Cse3302 Spring08 21

4/17/2008
SWI‐Prolog
CSE 3302
Programming Languages • http://www.swi‐prolog.org/
• Available for:
Logic Programming: Linux, Windows, MacOS
Prolog
Chengkai Li
Spring 2008
Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 1 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 2

©Chengkai Li, 2008 ©Chengkai Li, 2008
Prolog History of Prolog
• Prolog:
“Programming in Logic” (PROgrammation en LOgique)
• One (and maybe the only one) successful logic
programming languages
programming languages first Prolog interpreter by
Colmerauer and Roussel
• Useful in AI applications, expert systems, natural language
processing, database query languages
• Declarative instead of procedural: “What” instead of
“How”
1972 1977 1980 1980s/1990s 2005
Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 3 4
© Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos & Kristina Striegnitz
©Chengkai Li, 2008
History of Prolog History of Prolog
implementation of DEC10 Definite Clause Grammars

compiler by Warren implementation by Pereira and
Warren
1972 1977 1980 1980s/1990s 2005 1972 1977 1980 1980s/1990s 2005
© Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos & Kristina Striegnitz 5 © Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos & Kristina Striegnitz 6
1
4/17/2008
History of Prolog History of Prolog
Prolog used to program natural

language interface in
International Space Station by
NASA
Prolog grows in popularity especially in

Europe and Japan
1972 1977 1980 1980s/1990s 2005 1972 1977 1980 1980s/1990s 2005
© Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos & Kristina Striegnitz 7 © Patrick Blackburn, Johan Bos & Kristina Striegnitz 8
Logic Programming Example
• Program • Axioms:
Axioms (facts): true statements 0 is a natural number. (Facts)
For all x, if x is a natural number, then so is the successor of x.
• Input to Program
query (goal): statement true (theorems) or false? • Query (goal).
Is 2 natural number? (can be proved by facts)
• Thus Is ‐1 a natural number? (cannot be proved)
Logic programming systems = deductive databases
datalog

Another example First‐Order Predicate Calculus
• Axioms: • Logic used in logic programming:
The factorial of 0 is 1. (Facts) First‐order predicate calculus
If m is the factorial of n ‐ 1, then n * m is the factorial of n. First‐order predicate logic
Predicate logic
• Q
Query: First‐order logic
The factorial of 2 is 3?
∀x (x ≠ x+1)
• Second‐order logic
∀S ∀ x (x ∈S ∨ x∉S)

2
4/17/2008
First‐Order Predicate Calculus: First‐Order Predicate Calculus:
Example statements
Symbols in statements:
• natural(0)
• Constants (a.k.a. atoms)
∀ X, natural(X) → natural(successor(x))
numbers (e.g., 0) or names (e.g., bill).
• Predicates
• ∀ X and Y, parent(X,Y) → ancestor(X,Y).
Boolean functions (true/false) . Can have arguments. (e.g. parent(X,Y)).
∀ A, B, and C, ancestor(A,B) and ancestor(B,C) →
ancestor(A,C).
( ) • Functions
∀ X and Y, mother(X,Y) → parent(X,Y). non‐Boolean functions (successor(X) ).
∀ X and Y, father(X,Y) → parent(X,Y). • Variables
father(bill,jill). e.g., X.
mother(jill,sam).
• Connectives (operations)
father(bob,sam).
and, or, not
implication (→):a→b (b or not a)
• factorial(0,1).
∀ N and M, factorial(N-1,M) → factorial(N,N*M). equivalence (↔) : a↔b (a→b and b→a)

First‐Order Predicate Calculus:
Problem Solving
statements (cont’d) • Program = Data + Algorithms
• Quantifiers • Program = Object.Message(Object)
universal quantifier "for all“ ∀ • Program = Functions Functions
existential quantifier "there exists" ∃ • Algorithm = Logic + Control
bound variable (a variable introduced by a quantifier)
free variable Programmers: Logic programming systems:
• Punctuation symbols facts/axioms/statements prove goals from axioms
parentheses (for changing associativity and precedence.)
comma • The holy grail: we specify the logic itself, the system proves.
period – Not totally realized by logic programming languages. Programmers
must be aware of how the system proves, in order to write efficient, or
• Arguments to predicates and functions can only be terms: even correct programs.
– Contain constants, variables, and functions. • Prove goals from facts:
– Cannot have predicates, qualifiers, or connectives. – Resolution and Unification
Horn Clauses:
Horn Clause
• First‐order logic too complicated for an effective logic
Example
programming system. • First‐Order Logic:
• Horn Clause: a fragment of first‐order logic natural(0).
b ← a1 and a2 and a3 … and an. ∀ X, natural(X) → natural(successor(x)).
body no “or”
or and no quantifier
head
b ←. fact • Horn Clause:
←b. query natural(0).
natural(successor(x)) ← natural(X).
• Variables in head: universally quantified
Variables in body only: existentially quantified
• Need “or” in head? Multiple clauses
3
4/17/2008
Horn Clauses: Horn Clauses:
Example Example
• First‐Order Logic: • Horn Clause:
factorial(0,1). ancestor(X,Y) ← parent(X,Y).
∀ N and ∀ M, factorial(N-1,M) → factorial(N,N*M). ancestor(A,C) ← ancestor(A,B) and ancestor(B,C).
parent(X,Y) ← mother(X,Y).
parent(X,Y) ← father(X,Y).
( ,j )
father(bill,jill).
mother(jill,sam).
• Horn Clause: father(bob,sam).
factorial(0,1).
factorial(N,N*M) ← factorial(N-1,M).

Horn Clauses:
Prolog syntax
Example
• First‐Order Logic: • :‐ for ←
∀ X, mammal(X) → legs(X,2) or legs(X,4). , for and
ancestor(X,Y) :- parent(X,Y).
ancestor(X Y) :-
ancestor(X,Y) : ancestor(X,Z),
ancestor(X Z) ancestor(Z
ancestor(Z,Y).
Y)
• Horn Clause: parent(X,Y) :- mother(X,Y).
legs(X,4) ← mammal(X) and not legs(X,2).
parent(X,Y) :- father(X,Y).
legs(X,2) ← mammal(X) and not legs(X,4).
father(bill,jill).
mother(jill,sam).
father(bob,sam).

Resolution
• Resolution: Using a clause, replace its head in
the second clause by its body, if they “match”.
Resolution and Unification • a ← a1, …, an.

b ← b1, …, bi, …, bm.
if bi matches a;
b ← b1, …, a1, …, an, …, bm.

4
4/17/2008
Problem solving in logic
Resolution: Another view
programming systems
• Program:
• Resolution: Combine two clauses, and cancel
– Statements/Facts (clauses).
matching statements on both sides. • Goals:
– Headless clauses, with a list of subgoals.
• a ← a1, …, an.
• Problem solving by resolution:
b ← b1, …, bi, …, bm. – Matching subgoals with the heads in the facts, and replacing the
subgoals by the corresponding bodies.
a, b ← a1, …, an, b1, …, bi, …, bm. – Cancelling matching statements.
– Recursively do this, till we eliminate all goals. (Thus original goals
proved.)

Example Example
• Program: • Program:
mammal(human). legs(X,2) ← mammal(X), arms(X,2).
legs(X,4) ← mammal(X), arms(X,0).
• Goal: mammal(horse).
← mammal(human).
mammal(human) arms(horse 0)
arms(horse,0).
• Goal:
← legs(horse,4).
• Proving:
mammal(human) ← mammal(human). • Proving: ?
←.

Unification Unification: Example
• Unification: Pattern matching to make statements identical • Euclid’s algorithm for greatest common divisor
(when there are variables).
• Set variables equal to patterns: instantiated. • Program:
gcd(U,0,U).
• In previous example: gcd(U,V,W) ← not zero(V), gcd(V, U mod V, W).
legs(X,4) and legs(horse,4) are unified.
(X is instantiated with horse.)
• Goals:
← gcd(15,10,X).

5
4/17/2008
Things unspecified Example
• The order to resolve subgoals. • Program:
• The order to use clauses to resolve subgoals. ancestor(X,Y) :- ancestor(X,Z), parent(Z,Y).
ancestor(X,Y) :- parent(X,Y).
parent(X,Y) :- mother(X,Y).
• Possible to implement systems that don’t depend on the parent(X,Y) :- father(X,Y).
order, but too inefficient.
d b i ffi i father(bill,jill).
mother(jill,sam).
father(bob,sam).
• Thus programmers must know the orders used by the
• Goals:
language implementations. (Search Strategies)
← ancestor(bill,sam).
← ancestor(X,bob).


Cse3302 Spring08 21

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Cse3302 Spring08 21

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

4/17/2008

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 1 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 2

implementation of DEC10 Definite Clause Grammars

Prolog used to program natural

Prolog grows in popularity especially in

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 9 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 10

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 11 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 12

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 13 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 14

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 19 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 20

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 21 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 22

Resolution and Unification • a ← a1, …, an.

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 23 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 24

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 25 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 26

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 27 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 28

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 29 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 30

Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 31 Lecture 21 – Prolog, Spring 2008 CSE3302 Programming Languages, UT‐Arlington 32

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi