A processor 'a' takes care the header 'a' of a message 'a_b_c_d' and passes the payload 'b_c_d' to the another processor in the next level as following:
msg(a, b_c_d).
pro(a;b;c;d).
msg(b, c_d) :- pro(X), msg(X, b_c_d).
msg(c, d) :- pro(X), msg(X, c_d).
msg(d) :- pro(X), msg(X, d).
#hide. #show msg/2. #show msg/1.
How should I represent list 'a_b_c_d' in ASP, and change the above to general cases?
No, official way, but I think most people don't realize you can construct cons-cells in ASP.
For instance, here's how you can get items for all lists of length 5 from elements 1..6
element(1..6).
listLen(empty, 0).
listLen(cons(E, L), K + 1) :- element(E); listLen(L, K); K < 5.
is5List(L) :- listLen(L, 5).
#show is5List/1.
resulting in
is5List(cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,empty))))))
is5List(cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,cons(2,empty))))))
is5List(cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,cons(1,cons(3,empty))))))
...
There is no 'official' way to handle lists in ASP as far as I know. But, DLV has built-in list handling similar to Prolog's.
The way you implement a list, the list itself cannot be used as a term and thus what if you want to bind between variables in the list and other elements of a rule? Perhaps you would like something such as p(t, [q(X), q(Y)]) :- X != Y.
You can try implementing a list as (a, b, c) and an append predicate but the problem is ASP requires grounding before computing answer-sets. Consequently a list defined in this way whilst more like lists in Prolog would mean the ground-program contains all ground-instances of all possible lists (explosion) regardless of whether they are used or not.
I therefore come back to my first point, try using DLV instead of Clingo if possible (for this task, at least).
By using index, I do have a way to walk a list, however, I do not know this is the official way to handle a list in ASP. Could someone has more experience in ASP give us a hand? Thanks.
index(3,a). index(2,b). index(1,c). index(0,d).
pro(a;b;c;d). msg(3,a).
msg(I-1,N) :- pro(P), msg(I,P), index(I,P), I>0, index(I-1,N).
#hide. #show msg/2.
You can use s(ASP) or s(CASP) ASP systems. Both of them support list operations like prolog. You might need to define the list built-in in ASP .
Related
I am using clingo to solve a homework problem and stumbled upon something I can't explain:
normalized(0,0).
normalized(A,1) :-
A != 0.
normalized(10).
In my opinion, normalized should be 0 when the first parameter is 0 or 1 in every other case.
Running clingo on that, however, produces the following:
test.pl:2:1-3:12: error: unsafe variables in:
normalized(A,1):-[#inc_base];A!=0.
test.pl:2:12-13: note: 'A' is unsafe
Why is A unsafe here?
According to Programming with CLINGO
Some error messages say that the program
has “unsafe variables.” Such a message usually indicates that the head of one of
the rules includes a variable that does not occur in its body; stable models of such
programs may be infinite.
But in this example A is present in the body.
Will clingo produce an infinite set consisting of answers for all numbers here?
I tried adding number(_) around the first parameter and pattern matching on it to avoid this situation but with the same result:
normalized(number(0),0).
normalized(A,1) :-
A=number(B),
B != 0.
normalized(number(10)).
How would I write normalized properly?
With "variables occuring in the body" actually means in a positive literal in the body. I can recommend the official guide: https://github.com/potassco/guide/releases/
The second thing, ASP is not prolog. Your rules get grounded, i.e. each first order variable is replaced with its domain. In your case A has no domain.
What would be the expected outcome of your program ?
normalized(12351,1).
normalized(my_mom,1).
would all be valid replacements for A so you create an infinite program. This is why 'A' has to be bounded by a domain. For example:
dom(a). dom(b). dom(c). dom(100).
normalized(0,0).
normalized(A,1) :- dom(A).
would produce
normalize(0,0).
normalize(a,1).
normalize(b,1).
normalize(c,1).
normalize(100,1).
Also note that there is no such thing as number/1. ASP is a typefree language.
Also,
normalized(10).
is a different predicate with only one parameter, I do not know how this will fit in your program.
Maybe your are looking for something like this:
dom(1..100).
normalize(0,0).
normalize(X,1) :- dom(X).
foo(43).
bar(Y) :- normalize(X,Y), foo(X).
Is there a neat way of looking up the key of a dictionary by an atom value if that atom is inside a value list ?
Assumption: The value lists of the dictionary have each unique elements
Example:
d:`tech`fin!(`aapl`msft;`gs`jpm) / would like to get key `fin by looking up `jpm
d?`gs`jpm / returns `fin as expected
d?`jpm / this doesn't work unfortunately
$[`jpm in d`fin;`fin;`tech] / this is the only way I can come up with
The last option does not scale well with the number of keys
Thanks!
You can take advantage of how where operates with dictionaries, and use in :
where `jpm in/:d
,`fin
Note this will return a list, so you might need to do first on the output if you want to replicate what you have above.
Why are you making this difficult on yourself? Use a table!
q)t:([] c:`tech`tech`fin`fin; sym:`aapl`msfw`gs`jpm)
q)first exec c from t where sym=`jpm
You can of course do what you're asking:
first where `jpm in'd
but this doesn't extend well to vectors while the table-approach does!
q)exec c from t where sym in `jpm`gs
I think you can take advantage of the value & key keywords to find what you're after:
q)key[d]where any value[d]in `jpm
,`fin
Hope that helps!
Jemma
The answers you have received so far are excellent. Here's my contribution building on Ryan's answer:
{[val;dict]raze {where y in/:x}[dict]'[val]}[`msft`jpm`gs;d]
The main difference is that you can pass a list of values to be evaluated and the result will be a list of keys.
[`msft`jpm`gs;d]
Output:
`tech`fin`fin
I'm basically a beginner to Answer Set Programming (CLINGO), so I've been attempting this problem for hours now.
person(a;b;c;d;e;f).
likes(b,e; d,f).
dislikes(a,b; c,e).
People who like each other must be in the same set, and cannot be in the same set as someone they dislike.
So the output should be:
b,e | a, c, d,f
I know the logic behind it; partition it so that if an element is in both likes & dislikes, then it should be in its own set, and everything else in the other. But this is declarative programming, so I'm not sure how to tackle this. Any help would be appreciated.
Try this one, it should work for you:
person(a;b;c;d;e;f).
like(b,e; d,f).
dislike(a,b; c,e).
group(1..2).
% every person belongs to one group only.
1{in(S,G): group(G)}1 :- person(S).
% no two persons who do dislike each other are in the same group
:- in(X, G), in(Y, G), dislike(X,Y).
#show in/2.
The result you'll get is:
a & b are in different group.
and c & e are in different group.
The result you can get is like:
I'm looking for a way of saving and after handling the arguments of a web form in SWI-Prolog when I submit the form and I call the same program to generate another form and so on. Always calling the same prolog program from one form to the next one.
The CGI SWI-Prolog library saves these arguments as a list of Name(Value) terms, i.e [Name(Value)].
if I pass the arguments like a hidden argument inside the form (TotalArguments is a list):
format('"<"input type="hidden" id="nameofform1" name="nameofform1" value="~w" />~n', TotalArguments),
I need to get rid of the id or name that concatenates on my resultant list on TotalArguments when I append it. Any idea of how to do this so that the final list looks like [nameofform1(value1), nameofform2(value2),...]?
I could also write this list of arguments and append it into a file, and consult it every time the program is called again, but this will load them always and I only need to load the arguments needed in the specific step and form handled at the moment. Because otherwise this file could contain undesirable info after some executions. Any thoughts on how to do it this way?
Any other suggestions for this kind of problem?
Edit with my solution using hidden form
I've solved it by creating:
extract_value([],_).
extract_value([A0|__ ], Valor) :-
A0 =.. [_, Value],
Valor is Value.
and then doing:
extract_value(Arguments, Value),
and submiting the hidden value of the form like:
format('<"input type="hidden" id="nameofform1" name="nameofform1" value="~w"/>~n', [Value]),
and appending it in the next form so that it looks how I wanted:
[nameofform2(value2),nameofform1(value1)]
It's a bit unclear to me what exactly you need here, but to remove the first element of a list that unifies with a given element (especially if you know for certain that the list contains such an element), use selectkchk/3. For example:
selectchk(id(_), List0, List1),
selectchk(name(_), List1, List)
in order to obtain List, which is List0 without the elements id(_) and name(_). Kind of implicit in your question, as I understand it, seems to be how to create a term like "form1(Value)" given the terms name(form1) and Value. You can do this for example with =../2. You can create a term T with functor N and arguments Args with
T =.. [N|Args]
It does not seem necessary to write anything to files here, I would simply pass the info through forms just as you outline.
Sorry for the length, but a picture is worth 1000 words:
In ASP.NET MVC 2, the input form field "name" attribute must contain exactly the syntax below that you would use to reference the object in C# in order to bind it back to the object upon post back. That said, if you have an object like the following where it contains multiple Orders having multiple OrderLines, the names would look and work well like this (case sensitive):
This works:
Order[0].id
Order[0].orderDate
Order[0].Customer.name
Order[0].Customer.Address
Order[0].OrderLine[0].itemID // first order line
Order[0].OrderLine[0].description
Order[0].OrderLine[0].qty
Order[0].OrderLine[0].price
Order[0].OrderLine[1].itemID // second order line, same names
Order[0].OrderLine[1].description
Order[0].OrderLine[1].qty
Order[0].OrderLine[1].price
However we want to add order lines and remove order lines at the client browser. Apparently, the indexes must start at zero and contain every consecutive index number to N.
The black belt ninja Phil Haack's blog entry here explains how to remove the [0] index, have duplicate names, and let MVC auto-enumerate duplicate names with the [0] notation. However, I have failed to get this to bind back using a nested object:
This fails:
Order.id // Duplicate names should enumerate at 0 .. N
Order.orderDate
Order.Customer.name
Order.Customer.Address
Order.OrderLine.itemID // And likewise for nested properties?
Order.OrderLine.description
Order.OrderLine.qty
Order.OrderLine.price
Order.OrderLine.itemID
Order.OrderLine.description
Order.OrderLine.qty
Order.OrderLine.price
I haven't found any advice out there yet that describes how this works for binding back nested ViewModels on post. Any links to existing code examples or strict examples on the exact names necessary to do nested binding with ILists?
Steve Sanderson has code that does this sort of thing here, but we cannot seem to get this to bind back to nested objects. Anything not having the [0]..[n] AND being consecutive in numbering simply drops off of the return object.
Any ideas?
We found a work around, by using the following:
Html.EditorFor(m => m, "ViewNameToUse", "FieldPrefix")
Where FieldPrefix is the "object[0]". This is hardly ideal, but it certainly works pretty well. It's simple and elegant.