I'm supposed to write a predicate that does some math stuff. But I don't know how to pass numbers or return numbers.
Maybe you can give me an example?
Let's say a predicate divide/2 that takes two numbers a and b and returns a/b.
Yes, you pass numbers in in some arguments, and you get the result back in some other argument(s) (usually last). For example
divide( N, D, R) :-
R is N / D.
Trying:
112 ?- divide(100,5,X).
X = 20.
113 ?- divide(100,7,X).
X = 14.285714285714286.
Now, this predicate is divide/3, because it has three arguments: two for inputs and one for the output "information flow".
This is a simplified, restricted version of what a Prolog predicate can do. Which is, to not be that uni-directional.
I guess "return" is a vague term. Expression languages have expressions e-value-ated so a function's last expression's value becomes that function's "return" value; Prolog does not do that. But command-oriented languages return values by putting them into some special register. That's not much different conceptually from Prolog putting some value into some logvar.
Of course unification is more complex, and more versatile. But still, functions are relations too. Predicates "return" values by successfully unifying their arguments with them, or fail to do so, as shown in the other answer.
Prolog is all about unifying variables. Predicates don't return values, they just succeed or fail.
Typically when a predicate is expected to produce values based on some of the arguments then the left-most arguments are inputs and the right-most are the outputs. However, many predicates work with allowing any argument to be an input and any to be a output.
Here's an example for multiply showing how it is used to perform divide.
multiply(X,Y,Z) :- number(X),number(Y),Z is X * Y.
multiply(X,Y,Z) :- number(X),number(Z),X \= 0,Y is Z / X.
multiply(X,Y,Z) :- number(Y),number(Z),Y \= 0,X is Z / Y.
Now I can query it like this:
?- multiply(5,9,X).
X = 45 .
But I can easily do divide:
?- multiply(5,X,9).
X = 1.8 .
It even fails if I try to do a division by 0:
?- multiply(X,0,9).
false.
Here's another approach. So let's say you have a list [22,24,34,66] and you want to divide each answer by the number 2. First we have the base predicate where if the list is empty and the number is zero so cut. Cut means to come out of the program or just stop don't go to the further predicates. The next predicate checks each Head of the list and divides it by the number A, meaning (2). And then we simply print the Answer. In order for it to go through each element of the list we send back the Tail [24,34,66] to redo the steps. So for the next step 24 becomes the Head and the remaining digits [34,66] become the Tail.
divideList([],0,0):-!.
divideList([H|T],A,Answer):-
Answer is H//A,
writeln(Answer),
divideList(T,A,_).
?- divideList([22,24,34,66],2,L).
OUTPUT:
11
12
17
33
Another simpler approach:
divideList([],_,[]).
divideList([H|T],A,[H1|L]):-
H1 is H//A,!,
divideList(T,A,L).
?-divideList([22,4,56,38],2,Answer).
Answer = [11, 2, 28, 19]
In electrical engineering the parallel connection of impedances could be expressed by the parallel operator ∥. For a vector of impedances z[k] the following function can be defined:
function ∥(z...)
ypar = 0
for k=1:length(z)
ypar = ypar + 1/z[k]
end
return 1/ypar
end
The precedence of Julia operators is defined in https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/src/julia-parser.scm. The parallel operator ∥ is defined on the same precedence level as relational operators. Consider the following examples:
julia> Base.operator_precedence(:∥)
6
julia> Base.operator_precedence(:+)
9
julia> Base.operator_precedence(:*)
11
julia> Base.operator_precedence(:^)
13
In the simple case of two impedances z[1] and z[2] the parallel impedance is equal to z[1]*z[2]/(z[1]+z[2]). From my personal understanding the precedence of the parallel operator is higher or at least equal than the multiplication operator *.
My question is: how can I change the precedence of the ∥ operator from 6 to 11, 12 or 13?
I'll offer an answer you weren't looking for.
This impedance calculation is often referred to as a parallel sum, which I propose you represent with the ++ operator (two sums in parallel!). This could be defined in Julia as:
++(xs...) = 1/sum(1/x for x ∈ xs)
The precedence of ++ is the same as +. This seems undesirable at first, but I will argue that it is right.
The properties of the parallel sum—commutative, associative, and distributive—are exactly the same as addition, and the identities are just inverses of each other (0 vs. ∞). Both operators represent the addition of a component, just in different arrangements. And, just as the parallel sum can be defined in terms of the regular sum as a++b == 1/(1/a+1/b), the normal sum can be defined in terms of the parallel sum as a+b == 1/(1/a++1/b).
It turns out, it's most natural to give the parallel sum the same operator precedence as the normal sum. It's unfortunate that lots of electrical engineers give it precedence other than this—clearly because they haven't thought through the operator's properties.
I'm currently learning programming language concepts and pragmatics, hence I feel like I need help in differentiating two subbranches of declarative language family.
Consider the following code snippets which are written in Scheme and Prolog, respectively:
;Scheme
(define gcd
(lambda (a b)
(cond ((= a b) a)
((> a b) (gcd (- a b) b))
(else (gcd (- b a) a)))))
%Prolog
gcd(A, B, G) :- A = B, G = A.
gcd(A, B, G) :- A > B, C is A-B, gcd(C, B, G).
gcd(A, B, G) :- B > A, C is B-A, gcd(C, A, G).
The thing that I didn't understand is:
How do these two different programming languages behave
differently?
Where do we make the difference so that they are categorized either
Functional or Logic-based programming language?
As far as I'm concerned, they do exactly the same thing, calling recursive functions until it terminates.
Since you are using very low-level predicates in your logic programming version, you cannot easily see the increased generality that logic programming gives you over functional programming.
Consider this slightly edited version of your code, which uses CLP(FD) constraints for declarative integer arithmetic instead of the low-level arithmetic you are currently using:
gcd(A, A, A).
gcd(A, B, G) :- A #> B, C #= A - B, gcd(C, B, G).
gcd(A, B, G) :- B #> A, C #= B - A, gcd(C, A, G).
Importantly, we can use this as a true relation, which makes sense in all directions.
For example, we can ask:
Are there two integers X and Y such that their GCD is 3?
That is, we can use this relation in the other direction too! Not only can we, given two integers, compute their GCD. No! We can also ask, using the same program:
?- gcd(X, Y, 3).
X = Y, Y = 3 ;
X = 6,
Y = 3 ;
X = 9,
Y = 3 ;
X = 12,
Y = 3 ;
etc.
We can also post even more general queries and still obtain answers:
?- gcd(X, Y, Z).
X = Y, Y = Z ;
Y = Z,
Z#=>X+ -1,
2*Z#=X ;
Y = Z,
_1712+Z#=X,
Z#=>X+ -1,
Z#=>_1712+ -1,
2*Z#=_1712 ;
etc.
That's a true relation, which is more general than a function of two arguments!
See clpfd for more information.
The GCD example only lightly touches on the differences between logic programming and functional programming as they are much closer to each other than to imperative programming. I will concentrate on Prolog and OCaml, but I believe it is quite representative.
Logical Variables and Unification:
Prolog allows to express partial datastructures e.g. in the term node(24,Left,Right) we don't need to specify what Left and Right stand for, they might be any term. A functional language might insert a lazy function or a thunk which is evaluated later on, but at the creation of the term, we need to know what to insert.
Logical variables can also be unified (i.e. made equal). A search function in OCaml might look like:
let rec find v = function
| [] -> false
| x::_ when v = x -> true
| _::xs (* otherwise *) -> find v xs
While the Prolog implementation can use unification instead of v=x:
member_of(X,[X|_]).
member_of(X,[_|Xs]) :-
member_of(X,Xs).
For the sake of simplicity, the Prolog version has some drawbacks (see below in backtracking).
Backtracking:
Prolog's strength lies in successively instantiating variables which can be easily undone. If you try the above program with variables, Prolog will return you all possible values for them:
?- member_of(X,[1,2,3,1]).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 1 ;
false.
This is particularly handy when you need to explore search trees but it comes at a price. If we did not specify the size of the list, we will successively create all lists fulfilling our property - in this case infinitely many:
?- member_of(X,Xs).
Xs = [X|_3836] ;
Xs = [_3834, X|_3842] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, X|_3848] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, X|_3854] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, _3852, X|_3860] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, _3852, _3858, X|_3866] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, _3852, _3858, _3864, X|_3872]
[etc etc etc]
This means that you need to be more careful using Prolog, because termination is harder to control. In particular, the old-style ways (the cut operator !) to do that are pretty hard to use correctly and there's still some discussion about the merits of recent approaches (deferring goals (with e.g. dif), constraint arithmetic or a reified if). In a functional programming language, backtracking is usually implemented by using a stack or a backtracking state monad.
Invertible Programs:
Perhaps one more appetizer for using Prolog: functional programming has a direction of evaluation. We can use the find function only to check if some v is a member of a list, but we can not ask which lists fulfill this. In Prolog, this is possible:
?- Xs = [A,B,C], member_of(1,Xs).
Xs = [1, B, C],
A = 1 ;
Xs = [A, 1, C],
B = 1 ;
Xs = [A, B, 1],
C = 1 ;
false.
These are exactly the lists with three elements which contain (at least) one element 1. Unfortunately the standard arithmetic predicates are not invertible and together with the fact that the GCD of two numbers is always unique is the reason why you could not find too much of a difference between functional and logic programming.
To summarize: logic programming has variables which allow for easier pattern matching, invertibility and exploring multiple solutions of the search tree. This comes at the cost of complicated flow control. Depending on the problem it is easier to have a backtracking execution which is sometimes restricted or to add backtracking to a functional language.
The difference is not very clear from one example. Programming language are categorized to logic,functional,... based on some characteristics that they support and as a result they are designed in order to be more easy for programmers in each field (logic,functional...). As an example imperative programming languages (like c) are very different from object oriented (like java,C++) and here the differences are more obvious.
More specifically, in your question the Prolog programming language has adopted he philosophy of logic programming and this is obvious for someone who knows a little bit about mathematical logic. Prolog has predicates (rather than functions-basically almost the same) which return true or false based on the "world" we have defined which is for example what facts and clauses do we have already defined, what mathematical facts are defined and more....All these things are inherited by mathematical logic (propositional and first order logic). So we could say that Prolog is used as a model to logic which makes logical problems (like games,puzzles...) more easy to solve. Moreover Prolog has some features that general-purpose languages have. For example you could write a program in your example to calculate gcd:
gcd(A, B, G) :- A = B, G = A.
gcd(A, B, G) :- A > B, C is A-B, gcd(C, B, G).
gcd(A, B, G) :- B > A, C is B-A, gcd(C, A, G).
In your program you use a predicate gcd in returns TRUE if G unifies with GCD of A,B, and you use multiple clauses to match all cases. When you query gcd(2,5,1). will return True (NOTE that in other languages like shceme you can't give the result as parameter), while if you query gcd(2,5,G). it unifies G with gcd of A,B and returns 1, it is like asking Prolog what should be G in order gcd(2,5,G). be true. So you can understand that it is all about when the predicate succeeds and for that reason you can have more than one solutions, while in functional programming languages you can't.
Functional languages are based in functions so always return the SAME
TYPE of result. This doesn't stand always in Prolog you could have a predicate predicate_example(Number,List). and query predicate_example(5,List). which returns List=... (a list) and also query
predicate_example(Number,[1,2,3]). and return N=... (a number).
The result should be unique, In mathematics, a function is a relation
between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output
Should be clear what parameter is the variable that will be returned
for example gcd function is of type : N * N -> R so gets A,B parameters which belong to N (natural numbers) and returns gcd. But prolog (with some changes in your program) could return the parameter A,so querying gcd(A,5,1). would give all possible A such that predicate gcd succeeds,A=1,2,3,4,5 .
Prolog in order to find gcd tries every possible way with choice
points so in every step it will try all of you three clauses and will
find every possible solutions. Functional programming languages on
the other hand, like functions should have well unique defined steps
to find the solution.
So you can understand that the difference between Functional and logic languages may not be always visible but they are based on different philosophy-way of thinking.
Imagine how hard would be to solve tic-tac-toe or N queens problem or man-goat-wolf-cabbage problem in Scheme.
Let's say I have a DFA with alphabet {0,1} which basically accepts any strings as long as there is no consecutive 0's (at most one 0 at a time). How do I express this in a mathematical notation?
I was thinking of any number of 1's followed by either one or none 0's, then any number of 1's..... but couldn't figure out the appropriate mathematical notation for it.
My attempt but obviously incorrect since 1010 should be accepted but the notation does not indicate so:
As a regular expression you could write this as 1*(01+)*0?. Arbitrary many ones, then arbitrary many groups of exactly one zero followed by at least one one, and in the end possibly one zero. Nico already wrote as much in a comment. Personally I'd consider such a regular expression sufficiently formal to call it mathematical.
Now if you want to write this using exponents, you could do something like
L = {1a (0 11+bi)c 0d mod 2 | a,bi,c,d ∈ ℕ for 1≤i≤c}
Writing a bit of formula in the exponents has the great benefit that you don't have to split the place where you use the exponent and the place where you define the range. Here all my numbers are natural numbers (including zero). Adding one means at least one repetition. And the modulo 2 makes the exponent 0 or 1 to express the ? in the regular expression.
Of course, there is an implied assumption here, namely that the c serves as a kind of loop, but it doesn't repeat the same expression every time, but the bi changes for each iteration. The range of the i implies this interpretation, but it might be considered confusing or even incorrect nonetheless.
The proper solution here would be using some formal product notation using a big ∏ with a subscript i = 1 and a superscript c. That would indicate that for every i from 1 through c you want to compute the given expression (i.e. 011+bi) and concatenate all the resulting words.
You could also give a recursive definition: The minimal fixpoint of the following definition
L' = {1, 10} ∪ {1a 0 b | a ∈ ℕ, a > 0, b ∈ L'}
is the language of all words which begin with a 1 and satisfy your conditions. From this you can build
L = {ε, 0} ∪ L' ∪ {0 a | a ∈ L'}
so you add the empty word and the lone zero, then take all the words from L' in their unmodified form and in the form with a zero added in front.
I have a complicated expression in maple which depends on four real parameters, say a,b,c,d. Let us call this expression f(a,b,c,d). This expression consists of derivatives, definite and indefinite integrals of hyperbolic functions. By indefinite integral I mean expressions like Int(g(x),x). The expression f is to big for maple to write out, and I would therefore like to evaluate it numerically for different values of a,b,c and d. I tried doing evalf(value(f(a1,b1,c1,d1)), but this never terminates in maple, which I guess means that maple first tries to simplify f algebraically and then plugs in the real values a1,b1,c1, and d1.
Could someone please help me with this?
After the symbolic manipulation Maple will return an expression in terms of other variables for example:
diff(x^2 + 2, x); will return "2 x"
now if you write evalf(%), it will not be able to evaluate to any numerical value because it does not know the value of x. Therefore you have to first use subs() function to substitute the value of x where you want to evaluate the resulting expression.
Thus, in your case it will be subs([x=2, y=5], f(a, b, c, d)) assuming that the evaluated expression has variables x and y.
Remove the value command. It tries to evaluate your integrals symbolically, which is probably impossible. Just use evalf.