure if this is completely equivalent to Stephan's, because of backtracking if you have implication(X). But I don't have a Prolog interpreter right now to check.
Related
From what I have read, eq_rect and equality seem deeply interlinked. Weirdly, I'm not able to find a definition on the manual for it.
Where does it come from, and what does it state?
If you use Locate eq_rect you will find that eq_rect is located in Coq.Init.Logic, but if you look in that file there is no eq_rect in it. So, what's going on?
When you define an inductive type, Coq in many cases automatically generates 3 induction principles for you, appending _rect, _rec, _ind to the name of the type.
To understand what eq_rect means you need its type,
Check eq_rect.
here we go:
eq_rect
: forall (A : Type) (x : A) (P : A -> Type),
P x -> forall y : A, x = y -> P y
and you need to understand the notion of Leibniz's equality:
Leibniz characterized the notion of equality as follows:
Given any x and y, x = y if and only if, given any predicate P, P(x) if and only if P(y).
In this law, "P(x) if and only if P(y)" can be weakened to "P(x) if P(y)"; the modified law is equivalent to the original, since a statement that applies to "any x and y" applies just as well to "any y and x".
Speaking less formally, the above quotation says that if x and y are equal, their "behavior" for every predicate is the same.
To see more clearly that Leibniz's equality directly corresponds to eq_rect we can rearrange the order of parameters of eq_rect into the following equivalent formulation:
eq_rect_reorder
: forall (A : Type) (P : A -> Type) (x y : A),
x = y -> P x -> P y
I'm looking for a tool for determining whether a given set of linear equations/inequalities (A) entails another given set of linear equations/inequalities (B). The return value should be either 'true' or 'false'.
To illustrate, let's look at possible instances of A and B and the expected return value of the algorithm:
A: {Z=3,Y=Z+2, X < Y} ;
B: {X<5} ;
Expected result: true
A: {Z=3,Y=Z+2, X < Y} ;
B: {X<10} ;
Expected result: true
A: {Z=3,Y=Z+2, X < Y} ;
B: {X=3} ;
Expected result: false
A: {X<=Y,X>=Y} ;
B: {X=Y} ;
Expected result: true
A: {X<=Y,X>=Y} ;
B: {X=Y, X>Z+2} ;
Expected result: false
Typically A contains up to 10 equations/inequalities, and B contains 1 or 2. All of them are linear and relatively simple. We may even assume that all variables are integers.
This task - of determining whether A entails B - is part of a bigger system and therefore I'm looking for tools/source code/packages that already implemented something like that and I can use.
Things I started to look at:
Theorem provers with algebra - Otter, EQP and Z3 (Vampire is currently unavailable for download).
Coq formal proof management system.
Linear Programming.
However, my experience with these tools is very limited and so far I didn't find a promising direction. Any guidelines and ideas from people more experienced than me will be highly appreciated.
Thank you for your time!
I think I found a working solution. The problem can be rephrased as an assignment problem and then it can be solved by theorem provers such as Z3 and with some work probably also by linear programming solvers.
To illustrate, let's look at the first example I gave above:
A: {Z=3, Y=Z+2, X<Y} ;
B: {X<5} ;
Determining whether A entails B is equivalent to determining whether it is impossible that A is true while B is false. This is a simple simple logical equivalence. In our case, it means that rather than checking whether the condition in B follows from the ones in A, we can check whether there is no assignment of X, Y and Z that satisfies the conditions in A and not in B.
Now, when phrased as an assignment problem, a theorem prover such as Z3 can be called for the task. The following code checks if the conditions in A are satisfiable while the one in B is not:
(declare-fun x () Int)
(declare-fun y () Int)
(declare-fun z () Int)
(assert (= z 3))
(assert (= y (+ z 2)))
(assert (< x y))
(assert (not (< x 5)))
(check-sat)
(get-model)
(exit)
Z3 reports that there is no model that satisfies these conditions, thus it is not possible that B doesn't follow from A, and therefore we can conclude that B follows from A.
We have this assignment for our Prolog course. After two months of one hour per week of Prolog, it is still an enigma to me, my thinking seems unable to adapt from procedural languages - yet.
There is a knowledge base containing predicates/functors with the same name and arities 1, 2 and 3.
The call form should be
search(functor_name, argument, S).
The answers should find all occurrences with this functor name and argument, regardless of arity.
The answers should be of the form:
S = functor_name(argument);
S = functor_name(argument,_);
S = functor_name(_,argument);
S = functor_name(argument,_,_);
S = functor_name(_,argument,_);
S = functor_name(_,_,argument);
false.
I have found out that I could use call to test if the entry in the knowledge base exists.
But call does not seem to work with a variable for the functor name. I am totally baffled, no idea how to use a variable for a functor name.
UPDATE:
My question has been partly answered.
My new code gives me true and false for arities 1, 2 and 3 (see below).
search(Person,Predicate) :-
ID = Person, Key = Predicate, current_functor(Key,1),
call(Key,ID)
; ID = Person, Key = Predicate, current_functor(Key,2),
(call(Key,ID,_);call(Key,_,ID))
; ID = Person, Key = Predicate, current_functor(Key,3),
(call(Key,ID,_,_);call(Key,_,ID,_);call(Key,_,_,ID)).
UPDATE2:
Another partial answer has come in. That one gives me S as a list of terms, but the "other" arguments are placeholders:
search2(Predicate, Arg, S) :-
( Arity = 2 ; Arity = 3 ; Arity = 4 ),
functor(S, Predicate, Arity),
S =.. [_,Predicate|Args],
member(Arg, Args).
The result is quite nice. Still missing: the Predicate should not be inside the brackets and the other arguments should be taken literally from the knowledge base, not written as placeholders. The current result looks like this:
?- search2(parent,lars,S).
S = parent(parent, lars) ;
S = parent(parent, lars, _G1575) ;
S = parent(parent, _G1574, lars) ;
S = parent(parent, lars, _G1575, _G1576) ;
S = parent(parent, _G1574, lars, _G1576) ;
S = parent(parent, _G1574, _G1575, lars).
I am giving up with this question, because the question was posed in the wrong way from the beginning. I should have asked more specifically - which I could not, because I am still no good in Prolog.
#false helped me most. I am accepting his answer.
There are two approaches here, one "traditional" (1970s) that implements literally what you want:
search(F, Arg, S) :-
( N = 1 ; N = 2 ; N = 3 ), % more compactly: between(1,3, N)
functor(S, F, N),
S =.. [_|Args], % more compactly: between(1,N, I), arg(I,S,Arg)
member(Arg, Args).
The other reconsiders the explicit construction of the goal. Actually, if you have a functor F, and arguments A1, A2, A3 you can immediately write the goal call(F, A1, A2, A3) without any use of functor/3 or (=..)/2.
There are many advantages of using call(F, A1, A2, A3) in place of Goal =.. [F, A1, A2, A3], call(Goal): In many situations it is cleaner, faster, and much easier to typecheck. Further, when using a module system, the handling of potential module qualifications for F will work seamlessly. Whereas (=..)/2 will have to handle all ugly details explicitly, that is more code, more errors.
search(F,A,call(F,A)).
search(F,A,call(F,A,_)).
search(F,A,call(F,_,A)).
search(F,A,call(F,A,_,_)).
search(F,A,call(F,_,A,_)).
search(F,A,call(F,_,_,A)).
If you want to shorten this, then rather construct call/N dynamically:
search(F, Arg, S) :-
( N = 2 ; N = 3 ; N = 4 ),
functor(S, call, N),
S =.. [_,F|Args],
member(Arg, Args).
Note that call needs an extra argument for the functor F!
You can use the "univ" operator, =.., to construct a goal dynamically:
?- F=member, X=1, L=[1,2,3], Goal =.. [F, X, L], call(Goal).
F = member,
X = 1,
L = [1, 2, 3],
Goal = member(1, [1, 2, 3]) .
I recently came across this code example in Mercury:
append(X,Y,Z) :-
X == [],
Z := Y.
append(X,Y,Z) :-
X => [H | T],
append(T,Y,NT),
Z <= [H | NT].
Being a Prolog programmer, I wonder: what's the difference between a normal unification =
and the := or => which are use here?
In the Mercury reference, these operators get different priorities, but they don't explain the difference.
First let's re-write the code using indentation:
append(X, Y, Z) :-
X == [],
Z := Y.
append(X, Y, Z) :-
X => [H | T],
append(T, Y, NT),
Z <= [H | NT].
You seem to have to indent all code by four spaces, which doesn't seem to work in comments, my comments above should be ignored (I'm not able to delete them).
The code above isn't real Mercury code, it is pseudo code. It doesn't make sense as real Mercury code because the <= and => operators are used for typeclasses (IIRC), not unification. Additionally, I haven't seen the := operator before, I'm not sure what is does.
In this style of pseudo code (I believe) that the author is trying to show that := is an assignment type of unification where X is assigned the value of Y. Similarly => is showing a deconstruction of X and <= is showing a construction of Z. Also == shows an equality test between X and the empty list. All of these operations are types of unification. The compiler knows which type of unification should be used for each mode of the predicate. For this code the mode that makes sense is append(in, in, out)
Mercury is different from Prolog in this respect, it knows which type of unification to use and therefore can generate more efficient code and ensure that the program is mode-correct.
One more thing, the real Mercury code for this pseudo code would be:
:- pred append(list(T)::in, list(T)::in, list(T)::out) is det.
append(X, Y, Z) :-
X = [],
Z = Y.
append(X, Y, Z) :-
X = [H | T],
append(T, Y, NT),
Z = [H | NT].
Note that every unification is a = and a predicate and mode declaration has been added.
In concrete Mercury syntax the operator := is used for field updates.
Maybe we are not able to use such operators like ':=' '<=' '=>' '==' in recent Mercury release, but actually these operators are specialized unification, according to the description in Nancy Mazur's thesis.
'=>' stands for deconstruction e.g. X => f(Y1, Y2, ..., Yn) where X is input and all Yn is output. It's semidet. '<=' is on the contrary, and is det. '==' is used in the situation where both sides are ground, and it is semidet. ':=' is just like regular assigning operator in any other language, and it's det. In older papers I even see that they use '==' instead of '=>' to perform a deconstruction. (I think my English is awful = x =)
Suppose I have a substitution S and list Xs, where each variable occurring in Xs also occurs in S. How would I find the list S(Xs), i.e., the list obtained by applying the substitution S to the list Xs.
More concretely, I have a set of predicates and DCG rules that look something like
pat(P) --> seg(_), P, seg(_).
seg(X,Y,Z) :- append(X,Z,Y).
If I attempt to match a pattern P with variables against a list, I receive a substitution S:
?- pat([a,X,b,Y],[d,a,c,b,e,d],[]).
X = c,
Y = e
I want to apply the substitution S = {X = c, Y = e} to a list Xs with variables X and Y, and receive the list with substitutions made, but I'm not sure what the best way to approach the problem is.
If I were approaching this problem in Haskell, I would build a finite map from variables to values, then perform the substitution. The equivalent approach would be to produce a list in the DCG rule of pairs of variables and values, then use the map to find the desired list. This is not a suitable approach, however.
Since the substitution is not reified (is not a Prolog object), you can bind the list to a variable and let unification do its work:
?- Xs = [a,X,b,Y], pat(Xs,[d,a,c,b,e,d],[]).
Xs = [a, c, b, e],
X = c,
Y = e .
Edit: If you want to keep the original list around after the substitution, use copy_term:
?- Xs = [a,X,b,Y], copy_term(Xs,Ys), pat(Xs,[d,a,c,b,e,d],[]).
Xs = [a, c, b, e],
X = c,
Y = e,
Ys = [a, _G118, b, _G124] .