Related
I was tasked with writing OCAML code to calculate the Trace of a square matrix (the values inside the diagonal of a matrix). As a bonus, and for my own understanding, I'd also like to write code to produce a list of the trace of a square matrix.
I've created a tail recursive function utilizing the List.map feature which strips the first element of each row, and so on and so forth.
let trace m =
let rec helper m acc =
match m with
|[] -> acc
|(x::_) -> helper(List.map(fun(y::ys) -> ys)) (acc+x)
in helper m 0 ;;
Unfortunately I believe my syntax is off and I am unsure how to go about solving this. I think I have the right theory/idea in mind but poor implementation. Any help would be greatly appreciated
This is the error I get when I run the code:
This expression has type 'a list list -> 'a list list but an expression was expected of type 'b list
1:Warning 8: this pattern-matching is not exhaustive.
Here is an example of a case that is not matched:
[]
As #glennsl says, you should do the work to ask a good question. You don't tell us anything about the error you see, for example. Generally you should copy/paste the error text into your question.
When I copy/paste your code I see an error for this fragment:
(List.map (fun (y :: ys) -> ys))
List.map takes two parameters: the first is a function, which you have. The second is a list to map over, which you don't have here. Since you don't supply a list, the value of this expression is a function that expects a list and returns the transformed list.
Since the first parameter of helper is a list of lists (I assume), and not a function, you have a type error. (Not a syntax error.)
Most likely you need to supply the list over which you want to map your function.
I have the following working program: (It can be tested on this site: http://swish.swi-prolog.org, I've removed the direct link to a saved program, because I noticed that anybody can edit it.)
It searches for a path between two points in an undirected graph. The important part is that the result is returned in the scope of the "main" predicate. (In the Track variable)
edge(a, b).
edge(b, c).
edge(d, b).
edge(d, e).
edge(v, w).
connected(Y, X) :-
(
edge(X, Y);
edge(Y, X)
).
path(X, X, _, []) :-
connected(X, _).
path(X, Y, _, [X, Y]) :-
connected(Y, X).
path(X, Z, Visited, [X|Track]) :-
connected(X, Y),
not(member(X, Visited)),
path(Y, Z, [X|Visited], Track).
main(X, Y) :-
path(X, Y, [], Track),
print(Track),
!.
Results:
?- main(a, e).
[a, b, d, e]
true
?- main(c, c).
[]
true
?- main(b, w).
false
My questions:
The list of visited nodes is passed down to the predicates in 2 different ways. In the bound Visited variable and in the unbound Track variable. What are the names of these 2 different forms of parameter passing?
Normally I only wanted to use the unbound parameter passing (Track variable), to have the results in the scope of the main predicate. But I had to add the Visited variable too, because the member checking didn't work on the Track variable (I don't know why). Is it possible to make it work with only passing the Track in an unbound way? (without the Visited variable)
Many thanks!
The short answer: no, you cannot avoid the extra argument without making everything much messier. This is because this particular algorithm for finding a path needs to keep a state; basically, your extra argument is your state.
There might be other ways to keep a state, like using a global, mutable variable, or dynamically changing the Prolog data base, but both are more difficult to get right and will involve more code.
This extra argument is often called an accumulator, because it accumulates something as you go down the proof tree. The simplest example would be traversing a list:
foo([]).
foo([X|Xs]) :-
foo(Xs).
This is fine, unless you need to know what elements you have already seen before getting here:
bar(List) :-
bar_(List, []).
bar_([], _).
bar_([X|Xs], Acc) :-
/* Acc is a list of all elements so far */
bar_(Xs, [X|Acc]).
This is about the same as what you are doing in your code. And if you look at this in particular:
path(X, Z, Visited, /* here */[X|Track]) :-
connected(X, Y),
not(member(X, Visited)),
path(Y, Z, [X|Visited], /* and here */Track).
The last argument of path/4 has one element more at a depth of one less in the proof tree! And, of course, the third argument is one longer (it grows as you go down the proof tree).
For example, you can reverse a list by adding another argument to the silly bar predicate above:
list_reverse(L, R) :-
list_reverse_(L, [], R).
list_reverse_([], R, R).
list_reverse_([X|Xs], R0, R) :-
list_reverse_(Xs, [X|R0], R).
I am not aware of any special name for the last argument, the one that is free at the beginning and holds the solution at the end. In some cases it could be an output argument, because it is meant to capture the output, after transforming the input somehow. There are many cases where it is better to avoid thinking about arguments as strictly input or output arguments. For example, length/2:
?- length([a,b], N).
N = 2.
?- length(L, 3).
L = [_2092, _2098, _2104].
?- length(L, N).
L = [],
N = 0 ;
L = [_2122],
N = 1 ;
L = [_2122, _2128],
N = 2 . % and so on
Note: there are quite a few minor issues with your code that are not critical, and giving that much advice is not a good idea on Stackoverflow. If you want you could submit this as a question on Code Review.
Edit: you should definitely study this question.
I also provided a somewhat simpler solution here. Note the use of term_expansion/2 for making directed edges from undirected edges at compile time. More important: you don't need the main, just call the predicate you want from the top level. When you drop the cut, you will get all possible solutions when one or both of your From and To arguments are free variables.
I need help creating a predicate that removes the 2nd to last element of a list and returns that list written in Prolog. So far I have
remove([],[]).
remove([X],[X]).
remove([X,Y],[Y]).
That is as far as I've gotten. I need to figure out a way to recursively go through the list until it is only two elements long and then reassemble the list to be returned. Help with explanation if you can.
Your definition so far is perfect! It is a little bit too specialized, so we will have to extend it. But your program is a solid foundation.
You "only" need to extend it.
remove([],[]).
remove([X],[X]).
remove([_,X],[X]).
remove([X,_,Y], [X,Y]).
remove([X,Y,_,Z], [X,Y,Z]).
remove([X,Y,Z,_,Z2], [X,Y,Z,Z2]).
...
OK, you see how to continue. Now, let us identify common cases:
...
remove([X,Y,_,Z], [X,Y,Z]).
% ^^^ ^^^
remove([X,Y,Z,_,Z2], [X,Y,Z,Z2]).
% ^^^^^ ^^^^^
...
So, we have a common list prefix. We could say:
Whenever we have a list and its removed list, we can conclude that by adding one element on both sides, we get a longer list of that kind.
remove([X|Xs], [X|Ys]) :-
remove(Xs,Ys).
Please note that the :- is really an arrow. It means: Provided what is true on the right-hand side, also what is found on the left-hand side will be true.
H-h-hold a minute! Is this really the case? How to test this? (If you test just for positive cases, you will always get a "yes".) We don't have the time to conjure up some test cases, do we? So let us let Prolog do the hard work for us! So, Prolog, fill in the blanks!
remove([],[]).
remove([X],[X]).
remove([_,X],[X]).
remove([X|Xs], [X|Ys]) :-
remove(Xs,Ys).
?- remove(Xs,Ys). % most general goal
Xs = [], Ys = []
; Xs = [A], Ys = [A]
; Xs = [_,A], Ys = [A]
; Xs = [A], Ys = [A] % redundant, but OK
; Xs = [A,B], Ys = [A,B], unexpected % WRONG
; Xs = [A,_,B], Ys = [A,B]
; Xs = [A,B], Ys = [A,B], unexpected % WRONG again!
; Xs = [A,B,C], Ys = [A,B,C], unexpected % WRONG
; Xs = [A,B,_,C], Ys = [A,B,C]
; ... .
It is tempting to reject everything and start again from scratch.
But in Prolog you can do better than that, so let's calm down to estimate the actual damage:
Some answers are incorrect. And some answers are correct.
It could be that our current definition is just a little bit too general.
To better understand the situation, I will look at the unexpected success remove([1,2],[1,2]) in detail. Who is the culprit for it?
Even the following program slice/fragment succeeds.
remove([],[]).
remove([X],[X]) :- false.
remove([_,X],[X]) :- false.
remove([X|Xs], [X|Ys]) :-
remove(Xs,Ys).
While this is a specialization of our program it reads: that remove/2 holds for all lists that are the same. That can't be true! To fix the problem we have to do something in the remaining visible part. And we have to specialize it. What is problematic here is that the recursive rule also holds for:
remove([1,2], [1,2]) :-
remove([2], [2]).
remove([2], [2]) :-
remove([], []).
That kind of conclusion must be avoided. We need to restrict the rule to those cases were the list has at least two further elements by adding another goal (=)/2.
remove([X|Xs], [Y|Ys]) :-
Xs = [_,_|_],
remove(Xs, Ys).
So what was our error? In the informal
Whenever we have a list and its removed list, ...
the term "removed list" was ambiguous. It could mean that we are referring here to the relation remove/2 (which is incorrect, because remove([],[]) holds, but still nothing is removed), or we are referring here to a list with an element removed. Such errors inevitably happen in programming since you want to keep your intuitions afresh by using a less formal language than Prolog itself.
For reference, here again (and for comparison with other definitions) is the final definition:
remove([],[]).
remove([X],[X]).
remove([_,X],[X]).
remove([X|Xs], [X|Ys]) :-
Xs = [_,_|_],
remove(Xs,Ys).
There are more efficient ways to do this, but this is the most straight-forward way.
I will try to provide another solution which is easier to construct if you only consider the meaning of "second last element", and describe each possible case explicitly:
rem_2nd_last([], []).
rem_2nd_last([First|Rest], R) :-
rem_2nd_last_2(Rest, First, R). % "Lag" the list once
rem_2nd_last_2([], First, [First]).
rem_2nd_last_2([Second|Rest], First, R) :-
rem_2nd_last_3(Rest, Second, First, R). % "Lag" the list twice
rem_2nd_last_3([], Last, _SecondLast, [Last]). % End of list: drop second last
rem_2nd_last_3([This|Rest], Prev, PrevPrev, [PrevPrev|R]) :-
rem_2nd_last_3(Rest, This, Prev, R). % Rest of list
The explanation is hiding in plain view in the definition of the three predicates.
"Lagging" is a way to reach back from the end of the list but keep the predicate always deterministic. You just grab one element and pass the rest of the list as the first argument of a helper predicate. One way, for example, to define last/2, is:
last([H|T], Last) :-
last_1(T, H, Last).
last_1([], Last, Last).
last_1([H|T], _, Last) :-
last_1(T, H, Last).
This was a question on a sample exam I did.
Give the definition of a Prolog predicate split_into_pairs that takes as arguments a list and returns as a result a list which consists of paired elements. For example, split_into_pairs([1,2,3,4,5,6],X) would return as a result X=[[1,2],[3,4],[5,6]]. Similarly, split_into_pairs([a,2,3,4,a,a,a,a],X) would return as result X=[[a,2],[3,4],[a,a],[a,a]] while split_into_pairs([1,2,3],X) would return No.
It's not meant to be done using built-in predicates I believe, but it shouldn't need to be too complicated either as it was only worth 8/120 marks.
I'm not sure what it should do for a list of two elements, so I guess that would either be not specified so that it returns no, or split_into_pairs([A,B],[[A,B]]).
My main issue is how to do the recursive call properly, without having extra brackets, not ending up as something like X=[[A,B],[[C,D],[[E,F]]]]?.
My most recent attempts have been variations of the code below, but obviously this is incorrect.
split_into_pairs([A,B],[A,B])
split_into_pairs([A,B|T], X) :- split_into_pairs(T, XX), X is [A,B|XX]
This is a relatively straightforward recursion:
split_into_pairs([], []).
split_into_pairs([First, Second | Tail], [[First, Second] | Rest]) :-
split_into_pairs(Tail, Rest).
The first rule says that an empty list is already split into pairs; the second requires that the source list has at least two items, pairs them up, and inserts the result of pairing up the tail list behind them.
Here is a demo on ideone.
Your solution could be fixed as well by adding square brackets in the result, and moving the second part of the rule into the header, like this:
split_into_pairs([A,B],[[A,B]]).
split_into_pairs([A,B|T], [[A,B]|XX]) :- split_into_pairs(T, XX).
Note that this solution does not consider an empty list a list of pairs, so split_into_pairs([], X) would fail.
Your code is almost correct. It has obvious syntax issues, and several substantive issues:
split_into_pairs([A,B], [ [ A,B ] ] ):- !.
split_into_pairs([A,B|T], X) :- split_into_pairs(T, XX),
X = [ [ A,B ] | XX ] .
Now it is correct: = is used instead of is (which is normally used with arithmetic operations), both clauses are properly terminated by dots, and the first one has a cut added into it, to make the predicate deterministic, to produce only one result. The correct structure is produced by enclosing each pair of elements into a list of their own, with brackets.
This is inefficient though, because it describes a recursive process - it constructs the result on the way back from the base case.
The efficient definition works on the way forward from the starting case:
split_into_pairs([A,B],[[A,B]]):- !.
split_into_pairs([A,B|T], X) :- X = [[A,B]|XX], split_into_pairs(T, XX).
This is the essence of tail recursion modulo cons optimization technique, which turns recursive processes into iterative ones - such that are able to run in constant stack space. It is very similar to the tail-recursion with accumulator technique.
The cut had to be introduced because the two clauses are not mutually exclusive: a term unifying with [A,B] could also be unifiable with [A,B|T], in case T=[]. We can get rid of the cut by making the two clauses to be mutually-exclusive:
split_into_pairs([], [] ).
split_into_pairs([A,B|T], [[A,B]|XX]):- split_into_pairs(T, XX).
Suppose I've got the sequence <1,<>,2,<>>.
How could I go about deleting the empty lists and get <1,2>?
Ideally, without using recursion or iteration.
Thanks.
PS: I'm using FP programming language
What you're probably looking for is filter. It takes a predicate and takes out elements not satisfying it.
Since the FP language has a weird syntax and I couldn't find any documentation , I can't provide an implementation of filter. But in general, it can be implemented using a fold -- which is just the inserts from the link you provided.
Here's what I mean (in Haskell):
filter p list = foldr (\x xs -> if p x then x:xs else xs) [] list¹
If you don't get this, look here. When you have written filter, you can call it like
newList = filter notEmpty theList
(where nonEmpty is a predicate or lambda). Oh, and of course this only hides recursion by using another function; at some point, you have to recurse.
¹The : operator in Haskell is list consing (appending an element to the head), not function application.