My intention was to implement a simple example (just for myself) of transitivity in Prolog.
These are my facts:
trust_direct(p1, p2).
trust_direct(p1, p3).
trust_direct(p2, p4).
trust_direct(p2, p5).
trust_direct(p5, p6).
trust_direct(p6, p7).
trust_direct(p7, p8).
trust_direct(p100, p200).
I've written this predicate to check whether A
trusts C
, which is true whenever there is a B
that trusts C
and A
trusts this B
:
trusts(A, B) :-
trust_direct(A, B).
trusts(A, C) :-
trusts(A, B),
trusts(B, C).
The predicate returns true
for trusts(p1, p2)
or trusts(p1, p5)
for example, but trusts(p5, p6)
already returns ERROR: Out of local stack
.
Is Prolog flooding the stack this quickly?
Or is my idea/implementation of trusts
bad / wasting system memory?
Yes, Prolog is flooding the local stack this quickly.
To see this, it suffices to only consider the following program fragment:
trusts(A, C) :- trusts(A, B), false,trusts(B, C).
This is called a failure-slice: I have inserted false/0
, so that everything after false/0
can be ignored. I indicate parts that can be ignored with strikeout text.
This means that the snippet is actually equivalent to:
trusts(A, C) :- trusts(A, B), false.
Now, with either of the above snippets, we immediately get:
?- trusts(p5, p6). ERROR: Out of local stack
To get rid of this problem, you have to change the remaining fragment. For this reason, such a fragment serves as an explanation of the problem.
For example, consider the following version:
trusts(A, B) :- trust_direct(A, B). trusts(A, C) :- trust_direct(A, B), trusts(B, C).
Sample query:
?- trusts(p5, p6). true ; false.
This now works as expected. It is declaratively equivalent to the version you posted, and has much better termination properties:
?- trusts(X, Y), false. false.
This shows that the program now terminates universally.
Alternative solutions are:
- use your Prolog system's tabling facilities
- use the definition of transitive closure
- etc.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42495922/prolog-check-transitivity-for-simple-facts