Related
I just started learning lua and run into a strange problem. The following code...
local xx = 100
vertices0 = {xx, xx}
vertices1 = {xx−5, xx-5}
results in...
an array containing (100,100) for vertices0 (as expected) but
in an array containing (nil, 95)for vertices1.
I really dont understand what is causing the nil to appear. I expected to get an array with (95,95).
I checked the documentation and tried to google the problem. But was not able to solve this problem.
Btw - I'm using love2d but "regular" lua seeems to cause the same behaviour.
xx−5 is not using - but −, lua treats − as part of a identifier so xx−5 is a separate identifier rather than the desired subtraction operation xx - 5
local xx = 100
local xx−5 = 100
vertices0 = {xx, xx}
vertices1 = {xx−5, xx-5}
print(vertices1[1])
This appears to work in 5.1, but not later version of lua. additionally an issue like this can be seen easier if you place a space around an operator and it's operands, which does tend to be a good style choice for readability.
vertices1 = {xx − 5, xx - 5}
Also if you have syntax highlighting than you can notice the improper char does not get highlighted properly.
I have tried to implement Floor and Ceiling Function as defined in the following link
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3619044/floor-or-ceiling-function-encoding-in-first-order-logic/3619320#3619320
But Z3 query returning counterexample.
Floor Function
_X=Real('_X')
_Y=Int('_Y')
_W=Int('_W')
_n=Int('_n')
_Floor=Function('_Floor',RealSort(),IntSort())
..
_s.add(_X>=0)
_s.add(_Y>=0)
_s.add(Implies(_Floor(_X)==_Y,And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W ==_Y,_W<_Y))))))
_s.add(Implies(And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W==_Y,_W<_Y))),_Floor(_X)==_Y))
_s.add(Not(_Floor(0.5)==0))
Expected Result - Unsat
Actual Result - Sat
Ceiling Function
_X=Real('_X')
_Y=Int('_Y')
_W=Int('_W')
_Ceiling=Function('_Ceiling',RealSort(),IntSort())
..
..
_s.add(_X>=0)
_s.add(_Y>=0)
_s.add(Implies(_Ceiling(_X)==_Y,And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W ==_Y,_Y<_W))))))
_s.add(Implies(And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W==_Y,_Y<_W)))),_Ceiling(_X)==_Y))
_s.add(Not(_Ceilng(0.5)==1))
Expected Result - Unsat
Actual Result - Sat
[Your encoding doesn't load to z3, it gives a syntax error even after eliminating the '..', as your call to Implies needs an extra argument. But I'll ignore all that.]
The short answer is, you can't really do this sort of thing in an SMT-Solver. If you could, then you can solve arbitrary Diophantine equations. Simply cast it in terms of Reals, solve it (there is a decision procedure for Reals), and then add the extra constraint that the result is an integer by saying Floor(solution) = solution. So, by this argument, you can see that modeling such functions will be beyond the capabilities of an SMT solver.
See this answer for details: Get fractional part of real in QF_UFNRA
Having said that, this does not mean you cannot code this up in Z3. It just means that it will be more or less useless. Here's how I would go about it:
from z3 import *
s = Solver()
Floor = Function('Floor',RealSort(),IntSort())
r = Real('R')
f = Int('f')
s.add(ForAll([r, f], Implies(And(f <= r, r < f+1), Floor(r) == f)))
Now, if I do this:
s.add(Not(Floor(0.5) == 0))
print(s.check())
you'll get unsat, which is correct. If you do this instead:
s.add(Not(Floor(0.5) == 1))
print(s.check())
you'll see that z3 simply loops forever. To make this usefull, you'd want the following to work as well:
test = Real('test')
s.add(test == 2.4)
result = Int('result')
s.add(Floor(test) == result)
print(s.check())
but again, you'll see that z3 simply loops forever.
So, bottom line: Yes, you can model such constructs, and z3 will correctly answer the simplest of queries. But with anything interesting, it'll simply loop forever. (Essentially whenever you'd expect sat and most of the unsat scenarios unless they can be constant-folded away, I'd expect z3 to simply loop.) And there's a very good reason for that, as I mentioned: Such theories are just not decidable and fall well out of the range of what an SMT solver can do.
If you are interested in modeling such functions, your best bet is to use a more traditional theorem prover, like Isabelle, Coq, ACL2, HOL, HOL-Light, amongst others. They are much more suited for working on these sorts of problems. And also, give a read to Get fractional part of real in QF_UFNRA as it goes into some of the other details of how you can go about modeling such functions using non-linear real arithmetic.
I am writing a parser for a query engine. My parser DCG query is not deterministic.
I will be using the parser in a relational manner, to both check and synthesize queries.
Is it appropriate for a parser DCG to not be deterministic?
In code:
If I want to be able to use query/2 both ways, does it require that
?- phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]).
true;
false.
or should I be able to obtain
?- phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]).
true.
nevertheless, given that the first snippet would require me to use it as such
?- bagof(X, phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]), [true]).
true.
when using it to check a formula?
The first question to ask yourself, is your grammar deterministic, or in the terminology of grammars, unambiguous. This is not asking if your DCG is deterministic, but if the grammar is unambiguous. That can be answered with basic parsing concepts, no use of DCG is needed to answer that question. In other words, is there only one way to parse a valid input. The standard book for this is "Compilers : principles, techniques, & tools" (WorldCat)
Now you are actually asking about three different uses for parsing.
A recognizer.
A parser.
A generator.
If your grammar is unambiguous then
For a recognizer the answer should only be true for valid input that can be parsed and false for invalid input.
For the parser it should be deterministic as there is only one way to parse the input. The difference between a parser and an recognizer is that a recognizer only returns true or false and a parser will return something more, typically an abstract syntax tree.
For the generator, it should be semi-deterministic so that it can generate multiple results.
Can all of this be done with one, DCG, yes. The three different ways are dependent upon how you use the input and output of the DCG.
Here is an example with a very simple grammar.
The grammar is just an infix binary expression with one operator and two possible operands. The operator is (+) and the operands are either (1) or (2).
expr(expr(Operand_1,Operator,Operand_2)) -->
operand(Operand_1),
operator(Operator),
operand(Operand_2).
operand(operand(1)) --> "1".
operand(operand(2)) --> "2".
operator(operator(+)) --> "+".
recognizer(Input) :-
string_codes(Input,Codes),
DCG = expr(_),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]).
parser(Input,Ast) :-
string_codes(Input,Codes),
DCG = expr(Ast),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]).
generator(Generated) :-
DCG = expr(_),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]),
string_codes(Generated,Codes).
:- begin_tests(expr).
recognizer_test_case_success("1+1").
recognizer_test_case_success("1+2").
recognizer_test_case_success("2+1").
recognizer_test_case_success("2+2").
test(recognizer,[ forall(recognizer_test_case_success(Input)) ] ) :-
recognizer(Input).
recognizer_test_case_fail("2+3").
test(recognizer,[ forall(recognizer_test_case_fail(Input)), fail ] ) :-
recognizer(Input).
parser_test_case_success("1+1",expr(operand(1),operator(+),operand(1))).
parser_test_case_success("1+2",expr(operand(1),operator(+),operand(2))).
parser_test_case_success("2+1",expr(operand(2),operator(+),operand(1))).
parser_test_case_success("2+2",expr(operand(2),operator(+),operand(2))).
test(parser,[ forall(parser_test_case_success(Input,Expected_ast)) ] ) :-
parser(Input,Ast),
assertion( Ast == Expected_ast).
parser_test_case_fail("2+3").
test(parser,[ forall(parser_test_case_fail(Input)), fail ] ) :-
parser(Input,_).
test(generator,all(Generated == ["1+1","1+2","2+1","2+2"]) ) :-
generator(Generated).
:- end_tests(expr).
The grammar is unambiguous and has only 4 valid strings which are all unique.
The recognizer is deterministic and only returns true or false.
The parser is deterministic and returns a unique AST.
The generator is semi-deterministic and returns all 4 valid unique strings.
Example run of the test cases.
?- run_tests.
% PL-Unit: expr ........... done
% All 11 tests passed
true.
To expand a little on the comment by Daniel
As Daniel notes
1 + 2 + 3
can be parsed as
(1 + 2) + 3
or
1 + (2 + 3)
So 1+2+3 is an example as you said is specified by a recursive DCG and as I noted a common way out of the problem is to use parenthesizes to start a new context. What is meant by starting a new context is that it is like getting a new clean slate to start over again. If you are creating an AST, you just put the new context, items in between the parenthesizes, as a new subtree at the current node.
With regards to write_canonical/1, this is also helpful but be aware of left and right associativity of operators. See Associative property
e.g.
+ is left associative
?- write_canonical(1+2+3).
+(+(1,2),3)
true.
^ is right associative
?- write_canonical(2^3^4).
^(2,^(3,4))
true.
i.e.
2^3^4 = 2^(3^4) = 2^81 = 2417851639229258349412352
2^3^4 != (2^3)^4 = 8^4 = 4096
The point of this added info is to warn you that grammar design is full of hidden pitfalls and if you have not had a rigorous class in it and done some of it you could easily create a grammar that looks great and works great and then years latter is found to have a serious problem. While Python was not ambiguous AFAIK, it did have grammar issues, it had enough issues that when Python 3 was created, many of the issues were fixed. So Python 3 is not backward compatible with Python 2 (differences). Yes they have made changes and libraries to make it easier to use Python 2 code with Python 3, but the point is that the grammar could have used a bit more analysis when designed.
The only reason why code should be non-deterministic is that your question has multiple answers. In that case, you'd of course want your query to have multiple solutions. Even then, however, you'd like it to not leave a choice point after the last solution, if at all possible.
Here is what I mean:
"What is the smaller of two numbers?"
min_a(A, B, B) :- B < A.
min_a(A, B, A) :- A =< B.
So now you ask, "what is the smaller of 1 and 2" and the answer you expect is "1":
?- min_a(1, 2, Min).
Min = 1.
?- min_a(2, 1, Min).
Min = 1 ; % crap...
false.
?- min_a(2, 1, 2).
false.
?- min_a(2, 1, 1).
true ; % crap...
false.
So that's not bad code but I think it's still crap. This is why, for the smaller of two numbers, you'd use something like the min() function in SWI-Prolog.
Similarly, say you want to ask, "What are the even numbers between 1 and 10"; you write the query:
?- between(1, 10, X), X rem 2 =:= 0.
X = 2 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 8 ;
X = 10.
... and that's fine, but if you then ask for the numbers that are multiple of 3, you get:
?- between(1, 10, X), X rem 3 =:= 0.
X = 3 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 9 ;
false. % crap...
The "low-hanging fruit" are the cases where you as a programmer would see that there cannot be non-determinism, but for some reason your Prolog is not able to deduce that from the code you wrote. In most cases, you can do something about it.
On to your actual question. If you can, write your code so that there is non-determinism only if there are multiple answers to the question you'll be asking. When you use a DCG for both parsing and generating, this sometimes means you end up with two code paths. It feels clumsy but it is easier to write, to read, to understand, and probably to make efficient. As a word of caution, take a look at this question. I can't know that for sure, but the problems that OP is running into are almost certainly caused by unnecessary non-determinism. What probably happens with larger inputs is that a lot of choice points are left behind, there is a lot of memory that cannot be reclaimed, a lot of processing time going into book keeping, huge solution trees being traversed only to get (as expected) no solutions.... you get the point.
For examples of what I mean, you can take a look at the implementation of library(dcg/basics) in SWI-Prolog. Pay attention to several things:
The documentation is very explicit about what is deterministic, what isn't, and how non-determinism is supposed to be useful to the client code;
The use of cuts, where necessary, to get rid of choice points that are useless;
The implementation of number//1 (towards the bottom) that can "generate extract a number".
(Hint: use the primitives in this library when you write your own parser!)
I hope you find this unnecessarily long answer useful.
I'm trying to debug "dypgen", a parser-generator and so a program that is writing another program, because I noticed some bug, that is essential for my project. I have asked the developer, but he doesn't answer and I asked also over the mailing list. Nothing happend, so I try.
My project is the following, I have presented the essential part in an unanswered question on stackoverflow:
ambiguity handling of dypgen
I found there some difference, where should be no difference in parsing two different, but very similar expressions. I have a parser, that parses
K1|K2 u K3|K4
as:
kon1 { K1 u K4 }
kon1 { K2 u K4 }
and
K1|K2 y K3|K4
as
kon2 { K1 y K3 }
kon2 { K2 y K3 }
kon2 { K1 y K4 }
kon2 { K2 y K4 }
the non-terminals "kon1" and "kon2" are implemented very similar and there should be no difference. all should be a permutation as the second case.
I run the ocamldebugger with a script through the two cases and wrote the output into two files (2-4 MB). Here is screenshot of meld (an editor, that can find differences between files and show them graphically), that shows a little part of the comparison. On the border you can see two major parts in green, where differences show up.
One thing with this comparison is, that I would like to get rid of all these steps through List, Set, Hashtable modules and see just the important parts, that go out from my files. I would like to have a function in ocamldebug as "step over" not step into.
But there is another problem, precisely, that this automaton, that dypgen creates, consists of lists of objects and functions. List.fold is used to work on these lists. How I can find out, where I am in the parser-automaton with these List.fold-calls?
thx for any help!
I'm trying to teach myself Prolog. Below, I've written some code that I think should return all paths between nodes in an undirected graph... but it doesn't. I'm trying to understand why this particular code doesn't work (which I think differentiates this question from similar Prolog pathfinding posts). I'm running this in SWI-Prolog. Any clues?
% Define a directed graph (nodes may or may not be "room"s; edges are encoded by "leads_to" predicates).
room(kitchen).
room(living_room).
room(den).
room(stairs).
room(hall).
room(bathroom).
room(bedroom1).
room(bedroom2).
room(bedroom3).
room(studio).
leads_to(kitchen, living_room).
leads_to(living_room, stairs).
leads_to(living_room, den).
leads_to(stairs, hall).
leads_to(hall, bedroom1).
leads_to(hall, bedroom2).
leads_to(hall, bedroom3).
leads_to(hall, studio).
leads_to(living_room, outside). % Note "outside" is the only node that is not a "room"
leads_to(kitchen, outside).
% Define the indirection of the graph. This is what we'll work with.
neighbor(A,B) :- leads_to(A, B).
neighbor(A,B) :- leads_to(B, A).
Iff A --> B --> C --> D is a loop-free path, then
path(A, D, [B, C])
should be true. I.e., the third argument contains the intermediate nodes.
% Base Rule (R0)
path(X,Y,[]) :- neighbor(X,Y).
% Inductive Rule (R1)
path(X,Y,[Z|P]) :- not(X == Y), neighbor(X,Z), not(member(Z, P)), path(Z,Y,P).
Yet,
?- path(bedroom1, stairs, P).
is false. Why? Shouldn't we get a match to R1 with
X = bedroom1
Y = stairs
Z = hall
P = []
since,
?- neighbor(bedroom1, hall).
true.
?- not(member(hall, [])).
true.
?- path(hall, stairs, []).
true .
?
In fact, if I evaluate
?- path(A, B, P).
I get only the length-1 solutions.
Welcome to Prolog! The problem, essentially, is that when you get to not(member(Z, P)) in R1, P is still a pure variable, because the evaluation hasn't gotten to path(Z, Y, P) to define it yet. One of the surprising yet inspiring things about Prolog is that member(Ground, Var) will generate lists that contain Ground and unify them with Var:
?- member(a, X).
X = [a|_G890] ;
X = [_G889, a|_G893] ;
X = [_G889, _G892, a|_G896] .
This has the confusing side-effect that checking for a value in an uninstantiated list will always succeed, which is why not(member(Z, P)) will always fail, causing R1 to always fail. The fact that you get all the R0 solutions and none of the R1 solutions is a clue that something in R1 is causing it to always fail. After all, we know R0 works.
If you swap these two goals, you'll get the first result you want:
path(X,Y,[Z|P]) :- not(X == Y), neighbor(X,Z), path(Z,Y,P), not(member(Z, P)).
?- path(bedroom1, stairs, P).
P = [hall]
If you ask for another solution, you'll get a stack overflow. This is because after the change we're happily generating solutions with cycles as quickly as possible with path(Z,Y,P), only to discard them post-facto with not(member(Z, P)). (Incidentally, for a slight efficiency gain we can switch to memberchk/2 instead of member/2. Of course doing the wrong thing faster isn't much help. :)
I'd be inclined to convert this to a breadth-first search, which in Prolog would imply adding an "open set" argument to contain solutions you haven't tried yet, and at each node first trying something in the open set and then adding that node's possibilities to the end of the open set. When the open set is extinguished, you've tried every node you could get to. For some path finding problems it's a better solution than depth first search anyway. Another thing you could try is separating the path into a visited and future component, and only checking the visited component. As long as you aren't generating a cycle in the current step, you can be assured you aren't generating one at all, there's no need to worry about future steps.
The way you worded the question leads me to believe you don't want a complete solution, just a hint, so I think this is all you need. Let me know if that's not right.