List of Nth prime numbers Prolog - recursion
I'm trying to learn prolog and now I'm trying to print a list of the Nth primenumber:
primes(N, N).
primes(N, F):-
prime(F),
write(F), nl,
NewF is F + 1,
primes(N, NewF).
primes(N):-
primes(N, 2).
Prime/1 checks wheter the given number is a prime.
The output for primes(10) will be 2, 3 where it should be 2, 3, 5, 7, because when the NewF after 3 (which will be 4) is not a prime. So it will also not execute the write(F) nor the recursive call. I wondered how I could fix this, so it will not write F when it's not a prime but still execute the part after that. Thanks in advance!
You could simply add the clause:
primes(N, F):-
\+prime(F), nl,
NewF is F + 1,
primes(N, NewF).
I know that this answer doesn't exactly respond to the OP question (my getPrimeList(N, L) create a list L with all prime number from zero to N; the OP ask for first N prime numbers) but... just for fun... I've tried to implement the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
getListDisp(Top, Val, []) :-
Val > Top.
getListDisp(Top, V0, [V0 | Tail]) :-
V0 =< Top,
V1 is V0+2,
getListDisp(Top, V1, Tail).
reduceList(_, _, [], []).
reduceList(Step, Exclude, [Exclude | Ti], Lo) :-
NextE is Exclude+Step,
reduceList(Step, NextE, Ti, Lo).
reduceList(Step, Exclude, [H | Ti], [H | To]) :-
Exclude > H,
reduceList(Step, Exclude, Ti, To).
reduceList(Step, Exclude, [H | Ti], [H | To]) :-
Exclude < H,
NextE is Exclude+Step,
reduceList(Step, NextE, Ti, To).
eratSieve([], []).
eratSieve([Prime | Ti], [Prime | To]) :-
Step is 2*Prime,
Exclude is Prime+Step,
reduceList(Step, Exclude, Ti, Lo),
eratSieve(Lo, To).
getPrimeList(Top, []) :-
Top < 2.
getPrimeList(Top, [2 | L]) :-
Top >= 2,
getListDisp(Top, 3, Ld),
eratSieve(Ld, L).
I repeat: not really an answer; just for fun (as the OP, I'm trying to learn Prolog).
Related
How to calculate 5^262144 in Erlang
Based on THIS question, I realized that calculating such numbers seems not possible in regular ways. Any suggestions?
It is possible, but you need an algorithm that is a bit more clever than the naive solution. If you write the naive power function, you do something along the lines of: pow(_, 0) -> 1; pow(A, 1) -> A; pow(A, N) -> A * pow(A, N-1). which just unrolls the power function. But the problem is that in your case, that will be 262144 multiplications, on increasingly larger numbers. The trick is a pretty simple insight: if you divide N by 2, and square A, you almost have the right answer, except if N is odd. So if we add a fixing term for the odd case, we obtain: -module(z). -compile(export_all). pow(_, 0) -> 1; pow(A, 1) -> A; pow(A, N) -> B = pow(A, N div 2), B * B * (case N rem 2 of 0 -> 1; 1 -> A end). This completes almost instantly on my machine: 2> element(1, timer:tc(fun() -> z:pow(5, 262144) end)). 85568 of course, if doing many operations, 85ms is hardly acceptable. But computing this is actually rather fast. (if you want more information, take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation_by_squaring )
If you are interested how compute power using same algorithm as in I GIVE CRAP ANSWERS's solution but in tail recursive code, there it is: power(X, 0) when is_integer(X) -> 1; power(X, Y) when is_integer(X), is_integer(Y), Y > 0 -> Bits = bits(Y, []), power(X, Bits, X). power(_, [], Acc) -> Acc; power(X, [0|Bits], Acc) -> power(X, Bits, Acc*Acc); power(X, [1|Bits], Acc) -> power(X, Bits, Acc*Acc*X). bits(1, Acc) -> Acc; bits(Y, Acc) -> bits(Y div 2, [Y rem 2 | Acc]).
It simple since Erlang uses arbitrary-precision for integers(big numbers) you can define own function pow for integer, for example: -module(test). -export([int_pow/2]). int_pow(N,M)->int_pow(N,M,1). int_pow(_,0,R) -> R; int_pow(N,M,R) -> int_pow(N,M-1,R*N). Note, I did not check the arguments and showed the implementation for your example.
You can do: defmodule Pow do def powa(x, n), do: powa(x, n, 1) def powa(_, 0, acc), do: acc def powa(x, n, acc), do: powa(x, n-1, acc * x) end Apparently Pow.powa(5, 262144) |> to_string |> String.length yields 183231 long number that you were curious about.
Sum of powers in Prolog
I'm trying to implement a method to work as follows foo(5) = 5^4 + 4^3 + 3^2 + 2^1 + 1^0 = 701 using recursion. I've been trying to follow the logic but I keep getting errors. can someone guide me? (define (foo n) ; size-n problem ( cond ( (= (- n 1) 0 ) ; stopping condition 0 ); return value (else (+ ( expt n (- n 1) ) ( foo (- n 1) ) ) ))) ; size-m problems
If you tagged the question correctly, you want to answer this in Prolog, but your code fragment suggests you use lisp (or a language that I don't know). In Prolog you write predictes. For your problem, there are two cases: The case where N is less than or equal to zero, which is zero: foo(N,0) :- N =< 0, !. The inductive case when N is greater than 0. In that case we calculate foo for N-1 and add up N^(N-1): foo(N,S) :- N1 is N-1, foo(N1,T), S is T+N^N1. You can simply write program containing the two cases: foo(N,0) :- N =< 0, !. foo(N,S) :- N1 is N-1, foo(N1,T), S is T+N^N1. And test it as follows: ?- foo(-1,S). S = 0. ?- foo(0,S). S = 0. ?- foo(1,S). S = 1. ?- foo(2,S). S = 3. ?- foo(3,S). S = 12. ?- foo(5,S). S = 701. You can akso make th is predicate more safer from looping by adding a check for the inductive case: foo(N,0) :- N =< 0, !. foo(N,S) :- N > 0, N1 is N-1, foo(N1,T), S is T+N^N1. Or you can further boost the predicate's performance using an accumulator: foo(N,S) :- foo(N,0,S). foo(N,S,T) :- N > 0, !, N1 is N-1, Q is S+N^N1, foo(N1,Q,T). foo(N,S,S) :- N =< 0. This version also checks first whether N > 0 before N =< 0 because it is a much more likely scenario: after one N =< 0 we stop recursion whereas the N > 0 will be called N-1 times. Using an accumulator enables a optimization technique called tail recursion.
Decompression of a list in prolog
I need to decompress a list in prolog , like in the example below : decode([[a,1],[b,2],[c,1],[d,3]],L). L = [a, b, b, c, d, d, d] ; I made this code : divide(L,X,Y):-length(X,1),append(X,Y,L). divide2(L,X,Y):-divide(L,[X|_],[Y|_]). makelist(_,N,[]):- N =< 0 . makelist(X,Y,[X|Result]):-Y1 is Y-1,makelist(X,Y1,Result). makelist2(L,L2):-divide2(L,X,Y),makelist(X,Y,L2). decode([],[]). decode([H|T],L):-makelist2(H,H2),append(H2,L,L2),decode(T,L2). and when i call makelist2([a,3],L2). L2 = [a,a,a]. but when i call decode([[a,3],[b,1],[c,4]],L) runs continuously. What am i doing wrong ?
Another variation of the theme, using a slightly modified version of Boris' repeat/3 predicate: % True when L is a list with N repeats of X repeat([X, N], L) :- length(L, N), maplist(=(X), L). decode(Encoded, Decoded) :- maplist(repeat, Encoded, Expanded), flatten(Expanded, Decoded). If Encode = [[a,1],[b,2],[c,1],[d,3]], then in the above decode/2, the maplist/3 call will yield Expanded = [[a],[b,b],[c],[d,d,d]], and then the flatten/2 call results in Decoded = [a,b,b,c,d,d,d]. In SWI Prolog, instead of flatten/2, you can use append/2 since you only need a "flattening" at one level. EDIT: Adding a "bidirectional" version, using a little CLPFD: rle([], []). rle([X], [[1,X]]). rle([X,Y|T], [[1,X]|R]) :- X \== Y, % use dif(X, Y) here, if available rle([Y|T], R). rle([X,X|T], [[N,X]|R]) :- N #= N1 + 1, rle([X|T], [[N1,X]|R]). This will yield: | ?- rle([a,a,a,b,b], L). L = [[3,a],[2,b]] ? ; (1 ms) no | ?- rle(L, [[3,a],[2,b]]). L = [a,a,a,b,b] ? ; no | ?- rle([a,a,a,Y,Y,Z], [X, [N,b],[M,c]]). M = 1 N = 2 X = [3,a] Y = b Z = c ? a no | ?- rle([A,B,C], D). D = [[1,A],[1,B],[1,C]] ? ; C = B D = [[1,A],[2,B]] ? ; B = A D = [[2,A],[1,C]] ? ; B = A C = A D = [[3,A]] ? ; (2 ms) no | ?- rle(A, [B,C]). A = [D,E] B = [1,D] C = [1,E] ? ; A = [D,E,E] B = [1,D] C = [2,E] ? ; A = [D,E,E,E] B = [1,D] C = [3,E] ? ; ... | ?- rle(A, B). A = [] B = [] ? ; A = [C] B = [[1,C]] ? ; A = [C,D] B = [[1,C],[1,D]] ? ; ... As #mat suggests in his comment, in Prolog implementations that have dif/2, then dif(X,Y) is preferable to X \== Y above.
The problem is in the order of your append and decode in the last clause of decode. Try tracing it, or even better, trace it "by hand" to see what happens. Another approach: see this answer. So, with repeat/3 defined as: % True when L is a list with N repeats of X repeat(X, N, L) :- length(L, N), maplist(=(X), L). You can write your decode/2 as: decode([], []). decode([[X,N]|XNs], Decoded) :- decode(XNs, Decoded_rest), repeat(X, N, L), append(L, Decoded_rest, Decoded). But this is a slightly roundabout way to do it. You could define a difference-list version of repeat/3, called say repeat/4: repeat(X, N, Reps, Reps_back) :- ( succ(N0, N) -> Reps = [X|Reps0], repeat(X, N0, Reps0, Reps_back) ; Reps = Reps_back ). And then you can use a difference-list version of decode/2, decode_1/3 decode(Encoded, Decoded) :- decode_1(Encoded, Decoded, []). decode_1([], Decoded, Decoded). decode_1([[X,N]|XNs], Decoded, Decoded_back) :- repeat(X, N, Decoded, Decoded_rest), decode_1(XNs, Decoded_rest, Decoded_back). ?- decode([[a,1],[b,2],[c,1],[d,3]],L). L = [a, b, b, c, d, d, d]. ?- decode([[a,3],[b,1],[c,0],[d,3]],L). L = [a, a, a, b, d, d, d]. ?- decode([[a,3]],L). L = [a, a, a]. ?- decode([],L). L = [].
You can deal with both direction with this code : :- use_module(library(lambda)). % code from Pascal Bourguignon packRuns([],[]). packRuns([X],[[X]]). packRuns([X|Rest],[XRun|Packed]):- run(X,Rest,XRun,RRest), packRuns(RRest,Packed). run(Var,[],[Var],[]). run(Var,[Var|LRest],[Var|VRest],RRest):- run(Var,LRest,VRest,RRest). run(Var,[Other|RRest],[Var],[Other|RRest]):- dif(Var,Other). %end code pack_1(In, Out) :- maplist(\X^Y^(X = [V|_], Y = [V, N], length(X, N), maplist(=(V), X)), In, Out). decode(In, Out) :- when((ground(In); ground(Out1)),pack_1(Out1, In)), packRuns(Out, Out1). Output : ?- decode([[a,1],[b,2],[c,1],[d,3]],L). L = [a, b, b, c, d, d, d] . ?- decode(L, [a,b,b,c,d,d,d]). L = [[a, 1], [b, 2], [c, 1], [d, 3]] .
a compact way: decode(L,D) :- foldl(expand,L,[],D). expand([S,N],L,E) :- findall(S,between(1,N,_),T), append(L,T,E). findall/3 it's the 'old fashioned' Prolog list comprehension facility
decode is a poor name for your predicate: properly done, you predicate should be bi-directional — if you say decode( [[a,1],[b,2],[c,3]] , L ) You should get L = [a,b,b,c,c,c]. And if you say decode( L , [a,b,b,c,c,c] ) . You should get L = [[a,1],[b,2],[c,3]]. So I'd use a different name, something like run_length_encoding/2. I might also not use a list to represent individual run lengths as [a,1] is this prolog term: .(a,.(1,[]). Just use a simple term with arity 2 — myself, I like using :/2 since it's defined as an infix operator, so you can simply say a:1. Try this on for size: run_length_encoding( [] , [] ) . % the run-length encoding of the empty list is the empty list. run_length_encoding( [X|Xs] , [R|Rs] ) :- % the run-length encoding of a non-empty list is computed by rle( Xs , X:1 , T , R ) , % - run-length encoding the prefix of the list run_length_encoding( T , Rs ) % - and recursively run-length encoding the remainder . % Easy! rle( [] , C:N , [] , C:N ) . % - the run is complete when the list is exhausted. rle( [X|Xs] , C:N , [X|Xs] , C:N ) :- % - the run is complete, X \= C % - when we encounter a break . % rle( [X|Xs] , X:N , T , R ) :- % - the run continues if we haven't seen a break, so.... N1 is N+1 , % - increment the run length, rle( Xs, X:N1, T, R ) % - and recurse down. . % Easy!
In direct answer to the original question of, What am I doing wrong?... When I ran the original code, any expected use case "ran indefinitely" without yielding a result. Reading through the main predicate: decode([],[]). This says that [] is the result of decoding []. Sounds right. decode([H|T],L) :- makelist2(H,H2), append(H2,L,L2), decode(T,L2). This says that L is the result of decoding [H|T] if H2 is an expansion of H (which is what makelist2 does... perhaps - we'll go over that below), and H2 appended to this result gives another list L2 which is the decoded form of the original tail T. That doesn't sound correct. If I decode [H|T], I should (1) expand H, (2) decode T giving L2, then (3) append H to L2 giving L. So the corrected second clause is: decode([H|T], L) :- makelist2(H, H2), decode(T, L2), append(H2, L2, L). Note the argument order of append/3 and that the call occurs after the decode of the tail. As Boris pointed out previously, the incorrect order of append and the recursive decode can cause the continuous running without any output as append with more uninstantiated arguments generates a large number of unneeded possibilities before decode can succeed. But now the result is: | ?- decode([[a,3]], L). L = [a,a,a] ? ; L = [a,a,a,a] ? ; ... If you try out our other predicates by hand in the Prolog interpreter, you'll find that makelist2/2 has an issue: It produces the correct result, but also a bunch of incorrect results. Let's have a look at makelist2/2. We can try this predicate by itself and see what happens: | ?- makelist2([a,3], L). L = [a,a,a] ? ; L = [a,a,a,a] ? ; ... There's an issue: makelist2/2 should only give the first solution, but it keeps going, giving incorrect solutions. Let's look closer at makelist/2: makelist2(L,L2) :- divide2(L,X,Y), makelist(X,Y,L2). It takes a list L of the form [A,N], divides it (via divide2/3) into X = A and Y = N, then calls an auxiliary, makelist(X, Y, L2). makelist(_,N,[]):- N =< 0 . makelist(X,Y,[X|Result]):-Y1 is Y-1,makelist(X,Y1,Result). makelist/3 is supposed to generate a list (the third argument) by replicating the first argument the number of times given in the second argument. The second, recursive clause appears to be OK, but has one important flaw: it will succeed even if the value of Y is less than or equal to 0. Therefore, even though a correct solution is found, it keeps succeeding on incorrect solutions because the base case allows the count to be =< 0: | ?- makelist(a,2,L). L = [a,a] ? ; L = [a,a,a] ? ; We can fix makelist/2 as follows: makelist(_,N,[]):- N =< 0 . makelist(X,Y,[X|Result]):- Y > 0, Y1 is Y-1, makelist(X,Y1,Result). Now the code will generate a correct result. We just needed to fix the second clause of decode/2, and the second clause of makelist/3. | ?- decode([[a,3],[b,4]], L). L = [a,a,a,b,b,b,b] yes The complete, original code with just these couple of corrections looks like this: divide(L, X, Y) :- length(X, 1), append(X, Y, L). divide2(L, X, Y) :- divide(L, [X|_], [Y|_]). makelist(_, N, []) :- N =< 0 . makelist(X, Y, [X|Result]) :- Y > 0, Y1 is Y-1, makelist(X,Y1,Result). makelist2(L, L2) :- divide2(L, X, Y), makelist(X, Y, L2). decode([], []). decode([H|T], L) :- makelist2(H,H2), decode(T,L2), append(H2,L2,L). Note some simple, direct improvements. The predicate, divide2(L, X, Y) takes a list L of two elements and yields each, individual element, X and Y. This predicate is unnecessary because, in Prolog, you can obtain these elements by simple unification: L = [X, Y]. You can try this right in the Prolog interpreter: | ?- L = [a,3], L = [X,Y]. L = [a,3] X = a Y = 3 yes We can then completely remove the divide/3 and divide2/3 predicates, and replace a call to divide2(L, X, Y) with L = [X,Y] and reduce makelist2/2 to: makelist2(L, L2) :- L = [X, Y], makelist(X, Y, L2). Or more simply (because we can do the unification right in the head of the clause): makelist2([X,Y], L2) :- makelist(X, Y, L2). You could just remove makelist2/2 and call makelist/2 directly from decode/2 by unifying H directly with its two elements, [X, N]. So the original code simplifies to: makelist(_, N, []) :- N =< 0 . makelist(X, Y, [X|Result]) :- Y > 0, Y1 is Y-1, makelist(X,Y1,Result). decode([], []). decode([[X,N]|T], L) :- makelist(X, N, H2), decode(T, L2), append(H2, L2, L). And makelist/3 can be performed a bit more clearly using one of the methods provided in the other answers (e.g., see Boris' repeat/3 predicate).
Prolog predicate makelist
Define a Prolog predicate makelist/3 such that makelist(Start, End, List) is true if List is a list of all integers from the integer Start to the integer End. For example: makelist(3, 7, [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]) should be true. Can't understand why my code doesn't work makelist(H, L, _) :- L is H+1. makelist(H, L, List) :- append([], [H], List), H1 is H+1. makelist(H1, L, List) :- append(List, [H1], List1), last(List1, R), R \= L+1, makelist(N, L, List1), N is H1+1.
You can simplify your code, let's take your predicate and examine what is what you really need to do: % makelist(X,Y,L) Since your recursive call is increasing by 1 the first parameter, let's call it X, then your base case would be when X is the same than Y: makelist(X,X,[X]) . and your recursive call: it will be when X is smaller than Y, you need to increase X and add the value to the list: makelist(X,Y,[X|L]) :- X < Y , X1 is X + 1 , makelist(X1, Y, L).
polynomial equation standard ml
I'm trying to make a function that will solve a univariante polynomial equation in Standard ML, but it keeps giving me error. The code is below (* Eval Function *) - fun eval (x::xs, a:real):real = let val v = x (* The first element, since its not multiplied by anything *) val count = 1 (* We start counting from the second element *) in v + elms(xs, a, count) end; (* Helper Function*) - fun pow (base:real, 0) = 1.0 | pow (base:real, exp:int):real = base * pow(base, exp - 1); (* A function that solves the equation except the last element in the equation, the constant *) - fun elms (l:real list, a:real, count:int):real = if (length l) = count then 0.0 else ((hd l) * pow(a, count)) + elms((tl l), a, count + 1); now the input should be the coefficient if the polynomial elements and a number to substitute the variable, ie if we have the function 3x^2 + 5x + 1, and we want to substitute x by 2, then we would call the eval as follows: eval ([1.0, 5.0, 3.0], 2.0); and the result should be 23.0, but sometimes on different input, its giving me different answers, but on this imput its giving me the following error uncaught exception Empty raised at: smlnj/init/pervasive.sml:209.19-209.24 what could be my problem here?
Empty is raised when you run hd or tl on an empty list. hd and tl are almost never used in ML; lists are almost always deconstructed using pattern matching instead; it's much prettier and safer. You don't seem to have a case for empty lists, and I didn't go through your code to figure out what you did, but you should be able to work it out yourself.
After some recursive calls, elms function gets empty list as its argument. Since count is always greater than 0, (length l) = count is always false and the calls hd and tl on empty list are failed right after that. A good way to fix it is using pattern matching to handle empty lists on both eval and elms: fun elms ([], _, _) = 0.0 | elms (x::xs, a, count) = (x * pow(a, count)) + elms(xs, a, count + 1) fun eval ([], _) = 0.0 | eval (x::xs, a) = x + elms(xs, a, 1)