Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #13192 > unrolled thread

Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-08-31 07:23 -0700
    Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-09 10:42 -0700
      Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-09 11:30 -0700
        Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 05:07 -0700
          Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 11:28 -0700
            Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 11:30 -0700
              Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 11:58 -0700
                Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 12:13 -0700
                  Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-09-20 17:49 -0700
                  Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> - 2023-08-31 21:26 +0200
                    Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 11:47 -0700
                      Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 14:38 -0700
                        Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 04:31 -0700
                          Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Markus Triska <triska@logic.at> - 2023-09-04 19:48 +0200
                            Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 12:46 -0700
                              Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 12:51 -0700
                      Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-01-05 14:07 -0800
                        Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2024-01-06 01:53 -0800

#13192 — Re: Autum Challenge, 42 is the Answer

Any progress during Corona?

Can this be solved via ZZD and the axiom of extensionality?
Or maybe the new CLP(Z) from Scryer Prolog can do it?

Or are we in the mist of Hilbert’s 10-th problem. Maybe Poincaré
would have objected we simply need new problem specific rules?

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 16. September 2019 um 21:49:35 UTC+2:
> Find x, y, z such that: 
> 
> x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 42

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13217

Does SWI-Prolog have modpow/4, a function popular in cryptography?
Isn’t this already in GMP, so that a verify fast implementation
would be available?

modpow(B, E, M, R):
    The predicate succeeds in R with B^E mod M.

I guess we have also:

   (modpow(X,3,M)+modpow(Y,3,M)+42 mod M) mod M =:= modpow(Z,3,M)

But not sure whether this will lead to anywhere. From Fermats
Last Theorem we know, whenever 42 mod M is zero, we
don’t have a non-trivial tripple (X,Y,Z) anyway.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 31. August 2022 um 16:23:54 UTC+2:
> Any progress during Corona? 
> 
> Can this be solved via ZZD and the axiom of extensionality? 
> Or maybe the new CLP(Z) from Scryer Prolog can do it? 
> 
> Or are we in the mist of Hilbert’s 10-th problem. Maybe Poincaré 
> would have objected we simply need new problem specific rules?
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 16. September 2019 um 21:49:35 UTC+2: 
> > Find x, y, z such that: 
> > 
> > x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 42

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13218

No was talking nonsense, FLT doesn’t exclude non-trivial solutions. For
example we have this solution modulo 6, where it is 42 module 6 = 0:

1^3 + 1^3 + 42 = 2^3 (mod 6)

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 9. September 2022 um 19:42:52 UTC+2:
> Does SWI-Prolog have modpow/4, a function popular in cryptography? 
> Isn’t this already in GMP, so that a verify fast implementation 
> would be available? 
> 
> modpow(B, E, M, R): 
> The predicate succeeds in R with B^E mod M. 
> 
> I guess we have also: 
> 
> (modpow(X,3,M)+modpow(Y,3,M)+42 mod M) mod M =:= modpow(Z,3,M) 
> 
> But not sure whether this will lead to anywhere. From Fermats 
> Last Theorem we know, whenever 42 mod M is zero, we 
> don’t have a non-trivial tripple (X,Y,Z) anyway.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 31. August 2022 um 16:23:54 UTC+2: 
> > Any progress during Corona? 
> > 
> > Can this be solved via ZZD and the axiom of extensionality? 
> > Or maybe the new CLP(Z) from Scryer Prolog can do it? 
> > 
> > Or are we in the mist of Hilbert’s 10-th problem. Maybe Poincaré 
> > would have objected we simply need new problem specific rules? 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Montag, 16. September 2019 um 21:49:35 UTC+2: 
> > > Find x, y, z such that: 
> > > 
> > > x^3 + y^3 + z^3 = 42

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13232

Furtther question, does SWI-Prolog have modinv/3, also a function popular
in cryptography? It can be used for a Chinese Remainder algorithm.

But currently banging my head on a slow (^)/2 for smallints. In modular
algorithms the arguments for (^)/2 are small. So I now get:

/* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */
?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)).
% 15,388,917 inferences, 3.969 CPU in 3.963 seconds (100% CPU, 3877522 Lips)
true.

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */
?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)).
% Threads 2,078 ms, GC 10 ms, Up 2,122 ms (Current 09/20/22 11:03:10)
true.

But I only solved this k=9 equation, not yet the k=42 problem:

/* x^3 + y^3 + 9 = z^3 */
?- modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z).
X = 216,
Y = 52,
Z = 217 ;
X = 52,
Y = 216,
Z = 217 ;
false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13233

Using modular operations again, you can make it a tick faster by using
only two modules instead of three modules. But it still depends
heavily on the performance of ar_pow():

/* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */
?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)).
% 3,816,486 inferences, 1.766 CPU in 1.762 seconds (100% CPU, 2161550 Lips)
true.

/* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */
?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z).
X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217;
X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
fail.

?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)).
% Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30)
true.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 14:07:47 UTC+2:
> Furtther question, does SWI-Prolog have modinv/3, also a function popular 
> in cryptography? It can be used for a Chinese Remainder algorithm. 
> 
> But currently banging my head on a slow (^)/2 for smallints. In modular 
> algorithms the arguments for (^)/2 are small. So I now get: 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> % 15,388,917 inferences, 3.969 CPU in 3.963 seconds (100% CPU, 3877522 Lips) 
> true. 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> % Threads 2,078 ms, GC 10 ms, Up 2,122 ms (Current 09/20/22 11:03:10) 
> true. 
> 
> But I only solved this k=9 equation, not yet the k=42 problem: 
> 
> /* x^3 + y^3 + 9 = z^3 */ 
> ?- modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z). 
> X = 216, 
> Y = 52, 
> Z = 217 ; 
> X = 52, 
> Y = 216, 
> Z = 217 ; 
> false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13234

Thats the source code, it is ultimately intended to beat CLP(Z)
from Scryer Prolog some time in the future into dust, it also uses
ar_pow(), maybe better would be ar_modpow(), but for the small

values ar_modpow() wouldn't give some bang:

modular([P|L], X, Y, Z) :-
   find(P, A, B, C),
   many(L, A-P, B-P, C-P, X-_, Y-_, Z-_),
   X^3+Y^3+9-Z^3 =:= 0.

many([], A, B, C, A, B, C).
many([P|L], U, V, W, A, B, C) :-
   find(P, X, Y, Z),
   cra_combine(X-P, U, S),
   cra_combine(Y-P, V, T),
   cra_combine(Z-P, W, R),
   many(L, S, T, R, A, B, C).

find(M, X, Y, Z) :-
   N is M-1,
   between(0, N, X), A is X^3,
   between(0, N, Y), B is Y^3,
   between(0, N, Z),
   (A+B+9-Z^3) mod M =:= 0.

/**
 * Chinese Remainder Algorithm
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_remainder_theorem#Existence_%28constructive_proof%29
 */
% cra_combine(+Pair, +Pair, -Pair)
cra_combine(A-N, B-M, C-P) :-
   cra_egcd(N, M, X, Y),
   P is N*M,
   C is (A*M*Y+B*N*X) mod P.

% cra_egcd(+Integer, +Integer, -Integer, -Integer)
cra_egcd(_, 0, 1, 0) :- !.
cra_egcd(A, B, X, Y) :-
    divmod(A, B, Q, R),
    cra_egcd(B, R, S, X),
    Y is S - Q*X.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2:
> Using modular operations again, you can make it a tick faster by using 
> only two modules instead of three modules. But it still depends 
> heavily on the performance of ar_pow(): 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> % 3,816,486 inferences, 1.766 CPU in 1.762 seconds (100% CPU, 2161550 Lips)
> true. 
> 
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */
> ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z).
> X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217; 
> X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
> fail. 
> 
> ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30) 
> true.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 14:07:47 UTC+2: 
> > Furtther question, does SWI-Prolog have modinv/3, also a function popular 
> > in cryptography? It can be used for a Chinese Remainder algorithm. 
> > 
> > But currently banging my head on a slow (^)/2 for smallints. In modular 
> > algorithms the arguments for (^)/2 are small. So I now get: 
> > 
> > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > % 15,388,917 inferences, 3.969 CPU in 3.963 seconds (100% CPU, 3877522 Lips) 
> > true. 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > % Threads 2,078 ms, GC 10 ms, Up 2,122 ms (Current 09/20/22 11:03:10) 
> > true. 
> > 
> > But I only solved this k=9 equation, not yet the k=42 problem: 
> > 
> > /* x^3 + y^3 + 9 = z^3 */ 
> > ?- modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z). 
> > X = 216, 
> > Y = 52, 
> > Z = 217 ; 
> > X = 52, 
> > Y = 216, 
> > Z = 217 ; 
> > false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13235

(Credits for the acronym cra for Chinese Remainder Algorithm in the
context of Prolog go to Amzi! Prolog, I found the acronym here:
https://amzi.com/manuals/amzi/pro/ref_math.htm )

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:30:40 UTC+2:
> Thats the source code, it is ultimately intended to beat CLP(Z) 
> from Scryer Prolog some time in the future into dust, it also uses 
> ar_pow(), maybe better would be ar_modpow(), but for the small 
> 
> values ar_modpow() wouldn't give some bang: 
> 
> modular([P|L], X, Y, Z) :- 
> find(P, A, B, C), 
> many(L, A-P, B-P, C-P, X-_, Y-_, Z-_), 
> X^3+Y^3+9-Z^3 =:= 0. 
> 
> many([], A, B, C, A, B, C). 
> many([P|L], U, V, W, A, B, C) :- 
> find(P, X, Y, Z), 
> cra_combine(X-P, U, S), 
> cra_combine(Y-P, V, T), 
> cra_combine(Z-P, W, R), 
> many(L, S, T, R, A, B, C). 
> 
> find(M, X, Y, Z) :- 
> N is M-1, 
> between(0, N, X), A is X^3, 
> between(0, N, Y), B is Y^3, 
> between(0, N, Z), 
> (A+B+9-Z^3) mod M =:= 0. 
> 
> /** 
> * Chinese Remainder Algorithm 
> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_remainder_theorem#Existence_%28constructive_proof%29 
> */ 
> % cra_combine(+Pair, +Pair, -Pair) 
> cra_combine(A-N, B-M, C-P) :- 
> cra_egcd(N, M, X, Y), 
> P is N*M, 
> C is (A*M*Y+B*N*X) mod P. 
> 
> % cra_egcd(+Integer, +Integer, -Integer, -Integer) 
> cra_egcd(_, 0, 1, 0) :- !. 
> cra_egcd(A, B, X, Y) :- 
> divmod(A, B, Q, R), 
> cra_egcd(B, R, S, X), 
> Y is S - Q*X.
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2: 
> > Using modular operations again, you can make it a tick faster by using 
> > only two modules instead of three modules. But it still depends 
> > heavily on the performance of ar_pow(): 
> > 
> > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > % 3,816,486 inferences, 1.766 CPU in 1.762 seconds (100% CPU, 2161550 Lips) 
> > true. 
> > 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z). 
> > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217; 
> > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217; 
> > fail. 
> > 
> > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30) 
> > true. 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 14:07:47 UTC+2: 
> > > Furtther question, does SWI-Prolog have modinv/3, also a function popular 
> > > in cryptography? It can be used for a Chinese Remainder algorithm. 
> > > 
> > > But currently banging my head on a slow (^)/2 for smallints. In modular 
> > > algorithms the arguments for (^)/2 are small. So I now get: 
> > > 
> > > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > > ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > % 15,388,917 inferences, 3.969 CPU in 3.963 seconds (100% CPU, 3877522 Lips) 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > > ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > % Threads 2,078 ms, GC 10 ms, Up 2,122 ms (Current 09/20/22 11:03:10) 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > > But I only solved this k=9 equation, not yet the k=42 problem: 
> > > 
> > > /* x^3 + y^3 + 9 = z^3 */ 
> > > ?- modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z). 
> > > X = 216, 
> > > Y = 52, 
> > > Z = 217 ; 
> > > X = 52, 
> > > Y = 216, 
> > > Z = 217 ; 
> > > false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13236

Thats the performance of traditional CLP(FD) and CLP(Z)
for this kind of problem:

/* SWI-Prolog CLP(FD) */
?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)).
% 36,572,338 inferences, 5.109 CPU in 5.117 seconds (100% CPU, 7157889 Lips)
true.

/* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */
?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)).
   % CPU time: 75.667s
   true.

Wasnt using any bisection or somesuch option. Just the 
defaults of CLP(FD) and CLP(Z).

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:58:47 UTC+2:
> (Credits for the acronym cra for Chinese Remainder Algorithm in the 
> context of Prolog go to Amzi! Prolog, I found the acronym here: 
> https://amzi.com/manuals/amzi/pro/ref_math.htm )
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:30:40 UTC+2: 
> > Thats the source code, it is ultimately intended to beat CLP(Z) 
> > from Scryer Prolog some time in the future into dust, it also uses 
> > ar_pow(), maybe better would be ar_modpow(), but for the small 
> > 
> > values ar_modpow() wouldn't give some bang: 
> > 
> > modular([P|L], X, Y, Z) :- 
> > find(P, A, B, C), 
> > many(L, A-P, B-P, C-P, X-_, Y-_, Z-_), 
> > X^3+Y^3+9-Z^3 =:= 0. 
> > 
> > many([], A, B, C, A, B, C). 
> > many([P|L], U, V, W, A, B, C) :- 
> > find(P, X, Y, Z), 
> > cra_combine(X-P, U, S), 
> > cra_combine(Y-P, V, T), 
> > cra_combine(Z-P, W, R), 
> > many(L, S, T, R, A, B, C). 
> > 
> > find(M, X, Y, Z) :- 
> > N is M-1, 
> > between(0, N, X), A is X^3, 
> > between(0, N, Y), B is Y^3, 
> > between(0, N, Z), 
> > (A+B+9-Z^3) mod M =:= 0. 
> > 
> > /** 
> > * Chinese Remainder Algorithm 
> > * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_remainder_theorem#Existence_%28constructive_proof%29 
> > */ 
> > % cra_combine(+Pair, +Pair, -Pair) 
> > cra_combine(A-N, B-M, C-P) :- 
> > cra_egcd(N, M, X, Y), 
> > P is N*M, 
> > C is (A*M*Y+B*N*X) mod P. 
> > 
> > % cra_egcd(+Integer, +Integer, -Integer, -Integer) 
> > cra_egcd(_, 0, 1, 0) :- !. 
> > cra_egcd(A, B, X, Y) :- 
> > divmod(A, B, Q, R), 
> > cra_egcd(B, R, S, X), 
> > Y is S - Q*X. 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2: 
> > > Using modular operations again, you can make it a tick faster by using 
> > > only two modules instead of three modules. But it still depends 
> > > heavily on the performance of ar_pow(): 
> > > 
> > > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > % 3,816,486 inferences, 1.766 CPU in 1.762 seconds (100% CPU, 2161550 Lips) 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > > ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z). 
> > > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217; 
> > > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217; 
> > > fail. 
> > > 
> > > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30) 
> > > true. 
> > > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 14:07:47 UTC+2: 
> > > > Furtther question, does SWI-Prolog have modinv/3, also a function popular 
> > > > in cryptography? It can be used for a Chinese Remainder algorithm. 
> > > > 
> > > > But currently banging my head on a slow (^)/2 for smallints. In modular 
> > > > algorithms the arguments for (^)/2 are small. So I now get: 
> > > > 
> > > > /* SWI-Prolog 8.5.17 */ 
> > > > ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > > % 15,388,917 inferences, 3.969 CPU in 3.963 seconds (100% CPU, 3877522 Lips) 
> > > > true. 
> > > > 
> > > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > > > ?- time((modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > > % Threads 2,078 ms, GC 10 ms, Up 2,122 ms (Current 09/20/22 11:03:10) 
> > > > true. 
> > > > 
> > > > But I only solved this k=9 equation, not yet the k=42 problem: 
> > > > 
> > > > /* x^3 + y^3 + 9 = z^3 */ 
> > > > ?- modular([11,7,5], X, Y, Z). 
> > > > X = 216, 
> > > > Y = 52, 
> > > > Z = 217 ; 
> > > > X = 52, 
> > > > Y = 216, 
> > > > Z = 217 ; 
> > > > false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13237

Even Dogelog player is speedier than CLP(FD) and CLP(Z),
using the modular approach. I find:

?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z).
X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217;
X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
fail.

?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)).
% Wall 3925 ms, gc 7 ms, 1544404 lips
true.

https://jsfiddle.net/Jean_Luc_Picard_2021/d2njehtp/3/

I don't have divmod/4 yet, so one needs to use the
following variant of Extended GCD:

cra_egcd(A, B, X, Y) :-
    Q is A div B,
    R is A mod B,
%    divmod(A, B, Q, R),
    cra_egcd(B, R, S, X),
    Y is S - Q*X.

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 21:13:20 UTC+2:
> Thats the performance of traditional CLP(FD) and CLP(Z) 
> for this kind of problem: 
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog CLP(FD) */ 
> ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> % 36,572,338 inferences, 5.109 CPU in 5.117 seconds (100% CPU, 7157889 Lips) 
> true. 
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */ 
> ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> % CPU time: 75.667s 
> true. 
> 
> Wasnt using any bisection or somesuch option. Just the 
> defaults of CLP(FD) and CLP(Z).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13713

Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> writes:

> /* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */
> ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)).
>    % CPU time: 75.667s
>    true.
>
With the newly release Scryer Prolog version 0.9.2, I now get:

    ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)).
       % CPU time: 41.658s
       true.

On my machine, that's within a factor of 6 of SWI. That's quite
comparable to many other applications when it comes to time performance:
At the current state of Scryer Prolog development, its performance tends
to be within an order of magnitude of SWI's.

One neat feature of the Scryer Prolog toplevel is that we can press "a"
to obtain *all* solutions, one after the other. In this case:

    ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]))).
       % CPU time: 16.080s
       X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217
    ;  % CPU time: 25.942s
       X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217
    ;  % CPU time: 0.250s
       false.

It's often nice to get the Prolog system to enumerate all solutions
automatically. The GNU Prolog toplevel also has this feature, and I
highly recommend adding it in system where it is not yet available.

All the best,
Markus

-- 
comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
The Power of Prolog:  https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13715

One motivation to look at the problem, and to look at the
easier problem with 9 instead 42, is to elaborate a completely
new CLP(FD) solver, that is based on Chinese Remainder Theorem.

Actually I have already a prototype working, the timing was
also already published around 12 months ago. My system was much
faster than SWI-Prolog, since SWI-Prolog is slow with smallints and (^)/2:

Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2:
> /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */
> ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z).
> X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217;
> X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
> fail.
>
> ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)).
> % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30)
> true.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.prolog/c/mjpxkE3xVYk/m/cn0FICAQAAAJ

So these 594 ms are 10x times faster than the 5.117 seconds from
SWI-Prolog using ordinary CLP(FD). And around 100x times faster than 
the 41.658s from Scryer Prolog. But I didn't yet publish this new 

CLP(FD) solver, maybe I did some blogging and also some code 
went into comp.lang.prolog here, but its not currently some officially 
released module somewhere. Its also a solver which isn't based on 

attributed variables per se. It requires that the constraint store is 
re-evaluated with different moduli, so I envision something totally 
new, that drops attributed variables, but nevertheless has a constraint 

store. Attributed variables have become less important. The dis-
advantage of not having attributed variables would be that the 
constraints cannot be used on ordinary predicates. I have no solution 

for the later problem yet, but the figures in the former testing show, 
that the method can be much much faster than ordinary CLP(FD).

Markus Triska schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 21:20:14 UTC+2:
> Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > /* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */ 
> > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > % CPU time: 75.667s 
> > true. 
> >
> With the newly release Scryer Prolog version 0.9.2, I now get:
> ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)).
> % CPU time: 41.658s 
> true. 
> 
> On my machine, that's within a factor of 6 of SWI. That's quite 
> comparable to many other applications when it comes to time performance: 
> At the current state of Scryer Prolog development, its performance tends 
> to be within an order of magnitude of SWI's. 
> 
> One neat feature of the Scryer Prolog toplevel is that we can press "a" 
> to obtain *all* solutions, one after the other. In this case: 
> 
> ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]))). 
> % CPU time: 16.080s
> X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217
> ; % CPU time: 25.942s
> X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217
> ; % CPU time: 0.250s 
> false. 
> 
> It's often nice to get the Prolog system to enumerate all solutions 
> automatically. The GNU Prolog toplevel also has this feature, and I 
> highly recommend adding it in system where it is not yet available. 
> 
> All the best, 
> Markus 
> 
> -- 
> comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13717

Actually its not that dim, one could integrate the Chinese
Reminder Algorithm (CRA) strategy into a CLP(FD) constraint
solver via a labeling variant. The labeling would

include not only running through values inside the current
modulo M, i.e. choosing values in the range 0..M-1, but also
choosing different moduli M1, .., Mk. But the question is

whether one should do that. The problem is that the solution
is obtained by backtracking over all moduli. So when E is the
equation, then its basically a large conjunction:

E_M1, ..., E_Mk

Where each element of the conjunction produces some bits,
and these bits are then combined via CRA. Currently when
E_Mj is a predicate, the equation sits in this predicate,

and each element of the conjunctions runs instances of
the clauses of the predicate, thus has a copy of the equation
available. This copying of the equation makes me think

that attribute variables don't work. But alternatively one
could also table the results of each E_Mj, and later do the
CRA combination. My current solution is not like that,

but this could have more affinity to attributed variables.

Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 1. September 2023 um 20:47:06 UTC+2:
> One motivation to look at the problem, and to look at the 
> easier problem with 9 instead 42, is to elaborate a completely 
> new CLP(FD) solver, that is based on Chinese Remainder Theorem. 
> 
> Actually I have already a prototype working, the timing was 
> also already published around 12 months ago. My system was much 
> faster than SWI-Prolog, since SWI-Prolog is slow with smallints and (^)/2:
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2: 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z).
> > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217;
> > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
> > fail. 
> > 
> > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30) 
> > true.
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.prolog/c/mjpxkE3xVYk/m/cn0FICAQAAAJ 
> 
> So these 594 ms are 10x times faster than the 5.117 seconds from 
> SWI-Prolog using ordinary CLP(FD). And around 100x times faster than 
> the 41.658s from Scryer Prolog. But I didn't yet publish this new 
> 
> CLP(FD) solver, maybe I did some blogging and also some code 
> went into comp.lang.prolog here, but its not currently some officially 
> released module somewhere. Its also a solver which isn't based on 
> 
> attributed variables per se. It requires that the constraint store is 
> re-evaluated with different moduli, so I envision something totally 
> new, that drops attributed variables, but nevertheless has a constraint 
> 
> store. Attributed variables have become less important. The dis- 
> advantage of not having attributed variables would be that the 
> constraints cannot be used on ordinary predicates. I have no solution 
> 
> for the later problem yet, but the figures in the former testing show, 
> that the method can be much much faster than ordinary CLP(FD).
> Markus Triska schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 21:20:14 UTC+2: 
> > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > 
> > > /* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */ 
> > > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > > % CPU time: 75.667s 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > With the newly release Scryer Prolog version 0.9.2, I now get: 
> > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > % CPU time: 41.658s 
> > true. 
> > 
> > On my machine, that's within a factor of 6 of SWI. That's quite 
> > comparable to many other applications when it comes to time performance: 
> > At the current state of Scryer Prolog development, its performance tends 
> > to be within an order of magnitude of SWI's. 
> > 
> > One neat feature of the Scryer Prolog toplevel is that we can press "a" 
> > to obtain *all* solutions, one after the other. In this case: 
> > 
> > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]))). 
> > % CPU time: 16.080s 
> > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217 
> > ; % CPU time: 25.942s 
> > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217 
> > ; % CPU time: 0.250s 
> > false. 
> > 
> > It's often nice to get the Prolog system to enumerate all solutions 
> > automatically. The GNU Prolog toplevel also has this feature, and I 
> > highly recommend adding it in system where it is not yet available. 
> > 
> > All the best, 
> > Markus 
> > 
> > -- 
> > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13719

Whats the Scryer Performance of this Example?

/* GNU Prolog 1.5.0 */
?- between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true.
(94 ms) yes

/* SWI-Prolog 9.1.14 */
?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)).
% 94,504,524 inferences, 4.766 CPU in 4.767 seconds (100% CPU, 19830457 Lips)
true.

That was measured on my machine,
and was a factor ca. 50x slower in SWI-Prolog.

Source Code:

nth_member(1, [M|_], M).
nth_member(N, [_|T], M) :-
  N #> 1, N1 #= N - 1,
  nth_member(N1, T, M).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13720

Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> writes:

> Whats the Scryer Performance of this Example?
>
> /* GNU Prolog 1.5.0 */
> ?- between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true.
> (94 ms) yes
>
> /* SWI-Prolog 9.1.14 */
> ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)).
> % 94,504,524 inferences, 4.766 CPU in 4.767 seconds (100% CPU, 19830457 Lips)
> true.

With Scryer Prolog 0.9.2 on my machine, I get:

    ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), false; true)).
       % CPU time: 84.182s
       true.

On my machine, that's ca. 15 times slower than SWI 8.3.15, which is the
last SWI version I found installed on this machine. Newer versions may
well be faster! For best performance, I recommend to build Scryer Prolog
with the optional --release flag, i.e.:

    $ cargo build --release

All the best,
Markus

-- 
comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/
The Power of Prolog:  https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13721

I am also slower than SWI-Prolog with formerly Jekejeke Prolog,
but sandwhich between Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog for this example.
I never know whether my CLP(FD) still works, so first some sanity checks:

?- nth_member(X, [5,4,6], 4).
X = 2;
fail.
?- nth_member(2, [5,4,6], X).
X = 4;
fail.

Then the benchmark results:

?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)).
% Time 48513 ms, GC 373 ms, Wall 04/09/2023 21:41
true.

But I don't know whether its comparable with Scryer Prolog since
I didn't test Scryer Prolog, and the Scryer Prolog figures are from
Markus Triskas machine.

I am currently phasing out formerly Jekejeke Prolog. It should receive
the same core as Dogelog Player. And then maybe can also re-add
CLP(FD) and see what happens. But this might take months. Especially

since I want to reinvent CLP(FD), adding some CRA Strategy, and I
don't know yet eactly how to do it. I could optimized the non-labeling 
behaviour exactly towards this test case, where GNU Prolog performs well.

Markus Triska schrieb am Montag, 4. September 2023 um 19:42:01 UTC+2:
> Mild Shock <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > Whats the Scryer Performance of this Example? 
> > 
> > /* GNU Prolog 1.5.0 */ 
> > ?- between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true. 
> > (94 ms) yes 
> > 
> > /* SWI-Prolog 9.1.14 */ 
> > ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)). 
> > % 94,504,524 inferences, 4.766 CPU in 4.767 seconds (100% CPU, 19830457 Lips) 
> > true.
> With Scryer Prolog 0.9.2 on my machine, I get: 
> 
> ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), false; true)). 
> % CPU time: 84.182s 
> true. 
> 
> On my machine, that's ca. 15 times slower than SWI 8.3.15, which is the 
> last SWI version I found installed on this machine. Newer versions may 
> well be faster! For best performance, I recommend to build Scryer Prolog 
> with the optional --release flag, i.e.: 
> 
> $ cargo build --release
> All the best, 
> Markus 
> 
> -- 
> comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13722

Actually the test was done with JDK 21 as the Java Virtual
Machine. The older JDK 8 fares a little bit more favorable:

/* JDK 8 */
?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)).
% Time 39146 ms, GC 254 ms, Wall 04/09/2023 21:49
true.

/* JDK 21 */
?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)).
% Time 48513 ms, GC 373 ms, Wall 04/09/2023 21:41 
true. 

The formerly Jekejeke Prolog Minlog Extension, that has the
CLP(FD), isn't public anymore, because I am phasing it out.

Mild Shock schrieb am Montag, 4. September 2023 um 21:46:18 UTC+2:
> I am also slower than SWI-Prolog with formerly Jekejeke Prolog, 
> but sandwhich between Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog for this example. 
> I never know whether my CLP(FD) still works, so first some sanity checks: 
> 
> ?- nth_member(X, [5,4,6], 4). 
> X = 2; 
> fail. 
> ?- nth_member(2, [5,4,6], X). 
> X = 4; 
> fail. 
> 
> Then the benchmark results:
> ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)).
> % Time 48513 ms, GC 373 ms, Wall 04/09/2023 21:41 
> true. 
> 
> But I don't know whether its comparable with Scryer Prolog since 
> I didn't test Scryer Prolog, and the Scryer Prolog figures are from 
> Markus Triskas machine. 
> 
> I am currently phasing out formerly Jekejeke Prolog. It should receive 
> the same core as Dogelog Player. And then maybe can also re-add 
> CLP(FD) and see what happens. But this might take months. Especially 
> 
> since I want to reinvent CLP(FD), adding some CRA Strategy, and I 
> don't know yet eactly how to do it. I could optimized the non-labeling 
> behaviour exactly towards this test case, where GNU Prolog performs well.
> Markus Triska schrieb am Montag, 4. September 2023 um 19:42:01 UTC+2: 
> > Mild Shock <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > 
> > > Whats the Scryer Performance of this Example? 
> > > 
> > > /* GNU Prolog 1.5.0 */ 
> > > ?- between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true. 
> > > (94 ms) yes 
> > > 
> > > /* SWI-Prolog 9.1.14 */ 
> > > ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), fail; true)). 
> > > % 94,504,524 inferences, 4.766 CPU in 4.767 seconds (100% CPU, 19830457 Lips) 
> > > true. 
> > With Scryer Prolog 0.9.2 on my machine, I get: 
> > 
> > ?- time((between(1,200,N), length(L,N), nth_member(I,L,E), false; true)). 
> > % CPU time: 84.182s 
> > true. 
> > 
> > On my machine, that's ca. 15 times slower than SWI 8.3.15, which is the 
> > last SWI version I found installed on this machine. Newer versions may 
> > well be faster! For best performance, I recommend to build Scryer Prolog 
> > with the optional --release flag, i.e.: 
> > 
> > $ cargo build --release 
> > All the best, 
> > Markus 
> > 
> > -- 
> > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13940

What speed-up could a N-qubit quantum computer give
to this problem, find a positive integer tripple (x,y,z) such that:

x^3 + y^3 + 42 = z^3

Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 1. September 2023 um 20:47:06 UTC+2:
> One motivation to look at the problem, and to look at the 
> easier problem with 9 instead 42, is to elaborate a completely 
> new CLP(FD) solver, that is based on Chinese Remainder Theorem. 
> 
> Actually I have already a prototype working, the timing was 
> also already published around 12 months ago. My system was much 
> faster than SWI-Prolog, since SWI-Prolog is slow with smallints and (^)/2:
> Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2: 
> > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z).
> > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217;
> > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217;
> > fail. 
> > 
> > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30) 
> > true.
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.prolog/c/mjpxkE3xVYk/m/cn0FICAQAAAJ 
> 
> So these 594 ms are 10x times faster than the 5.117 seconds from 
> SWI-Prolog using ordinary CLP(FD). And around 100x times faster than 
> the 41.658s from Scryer Prolog. But I didn't yet publish this new 
> 
> CLP(FD) solver, maybe I did some blogging and also some code 
> went into comp.lang.prolog here, but its not currently some officially 
> released module somewhere. Its also a solver which isn't based on 
> 
> attributed variables per se. It requires that the constraint store is 
> re-evaluated with different moduli, so I envision something totally 
> new, that drops attributed variables, but nevertheless has a constraint 
> 
> store. Attributed variables have become less important. The dis- 
> advantage of not having attributed variables would be that the 
> constraints cannot be used on ordinary predicates. I have no solution 
> 
> for the later problem yet, but the figures in the former testing show, 
> that the method can be much much faster than ordinary CLP(FD).
> Markus Triska schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 21:20:14 UTC+2: 
> > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > 
> > > /* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */ 
> > > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > > % CPU time: 75.667s 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > With the newly release Scryer Prolog version 0.9.2, I now get: 
> > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > % CPU time: 41.658s 
> > true. 
> > 
> > On my machine, that's within a factor of 6 of SWI. That's quite 
> > comparable to many other applications when it comes to time performance: 
> > At the current state of Scryer Prolog development, its performance tends 
> > to be within an order of magnitude of SWI's. 
> > 
> > One neat feature of the Scryer Prolog toplevel is that we can press "a" 
> > to obtain *all* solutions, one after the other. In this case: 
> > 
> > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]))). 
> > % CPU time: 16.080s 
> > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217 
> > ; % CPU time: 25.942s 
> > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217 
> > ; % CPU time: 0.250s 
> > false. 
> > 
> > It's often nice to get the Prolog system to enumerate all solutions 
> > automatically. The GNU Prolog toplevel also has this feature, and I 
> > highly recommend adding it in system where it is not yet available. 
> > 
> > All the best, 
> > Markus 
> > 
> > -- 
> > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13944

Lets say you don't trust what a quantum computer
finds as a tripple for (x,y,z) to satisfy:

x^3 + y^3 + 42 = z^3

You could then view it as a candidate triple
only, and still feed it into a normal computer

and see whether it is a solution. Kind of combining
approximate search with exact verification.
Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 5. Januar 2024 um 23:07:44 UTC+1:
> What speed-up could a N-qubit quantum computer give 
> to this problem, find a positive integer tripple (x,y,z) such that: 
> 
> x^3 + y^3 + 42 = z^3
> Mild Shock schrieb am Freitag, 1. September 2023 um 20:47:06 UTC+2:
> > One motivation to look at the problem, and to look at the 
> > easier problem with 9 instead 42, is to elaborate a completely 
> > new CLP(FD) solver, that is based on Chinese Remainder Theorem. 
> > 
> > Actually I have already a prototype working, the timing was 
> > also already published around 12 months ago. My system was much 
> > faster than SWI-Prolog, since SWI-Prolog is slow with smallints and (^)/2: 
> > Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 20. September 2022 um 20:28:33 UTC+2: 
> > > /* Jekejeke Prolog 1.5.4 */ 
> > > ?- modular([15,16], X, Y, Z). 
> > > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217; 
> > > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217; 
> > > fail. 
> > > 
> > > ?- time((modular([15,16], X, Y, Z), fail; true)). 
> > > % Threads 594 ms, GC 5 ms, Up 591 ms (Current 09/20/22 20:21:30) 
> > > true. 
> > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.prolog/c/mjpxkE3xVYk/m/cn0FICAQAAAJ 
> > 
> > So these 594 ms are 10x times faster than the 5.117 seconds from 
> > SWI-Prolog using ordinary CLP(FD). And around 100x times faster than 
> > the 41.658s from Scryer Prolog. But I didn't yet publish this new 
> > 
> > CLP(FD) solver, maybe I did some blogging and also some code 
> > went into comp.lang.prolog here, but its not currently some officially 
> > released module somewhere. Its also a solver which isn't based on 
> > 
> > attributed variables per se. It requires that the constraint store is 
> > re-evaluated with different moduli, so I envision something totally 
> > new, that drops attributed variables, but nevertheless has a constraint 
> > 
> > store. Attributed variables have become less important. The dis- 
> > advantage of not having attributed variables would be that the 
> > constraints cannot be used on ordinary predicates. I have no solution 
> > 
> > for the later problem yet, but the figures in the former testing show, 
> > that the method can be much much faster than ordinary CLP(FD). 
> > Markus Triska schrieb am Donnerstag, 31. August 2023 um 21:20:14 UTC+2: 
> > > Mostowski Collapse <burs...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > > 
> > > > /* Scryer Prolog CLP(Z) */ 
> > > > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > > > % CPU time: 75.667s 
> > > > true. 
> > > > 
> > > With the newly release Scryer Prolog version 0.9.2, I now get: 
> > > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]), fail; true)). 
> > > % CPU time: 41.658s 
> > > true. 
> > > 
> > > On my machine, that's within a factor of 6 of SWI. That's quite 
> > > comparable to many other applications when it comes to time performance: 
> > > At the current state of Scryer Prolog development, its performance tends 
> > > to be within an order of magnitude of SWI's. 
> > > 
> > > One neat feature of the Scryer Prolog toplevel is that we can press "a" 
> > > to obtain *all* solutions, one after the other. In this case: 
> > > 
> > > ?- time(([X,Y,Z] ins 0..239, X^3+Y^3+9 #= Z^3, label([X,Y,Z]))). 
> > > % CPU time: 16.080s 
> > > X = 52, Y = 216, Z = 217 
> > > ; % CPU time: 25.942s 
> > > X = 216, Y = 52, Z = 217 
> > > ; % CPU time: 0.250s 
> > > false. 
> > > 
> > > It's often nice to get the Prolog system to enumerate all solutions 
> > > automatically. The GNU Prolog toplevel also has this feature, and I 
> > > highly recommend adding it in system where it is not yet available. 
> > > 
> > > All the best, 
> > > Markus 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > comp.lang.prolog FAQ: http://www.logic.at/prolog/faq/ 
> > > The Power of Prolog: https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog

csiph-web