From 918513a870273ab70e6ea60ab25344b77a44fec3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aleksander Sadikov Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:07:01 +0200 Subject: English translation for memb/2 added. --- prolog/problems/lists/memb_2/en.py | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'prolog/problems/lists/memb_2') diff --git a/prolog/problems/lists/memb_2/en.py b/prolog/problems/lists/memb_2/en.py index ae62825..681c18a 100644 --- a/prolog/problems/lists/memb_2/en.py +++ b/prolog/problems/lists/memb_2/en.py @@ -12,4 +12,70 @@ description = '''\ X = 1. ''' -hint = {} +plan = ['''\ +

Where can we find the searched for element X? Remember that the list has two parts: the head and +the tail. Therefore, there are two possibilies! ;)

+''', '''\ +

+

In prolog we can understand a list like a queue of people waiting for a bus. The driver only sees +the first person in the queue, the others are hidden in the list's tail. So the element X +can either be at the start of the queue or...

+''', '''\ +

It's easy to look at ("search for") the head of the list. But how do we search the tail? Simply, +we remove the first element and repeat the search with the smaller list (tail). If [H|T] +is our whole list, then T is this same list without the first element. +Since the new list (tail) is smaller, we reduced the problem and thus facilitated the use of recursion.

+'''] + +hint = { + 'eq_instead_of_equ': '''\ +

The operator == is "stricter" than operator = in the sense that +for the latter it is enough to be able to make the two operands equal (unification). Perhaps by using = +you can make the predicate memb/2 more general (e.g. able to work with output arguments becoming inputs).

+

Of course, you can also solve the exercise without explicit use of either of these two operators, just +remember that unification is implicitly performed with the predicate's arguments (head of clause).

+''', + + 'eq_instead_of_equ_markup': '''\ +

Perhaps the operator for unification (=) would be better?

+''', + + 'base_case': '''\ +

+

Did you think of a base case? What is the simplest possible case if the element is present in the list? +Which element in the list is the easiest to access?

+''', + + 'recursive_case': '''\ +

The base case is ok. However, what about the general recursive case?

+''', + + 'predicate_always_false': '''\ +

It seems your predicate is always "false". Did you give it the correct name, +or is it perhaps misspelled?

+

If the name is correct, check whether something else is misspelled, perhaps there is a full stop instead of +a comma or vice versa, or maybe you typed a variable name in lowercase?

+

It is, of course, also possible that your conditions are too restrictive, or even impossible to satisfy +(as would be, for example, the condition that an empty list [] is equal to a list with +exactly three elements [A,B,C], +or something similarly impossible).

+''', + + 'timeout': '''\ +

Is there an infinite recursion at work here? How will it ever stop?

+

Or perhaps is there a missing, faulty, or simply incompatible (with the general recursive case) base case?

+''', + + 'final_hint': '''\ +

Predicate memb/2 is useful for much more than just checking whether a list contains +a given element or not. Actually, most of the time, it's used in "a different direction" as +"return some element X from list L". In fact you've just written yourself +a generator of elements from the list.

+

Try the following query:

+

?- memb(Coin, [1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200]).

+

or this one:

+

?- memb(Operator, [+, -, *, /]).

+

Can you form a query to ask prolog how do we get a sum of 30 cents with exactly three coins? +The operator =:= is used to check for arithmetic equality. How many solutions are there? ;)

+''', +} -- cgit v1.2.1