From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Functional requirement:

?- Y = g(_,_), X = f(Y,C,D,Y), term_singletons(X, L),
L == [C,D].

?- Y = g(A,X,B), X = f(Y,C,D), term_singletons(X, L),
L == [A,B,C,D].

Non-Functional requirement:

?- member(N,[5,10,15]), time(singletons(N)), fail; true.
% Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 4046000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1352000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1355333, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
true.

Can your Prolog system do that?

P.S.: Benchmark was:

singletons(N) :-
hydra2(N,Y),
between(1,1000,_), term_singletons(Y,_), fail; true.

hydra2(0, _) :- !.
hydra2(N, s(X,X)) :-
M is N-1,
hydra2(M, X).

Bye
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

While the rep() approach leads automatically
to total orders. As was already seen in MerciorCOs
Algorithm where rep(A) = ArCO. We can also arrange
that it leads to natural orders that are

conservative, using the DushnikrCo
Miller theorem:

DushnikrCoMiller theorem
Countable linear orders have non-identity order self-embeddings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dushnik%E2%80%93Miller_theorem

I guess the theorem can be proved
with a Hilbert Hotel argument?

Here are some examples, works for terms that
donrCOt use '$VAR'/1 with a negative index, using
in fact an identity self-embedding on acyclic terms:

?- X = f(f(f(X))), naish(X,A).
X = f(f(f(X))),
A = f(f(f(S_3))).

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), naish(X,A), naish(Y,B).
X = s(s(X, 1), 0),
Y = s(X, 1),
A = s(s(S_2, 1), 0),
B = s(s(S_2, 0), 1).

naish/2 is named after Lee Naish, we use a
variant with deBruijn indexes:

naish(X, Y) :-
naish([], X, Y).

naish(_, X, X) :- var(X), !.
naish(S, X, Z) :- compound(X),
nth1(N, S, Y), same_term(X, Y), !,
M is -N,
Z = '$VAR'(M).
naish(S, X, Y) :- compound(X), !,
X =.. [F|L],
maplist(naish([X|S]), L, R),
Y =.. [F|R].
naish(_, X, X).

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Functional requirement:

?- Y = g(_,_), X = f(Y,C,D,Y), term_singletons(X, L),
-a-a L == [C,D].

?- Y = g(A,X,B), X = f(Y,C,D), term_singletons(X, L),
-a-a L == [A,B,C,D].

Non-Functional requirement:

?- member(N,[5,10,15]), time(singletons(N)), fail; true.
% Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 4046000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1352000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1355333, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
true.

Can your Prolog system do that?

P.S.: Benchmark was:

singletons(N) :-
-a-a hydra2(N,Y),
-a-a between(1,1000,_), term_singletons(Y,_), fail; true.

hydra2(0, _) :- !.
hydra2(N, s(X,X)) :-
-a-a M is N-1,
-a-a hydra2(M, X).

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Now we can procceed an define:

structure_compare(C, X, Y) :-
naish(X, A),
naish(Y, B),
compare(C, A, B),

canonical_compare(C, X, Y) :-
moore(X, A),
moore(Y, B),
structure_compare(C, A, B).

The predicate structural_compare/3 does
not respect (==)/2 on cyclic terms. While
the predicate canonical_compare/3 does

respect (==)/2 on cyclic terms. Here some
example queries, showing the (==)/2 behaviour:

?- X = f(f(f(X))), Y = f(f(Y)), structure_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (>).

?- X = f(f(f(X))), Y = f(f(Y)), canonical_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (=).

And the Mats Carlson pair for demonstration:

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), stucture_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (>).

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), canonical_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (>).

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

While the rep() approach leads automatically
to total orders. As was already seen in MerciorCOs
Algorithm where rep(A) = ArCO. We can also arrange
that it leads to natural orders that are

conservative, using the DushnikrCo
Miller theorem:

DushnikrCoMiller theorem
Countable linear orders have non-identity order self-embeddings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dushnik%E2%80%93Miller_theorem

I guess the theorem can be proved
with a Hilbert Hotel argument?

Here are some examples, works for terms that
donrCOt use '$VAR'/1 with a negative index, using
in fact an identity self-embedding on acyclic terms:

?- X = f(f(f(X))), naish(X,A).
X = f(f(f(X))),
A = f(f(f(S_3))).

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), naish(X,A), naish(Y,B).
X = s(s(X, 1), 0),
Y = s(X, 1),
A = s(s(S_2, 1), 0),
B = s(s(S_2, 0), 1).

naish/2 is named after Lee Naish, we use a
variant with deBruijn indexes:

naish(X, Y) :-
-a-a naish([], X, Y).

naish(_, X, X) :- var(X), !.
naish(S, X, Z) :- compound(X),
-a-a nth1(N, S, Y), same_term(X, Y), !,
-a-a M is -N,
-a-a Z = '$VAR'(M).
naish(S, X, Y) :- compound(X), !,
-a-a X =.. [F|L],
-a-a maplist(naish([X|S]), L, R),
-a-a Y =.. [F|R].
naish(_, X, X).

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Functional requirement:

?- Y = g(_,_), X = f(Y,C,D,Y), term_singletons(X, L),
-a-a-a L == [C,D].

?- Y = g(A,X,B), X = f(Y,C,D), term_singletons(X, L),
-a-a-a L == [A,B,C,D].

Non-Functional requirement:

?- member(N,[5,10,15]), time(singletons(N)), fail; true.
% Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 4046000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1352000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1355333, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
true.

Can your Prolog system do that?

P.S.: Benchmark was:

singletons(N) :-
-a-a-a hydra2(N,Y),
-a-a-a between(1,1000,_), term_singletons(Y,_), fail; true.

hydra2(0, _) :- !.
hydra2(N, s(X,X)) :-
-a-a-a M is N-1,
-a-a-a hydra2(M, X).

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

How make it bleeding fast? Here is the
source code. moore/2 is named after Edward
Moore from DFA minimization.

Maybe @kuniaki.mukai has the matrix thing
from Seiiti Huzita, no matrices were harmed
here, is it correct?

moore(X, Y) :-
moore([], X, Y).

moore(_, X, X) :- var(X), !.
moore(S, X, Z) :- compound(X),
member(Y-Z, S), X == Y, !.
moore(S, X, Y) :- compound(X), !,
X =.. [F|L],
maplist(moore([X-Y|S]), L, R),
Y =.. [F|R].
moore(_, X, X).

Seiiti Huzita published this. Two years after Moore
in 1956. The paper concludes with:

ON SOME SEQUENTIAL MACHINES AND EXPERIMENTS
Seiiti HUZINO - 1958
"As any reversible machine is identified to one
strongly connected machine by the decomposition
theorem, when its initial state is given, the
proof of this proposition is the same as in
Moore's theorem 3 ([1])." https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kyushumfs/12/2/12_2_136/_pdf/-char/en

The reversibility thing is a funny ode to
certain physics, and also gives an funny spin
on constructor / deconstructor duality.

But I am afraid, I didn't study the paper,
so just some speculative bla bla on my side.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now we can procceed an define:

structure_compare(C, X, Y) :-
-a-a-a naish(X, A),
-a-a-a naish(Y, B),
-a-a-a compare(C, A, B),

canonical_compare(C, X, Y) :-
-a-a-a moore(X, A),
-a-a-a moore(Y, B),
-a-a-a structure_compare(C, A, B).

The predicate structural_compare/3 does
not respect (==)/2 on cyclic terms. While
the predicate canonical_compare/3 does

respect (==)/2 on cyclic terms. Here some
example queries, showing the (==)/2 behaviour:

?- X = f(f(f(X))), Y = f(f(Y)), structure_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (>).

?- X = f(f(f(X))), Y = f(f(Y)), canonical_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (=).

And the Mats Carlson pair for demonstration:

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), stucture_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (>).

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), canonical_compare(C, X, Y).
C = (>).

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

While the rep() approach leads automatically
to total orders. As was already seen in MerciorCOs
Algorithm where rep(A) = ArCO. We can also arrange
that it leads to natural orders that are

conservative, using the DushnikrCo
Miller theorem:

DushnikrCoMiller theorem
Countable linear orders have non-identity order self-embeddings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dushnik%E2%80%93Miller_theorem

I guess the theorem can be proved
with a Hilbert Hotel argument?

Here are some examples, works for terms that
donrCOt use '$VAR'/1 with a negative index, using
in fact an identity self-embedding on acyclic terms:

?- X = f(f(f(X))), naish(X,A).
X = f(f(f(X))),
A = f(f(f(S_3))).

?- X = s(Y,0), Y = s(X,1), naish(X,A), naish(Y,B).
X = s(s(X, 1), 0),
Y = s(X, 1),
A = s(s(S_2, 1), 0),
B = s(s(S_2, 0), 1).

naish/2 is named after Lee Naish, we use a
variant with deBruijn indexes:

naish(X, Y) :-
-a-a-a naish([], X, Y).

naish(_, X, X) :- var(X), !.
naish(S, X, Z) :- compound(X),
-a-a-a nth1(N, S, Y), same_term(X, Y), !,
-a-a-a M is -N,
-a-a-a Z = '$VAR'(M).
naish(S, X, Y) :- compound(X), !,
-a-a-a X =.. [F|L],
-a-a-a maplist(naish([X|S]), L, R),
-a-a-a Y =.. [F|R].
naish(_, X, X).

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Functional requirement:

?- Y = g(_,_), X = f(Y,C,D,Y), term_singletons(X, L),
-a-a-a L == [C,D].

?- Y = g(A,X,B), X = f(Y,C,D), term_singletons(X, L),
-a-a-a L == [A,B,C,D].

Non-Functional requirement:

?- member(N,[5,10,15]), time(singletons(N)), fail; true.
% Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 4046000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1352000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
% Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1355333, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36
true.

Can your Prolog system do that?

P.S.: Benchmark was:

singletons(N) :-
-a-a-a hydra2(N,Y),
-a-a-a between(1,1000,_), term_singletons(Y,_), fail; true.

hydra2(0, _) :- !.
hydra2(N, s(X,X)) :-
-a-a-a M is N-1,
-a-a-a hydra2(M, X).

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2