This solution uses the library predicate list_to_set/2, relating a (known) list Ls0 of elements to a list Ls without duplicates, where the elements occur in the same order in which they first appear in Ls0. I think it is interesting to consider how such a relation can be described in Prolog, and also how efficient it can be.
An immediate solution suggests itself, considering the elements of Ls0 in the order they appear, and keeping track of the elements that have already been "seen". If an element is encountered that has already been seen, ignore it, otherwise it is part of the list Ls we want to describe. We can use a list to keep track of elements that have already been encountered:
?- list_to_set("Corvus corax", Ls).
Ls = "Corvus cax".
Yet, this solution has a very severe drawback: It is worst-case quadratic in the number of elements, and thus not usable for long lists:
?- length(_, E),
E #> 10,
N #= 2^E,
numlist(1, N, Ls0),
time(list_to_set(Ls0, Ls)).
yielding:
% CPU time: 0.222s
E = 11, N = 2048, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; % CPU time: 0.880s
E = 12, N = 4096, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; % CPU time: 3.518s
E = 13, N = 8192, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; ... .
So, how to improve it? Well, it may be tempting to use for example a hash or an AVL tree to keep track of the "seen" elements, so that it can be more efficiently decided whether an element has already been encountered. And indeed, that is easy to do, and reduces the runtime considerably.
For example, using the commonly available library(assoc) for AVL trees, providing O(log(N)) lookup:
With this simple change, we get for the query above:
% CPU time: 0.034s
E = 11, N = 2048, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; % CPU time: 0.070s
E = 12, N = 4096, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; % CPU time: 0.155s
E = 13, N = 8192, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; ... .
The most interesting part is that we can do significantly better, by leveraging Prolog's logic variables to propagate the information whether elements have already been encountered, yielding a very efficient solution where sorting the list Ls0 (or rather: the list of pairs LVs0, where we associate with each element of Ls0 a logic variable that can be used to propagate information by unifying it with other variables and more concrete terms) dominates the asymptotic complexity:
% CPU time: 0.003s
E = 11, N = 2048, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; % CPU time: 0.006s
E = 12, N = 4096, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; % CPU time: 0.013s
E = 13, N = 8192, Ls0 = [1,2,3,4,5,...], Ls = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
; ... .
And this is indeed how list_to_set/2 is implemented for example in Scryer Prolog's library(lists):
First, for those who don’t recognize the username, this post was from Markus Triska, whose homepage (metalevel.at) is an absolute wealth of knowledge on Prolog. I’ve learned so much from it.
I also would like to echo the thank you to Markus. His Power of Prolog videos have taught me so much about Prolog. His recent one on DCGs is incredibly eye-opening.
The raindeer in the riddle are in a total ordering, with each following one
other, like a linked list. That means we can just... sort them.
We could do that by hand-rolling a sorting algorithm with a custom comparison.
Or, if we want to leave time for breakfast, there's SWI-Prolog's predsort/3 that
takes as an argument a custom ordering predicate, and then sorts a list of
arbitrary Prolog terms according to that ordering.
For example, I define raindeer_order/2 as an ordering predicate, reusing
follows/2 from the article above, like this:
I spent a lot of time with it a few years back developing some documentation. I had actually forgotten the correct syntax and had to look it up. It was a lot of fun to use, though.
I should probably brush up on it a bit and maybe use it for some crap we have at work that's incomprehensible ("What calls what again? Does anyone know? And it's a bespoke language so there is no tooling to help? Shit.")
This is likely more efficient as we're cutting short the generation of most permutations.
Or you can use CPL(FD) as suggested by @Avshalom below, though more heavyweight this is likely more efficient still.
The most efficient though is simply to use a topological sort algorithm, which will run in linear time, unlike any of these solutions (some of which are exponential). SWI Prolog has this built-in:
Putting OP's and your clauses together, I get the following pure ISO Prolog program and query that you can paste directly into Quantum Prolog's in-browser execution console at https://quantumprolog.sgml.io/browser-demo/browser-demo.html for execution in no time:
% Vixen should be behind Rudolph,
% Prancer and Dasher,
is_behind(vixen, rudolph).
is_behind(vixen, prancer).
is_behind(vixen, dasher).
% whilst Vixen should be in front
% of Dancer and Comet.
is_behind(dancer, vixen).
is_behind(comet, vixen).
% Dancer should be behind Donder,
% Blitzen and Rudolph.
is_behind(dancer, donder).
is_behind(dancer, blitzen).
is_behind(dancer, rudolph).
% Comet should be behind Cupid,
% Prancer and Rudolph.
is_behind(comet, cupid).
is_behind(comet, prancer).
is_behind(comet, rudolph).
% Donder should be behind Comet,
% Vixen, Dasher, Prancer and
% Cupid.
is_behind(donder, comet).
is_behind(fonder, vixen).
is_behind(donder, dasher).
is_behind(donder, prancer).
is_behind(donder, cupid).
% Cupid should be in front of
% Comet, Blitzen, Vixen, Dancer
% and Rudolph.
is_behind(comet, cupid).
is_behind(blitzen, cupid).
is_behind(vixen, cupid).
is_behind(dancer, cupid).
is_behind(rudolph, cupid).
% Prancer should be in front of
% Blitzen, Donder and Cupid.
is_behind(blitzen, prancer).
is_behind(donder, prancer).
is_behind(cupid, prancer).
% Blitzen should be behind Cupid
% but in front of Dancer, Vixen
% and Donder.
is_behind(blitzen, cupid).
is_behind(dancer, blitzen).
is_behind(vixen, blitzen).
is_behind(donder, blitzen).
% Rudolph should be behind Prancer
% but in front of Dasher, Dancer
% and Donder.
is_behind(rudolph, prancer).
is_behind(dasher, rudolph).
is_behind(dancer, rudolph).
is_behind(donder, rudolph).
% Finally, Dasher should be behind
% Prancer but in front of Blitzen,
% Dancer and Vixen.
is_behind(dasher, prancer).
is_behind(blitzen, dasher).
is_behind(dancer, dasher).
is_behind(vixen, dasher).
follows(Last, First) :-
is_behind(Last, First).
follows(Last, First) :-
is_behind(Middle, First),
follows(Last, Middle).
order([]).
order([_]).
order([X,Y|L]) :-
follows(Y, X), order([Y|L]).
?- order([A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I])
Ah, interesting! I figured there would be a way without having to "brute-force" the solution by using the `permutation` predicate but I wasn't able to come up with one. I wonder if there's a way of not depending on permutation generation, nor list length. Does querying with `order(L)` require `length(L, 9)` to work?
As for the topological sort solution, I assume it's what Graphviz uses under the hood in mLuby's solution! If I understand correctly, we're graphing the sequence of reindeer and then extracting the order of the nodes in the graph?
I got the solution with a straightforward set of assertions in Z3. It was a lot of typing, and I wonder if there's a more succinct way to do this than the following:
(declare-const blitzen Int)
(declare-const comet Int)
...
(assert
(and
; lower bound for readability (1 is front)
(> blitzen 0)
(> comet 0)
...
; upper bound for readability (9 is rear)
(< blitzen 10)
(< comet 10)
...
; clues from the puzzle
(> vixen rudolph)
...
(< dasher vixen)))
go(L) :-
L = [Vixen, Rudolph, Prancer, Dasher, Comet, Dancer, Donder, Blitzen, Cupid],
L ins 1..9,
% Vixen should be behind Rudolph, Prancer and Dasher,
maplist(#>(Vixen),[Rudolph,Prancer,Dasher]),
% Vixen should be in front of Dancer and Comet.
maplist(#<(Vixen),[Dancer,Comet]),
% Dancer should be behind Donder, Blitzen and Rudolph.
maplist(#>(Dancer),[Donder,Blitzen,Rudolph]),
% Comet should be behind Cupid, Prancer and Rudolph.
maplist(#>(Comet),[Cupid,Prancer,Rudolph]),
% Donder should be behind Comet, Vixen, Dasher, Prancer and Cupid.
maplist(#>(Donder),[Comet, Vixen, Dasher, Prancer,Cupid]),
% Cupid should be in front of Comet, Blitzen, Vixen, Dancer and Rudolph
maplist(#<(Cupid),[Comet, Blitzen, Vixen, Dancer,Rudolph]),
% Prancer should be in front of Blitzen, Donder and Cupid.
maplist(#<(Prancer),[Blitzen,Donder,Cupid]),
% Blitzen should be behind Cupid
Blitzen #> Cupid,
% but in front of Dancer, Vixen and Donder.
maplist(#<(Blitzen),[Dancer,Vixen,Donder]),
% Rudolph should be behind Prancer
Rudolph #> Prancer,
% but in front of Dasher, Dancer and Donder.
maplist(#<(Rudolph),[Dasher,Dancer,Donder]),
% Finally, Dasher should be behind Prancer
Dasher #> Prancer,
% but in front of Blitzen, Dancer and Vixen.
maplist(#<(Dasher),[Blitzen,Dancer,Vixen]).
One nice thing we can do with this grammar is that we can also generate the text from a list of constraints:
?- Pairs = [['Prancer', <, 'Cupid'], ['Cupid', <, 'Rudolph']], phrase(text(Pairs), T), string_codes(S, T).
Pairs = [['Prancer', <, 'Cupid'], ['Cupid', <, 'Rudolph']],
T = [80, 114, 97, 110, 99, 101, 114, 32, 115|...],
S = "Prancer should be in front of Cupid. Finally, Cupid should be in front of Rudolph." .
outputs:
Which, for me, is: