Logic Programming and Prolog

1
Logic ProgrammingLogic Programming
And PrologAnd Prolog
MacLennan - Chapter 13MacLennan - Chapter 13
ECE Department of Tehran UniversityECE Department of Tehran University
Programming Language Design CourseProgramming Language Design Course
Student LectureStudent Lecture
Sadegh Dorri Nogoorani (http://ce.sharif.edu/~dorri)Sadegh Dorri Nogoorani (http://ce.sharif.edu/~dorri)

2ECE Dep. of Tehran Univ. - Programming Language DesignECE Dep. of Tehran Univ. - Programming Language Design
55thth
-Generation Languages-Generation Languages
Declarative (nonprocedural)Declarative (nonprocedural)
 Functional Programming
 Logic Programming
ImperativeImperative
 Object Oriented Programming

Nonprocedural ProgrammingNonprocedural Programming
Sorting procedurally:Sorting procedurally:
1. Find the min in the remained numbers.
2. Swap it with the first number.
3. Repeat steps 1,2 until no number remains.
Sorting nonprocedurally:Sorting nonprocedurally:
1. B is a sorting of A ↔ B is a permutation of A and B is
ordered.
2. B is ordered ↔ for each i<j: B[i] ≤ B[j]
Which isWhich is higher levelhigher level??

Automated Theorem ProvingAutomated Theorem Proving
A.T.P:A.T.P: Developing programs that can construct formal proofsDeveloping programs that can construct formal proofs
of propositions stated in a symbolic language.of propositions stated in a symbolic language.
ConstructConstruct the desired result to prove its existence (mostthe desired result to prove its existence (most
A.T.P.’s).A.T.P.’s).
InIn Logic ProgrammingLogic Programming,, programs are expressed in the form ofprograms are expressed in the form of
propositions and the theorem prover constructs the result(s).propositions and the theorem prover constructs the result(s).
J. A. Robinson: A program is a theory (in some logic) andJ. A. Robinson: A program is a theory (in some logic) and
computation is deduction from the theory.computation is deduction from the theory.

Programming In Logic (Prolog)Programming In Logic (Prolog)
Developed inDeveloped in Groupe d’Intelligence ArtificielleGroupe d’Intelligence Artificielle (GIA)(GIA)
of the University of Marseilles (early 70s) to processof the University of Marseilles (early 70s) to process
a natural language (French).a natural language (French).
Interpreters: Algol-W (72), FORTRAN (73), PascalInterpreters: Algol-W (72), FORTRAN (73), Pascal
(76), Implemented on many platforms (Now)(76), Implemented on many platforms (Now)
Application in AI since mid-70sApplication in AI since mid-70s
Successor to LISP for AI appsSuccessor to LISP for AI apps
Not standardized (but has ISO standard now)Not standardized (but has ISO standard now)

6
Structural OrganizationStructural Organization
13.213.2

7
parentparent(X,Y) :-(X,Y) :- fatherfather(X,Y).(X,Y).
parentparent(X,Y) :-(X,Y) :- mothermother(X,Y).(X,Y).
grandparentgrandparent(X,Z) :-(X,Z) :- parentparent(X,Y),(X,Y), parentparent(Y,Z).(Y,Z).
ancestorancestor(X,Z) :-(X,Z) :- parentparent(X,Z).(X,Z).
ancestorancestor(X,Y) :-(X,Y) :- parentparent(X,Y),(X,Y), ancestorancestor(Y,Z).(Y,Z).
siblingsibling(X,Y) :-(X,Y) :- mothermother(M,X),(M,X), mothermother(M,Y),(M,Y),
fatherfather(F,X),(F,X), fatherfather(F,Y), X = Y.(F,Y), X = Y.
cousincousin(X,Y) :-(X,Y) :- parentparent(U,X),(U,X), parentparent(V,Y),(V,Y), siblingsibling(U,V).(U,V).
fatherfather(albert, jeffrey).(albert, jeffrey).
mothermother(alice, jeffrey).(alice, jeffrey).
fatherfather(albert, george).(albert, george).
mothermother(alice, george).(alice, george).
fatherfather(john, mary).(john, mary).
mothermother(sue, mary).(sue, mary).
fatherfather(george, cindy).(george, cindy).
mothermother(mary, cindy).(mary, cindy).
fatherfather(george, victor).(george, victor).
mothermother(mary, victor).(mary, victor).

8
?-?- [kinship].[kinship].
% kinship compiled 0.00 sec, 3,016 bytes% kinship compiled 0.00 sec, 3,016 bytes
YesYes
?-?- ancestor(X, cindy), sibling(X, jeffrey).ancestor(X, cindy), sibling(X, jeffrey).
X = georgeX = george ↵↵
YesYes
?-?- grandparent(albert, victor).grandparent(albert, victor).
YesYes
?-?- cousin(alice, john).cousin(alice, john).
NoNo
?-?- sibling(A,B).sibling(A,B).
A = jeffrey, B = georgeA = jeffrey, B = george ;; ↵↵
A = george, B = jeffreyA = george, B = jeffrey ;; ↵↵
A = cindy, B = victorA = cindy, B = victor ;; ↵↵
A = victor, B = cindyA = victor, B = cindy ;; ↵↵
NoNo
SWI Prolog

ClausesClauses
Programs are constructed from A number ofPrograms are constructed from A number of
clausesclauses: <head>: <head> :-:- <body><body>
Clauses have three forms:Clauses have three forms:
 hypotheses (facts)
 conditions (rules)
 goals
Both <headBoth <head>> and <body> are composed ofand <body> are composed of
relationshipsrelationships (also called(also called predicationspredications oror
literalsliterals))
assertions (database)
questions

RelationshipsRelationships
Represent properties of and relations among theRepresent properties of and relations among the
individualsindividuals
A relationship is application of aA relationship is application of a predicatepredicate to one orto one or
moremore termsterms
Terms:Terms:
 atoms (or constants): john, 25, …
 variables (begin with uppercase letters): X, …
 compounds
Horn clause formHorn clause form:: At most one relationship inAt most one relationship in
<head><head>

Compound TermsCompound Terms
It isIt is moremore convenient to describe individuals withoutconvenient to describe individuals without
giving them names (giving them names (expressionsexpressions oror compoundscompounds asas
terms).terms).
usingusing functorsfunctors (tags):(tags):
d(X, plus(U,V), plus(DU,DV)) :- d(X,U,DU), d(X,V,DV).
or usingor using infix functorsinfix functors::
d(X, U+V, DU+DV) :- d(X,U,DU), d(X,V,DV).
instead ofinstead of
d(X,W,Z) :- sum(U,V,W), d(X,U,DU), d(X,V,DV),
sum(DU,DV,Z).
with less readability and some other things…with less readability and some other things…

12
Data StructuresData Structures
13.313.3

Primitives and ConstructorsPrimitives and Constructors
FewFew primitives andprimitives and NoNo constructors.constructors.
Data types and data structures are definedData types and data structures are defined
implicitlyimplicitly by theirby their propertiesproperties..

Example (datatype)Example (datatype)
Natural number arithmeticNatural number arithmetic
sum(succ(X), Y, succ(Z)) :- sum(X,Y,Z).
sum(0,X,X).
dif(X,Y,Z) :- sum(Z,Y,X).
:-sum(succ(succ(0)),succ(succ(succ(0))),A).
A = succ(succ(succ(succ(succ(0)))))
Very inefficient! (Why such a decision?)Very inefficient! (Why such a decision?)
Use ofUse of ‘is’‘is’ operator (unidirectional)operator (unidirectional)

PrinciplesPrinciples
SimplicitySimplicity
 Small number of built-in data types and operations
RegularityRegularity
 Uniform treatment of all data types as predicates
and terms

Data StructuresData Structures
Compound termsCompound terms can represent data structurescan represent data structures
Example:Example: ListsLists in LISPin LISP
(car (cons X L)) = X
(cdr (cons X L)) = L
(cons (car L) (cdr L)) = L, for nonnull L

Lists in PrologLists in Prolog
Using compound terms:Using compound terms:
car( cons(X,L), X).
cdr( cons(X,L), L).
list(nil).
list(cons(X,L)) :- list(L).
null(nil).
What about null(L)?What about null(L)?
How to accomplish (car (consHow to accomplish (car (cons ‘‘(a b)(a b) ‘‘(c d)))?(c d)))?

Some Syntactic SugarSome Syntactic Sugar
UsingUsing ‘.’‘.’ infix functor (in some systems)infix functor (in some systems)
instead of cons:instead of cons:
 Clauses?
Most Prolog systems allow the abbreviation:Most Prolog systems allow the abbreviation:
 [X1, X2, …, Xn] = X1. X2. … .Xn.nil
 [ ] = nil
 ‘.’ is right associative!

Component SelectionComponent Selection
Implicitly done byImplicitly done by pattern matchingpattern matching ((unificationunification).).
append( [ ], L, L).
append( X.P, L, X.Q) :- append(P,L,Q).
Compare with LISP append:Compare with LISP append:
(defun append (M L)
(if (null M)
L
(cons (car M) (append (cdr M) L)) ))
Taking apartTaking apart in terms ofin terms of putting togetherputting together!!
 What X and P are cons’d to create M?
 What number do I add to 3 to get 5 (instead of 5-3)
Efficient!?Efficient!?

Complex StructuresComplex Structures
A tree using lists (in LISP):A tree using lists (in LISP):
 (times (plus x y) (plus y 1))
Using compound terms directly (as records):Using compound terms directly (as records):
 times(plus(x, y), plus(y, 1))
Using predicates directly:Using predicates directly:
 sum(x, y, t1).
 sum(y, 1, t2).
 prod(t1, t2, t3).
Which isWhich is betterbetter??

Why Not Predicates?Why Not Predicates?
Symbolic differentiation using predicateSymbolic differentiation using predicate
structured expressions:structured expressions:
d(X,W,Z) :- sum(U,V,W), d(X,Y,DU), d(X,V,DV),
sum(DU,DV,Z).
d(X,W,Z) :- prod(U,V,W), d(X,U,DU), d(X,V,DV),
prod(DU,V,A), prod(U,DV,B), sum(A,B,Z).
d(X,X,1).
d(X,C,0) :- atomic(C), C = X.

Why Not Predicates? (cont.)Why Not Predicates? (cont.)
Waste use of intermediate (temporary)Waste use of intermediate (temporary)
variablesvariables
Less readabilityLess readability
Unexpected answers!Unexpected answers!
sum(x,1,z).
:- d(x,z,D).
No
 Why? What did you expect?
 How to correct it?

Closed World ModelClosed World Model
AllAll that is true is what can bethat is true is what can be provedproved on the basis of the factson the basis of the facts
and rules in the database.and rules in the database.
Very reasonable inVery reasonable in object-orientedobject-oriented apps (modeling a real orapps (modeling a real or
imagined world)imagined world)
 All existing objects are defined.
 No object have a given property which cannot be found in db.
Not suitable forNot suitable for mathematical problemsmathematical problems (Why?)(Why?)
 An object is generally take to exist if its existance doesn’t contradict
the axioms.
PredicatesPredicates are better for OO-relationships,are better for OO-relationships, CompoundsCompounds forfor
mathematical ones (Why?)mathematical ones (Why?)
 We cannot assume existance of 1+0 whenever needed.

An Argument!An Argument!
What’s the answer?What’s the answer?
equal(X,X).
:- equal(f(Y),Y).
?
What’s theWhat’s the logicallogical meaning? (meaning? (occurs checkoccurs check))
AnyAny otherother meaning?meaning?
Can it be represented in aCan it be represented in a finite amountfinite amount ofof
memory?memory?
Should weShould we detectdetect it?it?

25
Control StructuresControl Structures
13.413.4

Algorithm = Logic + ControlAlgorithm = Logic + Control
N. Wirth:N. Wirth: Program = data structure + algorithmProgram = data structure + algorithm
R. Kowalski:R. Kowalski: Algorithm = logic + controlAlgorithm = logic + control
In conventional programming:In conventional programming:
 Logic of a program is closely related to its control
 A change in order of statements alters the meaning of program
In (pure) logic programming:In (pure) logic programming:
 Logic (logic phase) is determined by logical interrelationships of the
clauses not their order.
 Control (control phase) affects the order in which actions occur in time
and only affects the efficiency of programs.
Orthogonality PrincipleOrthogonality Principle

Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up ControlTop-Down vs. Bottom-Up Control
Top-down ≈Top-down ≈ RecursionRecursion::
 Try to reach the hypotheses
from the goal.
Bottom-up ≈Bottom-up ≈ IterationIteration::
 Try to reach the goal from the
hypotheses.
Hybrid:Hybrid:
 Work from both the goals and
the hypotheses and try to meet
in the middle.
Which one is better?Which one is better?
:- fib(3, F).:- fib(3, F).
N=3, M=2, K=1,N=3, M=2, K=1,
F=G+HF=G+H
:- fib(2,F).:- fib(2,F).
N=2, M=1, k=0,N=2, M=1, k=0,
F=G+HF=G+H
:- fib(1,F).:- fib(1,F).
F=1F=1
:- fib(1,F).:- fib(1,F).
F=1F=1
:- fib(1,1).:- fib(1,1).
:- fib(0,F).:- fib(0,F).
F=1F=1
:- fib(1,1).:- fib(1,1). :- fib(0,1).:- fib(0,1).
fib(0,1). fib(1,1).
fib(N,F) :- N=M+1, M=K+1, fib(M,G),
fib(K,H), F=G+H, N>1.

Procedural InterpretationProcedural Interpretation
We have seenWe have seen logicallogical andand recordrecord (data structure)(data structure) interpretationsinterpretations..
Clauses can also be viewed asClauses can also be viewed as procedure invocationsprocedure invocations::
 <head>: proc. definition
 <body>: proc. body (a series of proc. calls)
 Multiple definitions: branches of a conditional (case)
 fib() example…
Procedure calls can be executed in any order or evenProcedure calls can be executed in any order or even
concurrently! (pure logic)concurrently! (pure logic)
Input/Output params are not distinguished!Input/Output params are not distinguished!
 fib(3,3) ↔ true. fib(3,F) ↔ F=3. fib(N,3) ↔ N=3. fib(N,F) ↔ ?

Unify, Fail, Redo…Unify, Fail, Redo…
Heavy use ofHeavy use of unificationunification,, backtrackingbacktracking andand recursionrecursion..
Unification (Prolog pattern matching – fromUnification (Prolog pattern matching – from WikipediaWikipedia):):
 One-time assignment (binding)
 uninst. var with atom/term/another uninst. var (aliasing) (occurs check)
 atom with the same atom
 compound with compound if top predicates and arities of the terms are
identical and if the parameters can be unified simultaneously
 We can use ‘=‘ operator to explicitly unify two terms
Backtracking:Backtracking:
 Make another choice if a choice (unif./match) failes or want to find
other answers.
 In logic prog. It is the rule rather than the exception.
 Very expensive!
Example:Example: lenlen([ ], 0).([ ], 0). lenlen(X.T, L+1) :-(X.T, L+1) :- lenlen(T,L).(T,L).

Prolog’s Control RegimeProlog’s Control Regime
Prolog lang. isProlog lang. is defineddefined to useto use depth-firstdepth-first search:search:
 Top to bottom (try the clauses in order of entrance)
 Left to right
 In pure logic prog., some complete deductive algorithm such as
Robinson’s resolution algorithm must be implemented.
DFS other than BFSDFS other than BFS
 Needs much fewer memory
 Doesn’t work for an infinitely deep tree (responsibility of programmer)
Some programs may fail if clauses and subgoals are notSome programs may fail if clauses and subgoals are not
ordered correctly (pp.471-474)ordered correctly (pp.471-474)
Predictable execution ofPredictable execution of impureimpure predicates (write, nl, read,predicates (write, nl, read,
retract, asserta, assertz, …)retract, asserta, assertz, …)

31
[trace] ?- ancestor(X, cindy), sibling(X,jeffrey).[trace] ?- ancestor(X, cindy), sibling(X,jeffrey).
EventEvent DepthDepth SubgoalSubgoal
====================================================================
Call:Call: (1)(1) ancestor(X, cindy)ancestor(X, cindy)
Call:Call: (2)(2) parent(X, cindy)parent(X, cindy)
Call:Call: (3)(3) father(X, cindy)father(X, cindy)
Exit:Exit: (3)(3) father(george, cindy)father(george, cindy)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) parent(george, cindy)parent(george, cindy)
Exit:Exit: (1)(1) ancestor(george, cindy)ancestor(george, cindy)
Call:Call: (1)(1) sibling(george, jeffrey)sibling(george, jeffrey)
Call:Call: (2)(2) mother(M, george)mother(M, george)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) mother(alice, george)mother(alice, george)
Call:Call: (2)(2) mother(alice, jeffrey)mother(alice, jeffrey)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) mother(alice, jeffrey)mother(alice, jeffrey)
Call:Call: (2)(2) father(F, george)father(F, george)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) father(albert, george)father(albert, george)
Call:Call: (2)(2) father(albert, jeffrey)father(albert, jeffrey)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) father(albert, jeffrey)father(albert, jeffrey)
Call:Call: (2)(2) george=jeffreygeorge=jeffrey
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) george=jeffreygeorge=jeffrey
Exit:Exit: (1)(1) sibling(george, jeffrey)sibling(george, jeffrey)
X = georgeX = george
YesYes
SWI Prolog

32
If we moveIf we move parent(X,Y) :- father(X,Y)parent(X,Y) :- father(X,Y) beforebefore parent(X,Y) :- mother(X,Y)parent(X,Y) :- mother(X,Y),,
we have:we have:
EventEvent DepthDepth SubgoalSubgoal
====================================================================
Call:Call: (1)(1) ancestor(X, cindy)ancestor(X, cindy)
Call:Call: (2)(2) parent(X, cindy)parent(X, cindy)
Call:Call: (3)(3) mother(X, cindy)mother(X, cindy)
Exit:Exit: (3)(3) mother(mary, cindy)mother(mary, cindy)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) parent(mary, cindy)parent(mary, cindy)
Exit:Exit: (1)(1) ancestor(mary, cindy)ancestor(mary, cindy)
Call:Call: (1)(1) sibling(mary, jeffrey)sibling(mary, jeffrey)
Call:Call: (2)(2) mother(M, mary)mother(M, mary)
Exit:Exit: (2)(2) mother(sue, mary)mother(sue, mary)
Call:Call: (2)(2) mother(sue, jeffrey)mother(sue, jeffrey)
Fail:Fail: (2)(2) mother(sue, jeffrey)mother(sue, jeffrey)
Redo:Redo: (2)(2) mother(M, mary)mother(M, mary)
Fail:Fail: (2)(2) mother(M, mary)mother(M, mary)
Fail:Fail: (1)(1) sibling(mary, jeffrey)sibling(mary, jeffrey)
Redo:Redo: (3)(3) mother(X, cindy)mother(X, cindy)
Fail:Fail: (3)(3) mother(X, cindy)mother(X, cindy)
Redo:Redo: (2)(2) parent(X, cindy)parent(X, cindy)
……
SWI Prolog

Cut!Cut! 
‘‘!’!’: Discard choice points of parent frame and frames created: Discard choice points of parent frame and frames created
after the parent frame.after the parent frame.
Always is satisfied.Always is satisfied.
Used to guarantee termination or control execution order.Used to guarantee termination or control execution order.
i.e. in the goali.e. in the goal :- p(X,a), !:- p(X,a), !
 Only produce the 1st
answer to X
 Probably only one X satisfies p and trying to find another one leads to
an infinite search!
i.e. in the rulei.e. in the rule color(X,red) :- red(X), !.color(X,red) :- red(X), !.
 Don’t try other choices of red (mentioned above) and color if X
satisfies red
 Similar to then part of a if-then-elseif
Fisher, J.R., Prolog Tutorial,
http://www.csupomona.edu/~jrfisher/www/prolog_tutorial/contents.html

Red-Green Cuts (!)Red-Green Cuts (!)
AA ‘‘greengreen’’ cutcut
 Only improves efficiency
 e.g. to avoid additional unnecessary computation
AA ‘red’‘red’ cutcut
 e.g. block what would be other consequences of
the program
 e.g. control execution order (procedural prog.)

Three ExamplesThree Examples
p(a).p(a).
p(X) :- s(X), r(X).p(X) :- s(X), r(X).
p(X) :- u(X).p(X) :- u(X).
r(a). r(b).r(a). r(b).
s(a). s(b). s(c).s(a). s(b). s(c).
u(d).u(d).
:- p(X), !:- p(X), !
:- r(X), !, s(Y).:- r(X), !, s(Y).
:- r(X), s(Y), !:- r(X), s(Y), !
:- r(X), !, s(X).:- r(X), !, s(X).
part(a). part(b). part(c).part(a). part(b). part(c).
red(a). black(b).red(a). black(b).
color(P,red) :- red(P),!.color(P,red) :- red(P),!.
color(P,black) :- black(P),!.color(P,black) :- black(P),!.
color(P,unknown).color(P,unknown).
:- color(a, C).:- color(a, C).
:- color(c, C).:- color(c, C).
:- color(a, unknown).:- color(a, unknown).
max(X,Y,Y) :- Y>X, !.max(X,Y,Y) :- Y>X, !.
max(X,Y,X).max(X,Y,X).
:- max(1,2,D).:- max(1,2,D).
:- max(1,2,1).:- max(1,2,1).
See also MacLennan’s example p.476

Higher-Order RulesHigher-Order Rules
Logic programming is limited to first-order logic:Logic programming is limited to first-order logic:
can’t bind variables to predicates themselves.can’t bind variables to predicates themselves.
e.g.e.g. redred (f-reduction) is illegal: (p(x,y,z) ↔ z=f(x,y))(f-reduction) is illegal: (p(x,y,z) ↔ z=f(x,y))
red(P,I,[ ],I).
red(P,I,X.L,S) :- red(P,I,L,T), P(X,T,S).
But is legal if the latter be defined as:But is legal if the latter be defined as:
red(P,I,X.L,S):- red(P,I,L,T), Q=..[P,X,T,S],
call(Q).
 What’s the difference?

Higher-Order Rules (cont.)Higher-Order Rules (cont.)
In LISP, both code and data areIn LISP, both code and data are first-orderfirst-order objects,objects,
but in Prolog arenbut in Prolog aren’’t.t.
RobinsonRobinson resolution algorithmresolution algorithm is refutation completeis refutation complete
forfor first-orderfirst-order predicate logic.predicate logic.
GödelGödel’’ss incompleteness theoremincompleteness theorem: No algorithm is: No algorithm is
refutation complete forrefutation complete for higher-orderhigher-order predicate logic.predicate logic.
So, PrologSo, Prolog indirectlyindirectly supports higher-order rules.supports higher-order rules.

Negative FactsNegative Facts
How to defineHow to define nonsiblingnonsibling? Logically? Logically……
nonsibling(X,Y) :- X = Y.
nonsibling(X,Y) :- mother(M1,X), mother(M2,Y), M1 = M2.
nonsibling(X,Y) :- father(F1,X), father(F2,Y), F1 = F2.
But if parents of X or Y are not in database?But if parents of X or Y are not in database?
 What is the answer of nonsibling? Can be solved by…
nonsibling(X,Y) :- no_parent(X).
nonsibling(X,Y) :- no_parent(Y).
 How to define no_parent?

Negative Facts (cont.)Negative Facts (cont.)
Problem:Problem: There is noThere is no positivepositive fact expressingfact expressing
thethe absenceabsence of parent.of parent.
Cause:Cause:
 Horn clauses are limited to
 C :- P1,P2,…,Pn ≡ C holds if P1^P2^…^Pn hold.
 No conclusion if P1^P2^…^Pn don’t hold!
 If, not iff

Cut-failCut-fail
Solutions:Solutions:
StatingStating allall negative facts such as no_parentnegative facts such as no_parent
 Tedious
 Error-prone
 Negative facts about sth are usually much more than positive facts
about it
““Cut-fail”Cut-fail” combinationcombination
 nonsibling(X,Y) is satisfiable if sibling(X,Y) is not (i.e. sibling(X,Y) is
unsatisfiable)
 nonsibling(X,Y) :- sibling(X,Y), !, fail.
 nonsibling(X,Y).
 how to define ‘fail’ ?!

negation :- unsatisfiablilitynegation :- unsatisfiablility
‘‘not’not’ predicatepredicate
 not(P) is satisfiable if P is not (i.e. is
unsatisfiable).
 not(P) :- call(P), !, fail.
 not(P).
 nonsibling(X,Y) :- not( sibling(X,Y) ).
IsIs ‘not’‘not’ predicate the same aspredicate the same as ‘logical‘logical
negation’negation’? (see p.484)? (see p.484)

42
Evaluation and EpilogEvaluation and Epilog
13.513.5

TopicsTopics
Logic programs areLogic programs are self-documentingself-documenting
Pure logic programsPure logic programs separateseparate logic and controllogic and control
Prolog fallsProlog falls short ofshort of logic programminglogic programming
Implementation techniques areImplementation techniques are improvingimproving
Prolog isProlog is a stepa step towardtoward nonproceduralnonprocedural
programmingprogramming

Self-documentationSelf-documentation
Programming in a higher-level, …Programming in a higher-level, …
Application orientation and…Application orientation and…
TransparencyTransparency
 programs are described in terms of predicates and
individuals of the problem domain.
Promotes clear, rapid, accurate programmingPromotes clear, rapid, accurate programming

Separation of Logic and ControlSeparation of Logic and Control
Simplifies programmingSimplifies programming
Correctness only deals with logicCorrectness only deals with logic
Optimization in control cannot affectOptimization in control cannot affect
correctnesscorrectness
ObeysObeys Orthogonality PrincipleOrthogonality Principle

Prolog vs. Logic ProgrammingProlog vs. Logic Programming
Definite control strategyDefinite control strategy
 Programmers make explicit use of it and the result
have little to do with logic
 Reasoning about the order of events in Prolog is
comparable in difficaulty with most imperative of
conventional programming languages
CutCut doesn’t make any sense in logic!doesn’t make any sense in logic!
notnot doesn’t correspond to logical negationdoesn’t correspond to logical negation

Improving EfficiencyImproving Efficiency
Prolog is far from an efficient language.Prolog is far from an efficient language.
So, it’s applications are limited to apps inSo, it’s applications are limited to apps in
which:which:
 Performance is not important
 Difficult to implement in a conventional lang.
New methods are inventedNew methods are invented
Some compilers produce code comparable toSome compilers produce code comparable to
LISPLISP

Toward Nonprocedural ProgrammingToward Nonprocedural Programming
PurePure logic programs prove the possibility oflogic programs prove the possibility of
nonprocedural programming.nonprocedural programming.
InIn PrologProlog, DFS requires programmers to think in, DFS requires programmers to think in
terms ofterms of operationsoperations and their properand their proper orderingordering in timein time
(procedurally).(procedurally).
AndAnd Prolog’s control regime is moreProlog’s control regime is more unnaturalunnatural thanthan
conventional languages.conventional languages.
So,So, there is still much more important work to bethere is still much more important work to be
done before nonprocedural programming becomesdone before nonprocedural programming becomes
practicalpractical..

Covered Sections of MacLennanCovered Sections of MacLennan
13.113.1
13.213.2
13.313.3
13.413.4
 except topics starting on pp. 471, 475, 477, 484,
485, 486, 488
13.513.5

Presentation ReferencesPresentation References
Colmerauer, Alain, Philippe Roussel,Colmerauer, Alain, Philippe Roussel, The Birth of Prolog,The Birth of Prolog, Nov. 1992,Nov. 1992,
URL:URL: http://www.lim.univ-http://www.lim.univ-
mrs.fr/~colmer/ArchivesPublications/HistoireProlog/19november92.pdfmrs.fr/~colmer/ArchivesPublications/HistoireProlog/19november92.pdf
Fisher, J.R., Prolog TutorialFisher, J.R., Prolog Tutorial, 2004, URL:, 2004, URL:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~jrfisher/www/prolog_tutorial/contents.htmlhttp://www.csupomona.edu/~jrfisher/www/prolog_tutorial/contents.html
MacLennan, Bruce J., Principles of Programming Languages: Design,MacLennan, Bruce J., Principles of Programming Languages: Design,
Evaluation and Implementation,Evaluation and Implementation, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, 19993rd ed, Oxford University Press, 1999
Merritt, Dennis, “Prolog Under the Hood: An Honest Look”Merritt, Dennis, “Prolog Under the Hood: An Honest Look”,, PC AIPC AI
magazine, Sep/Oct 1992magazine, Sep/Oct 1992
““Unification”Unification”, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 25 Sep. 2005, URL:, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 25 Sep. 2005, URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unificationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification

51
Thank You!Thank You!
This lecture was a student lecture presented at theThis lecture was a student lecture presented at the
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department ofElectrical and Computer Engineering Department of
the University of Tehran, in Fall 2005.the University of Tehran, in Fall 2005.
Instructor: Dr. M. SirjaniInstructor: Dr. M. Sirjani

Logic Programming and Prolog

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Logic Programming and Prolog (20)

More from Sadegh Dorri N. (11)

Recently uploaded (20)

Logic Programming and Prolog