Next: CLPQR Unification, Previous: CLPQR Notational Conventions, Up: CLPQR Interface [Contents][Index]

The solver interface for both Q and R consists of the following
predicates, which are exported from `module(linear)`

.

`{`

`+Constraint`}-
`Constraint`is a term accepted by the grammar below. The corresponding constraint is added to the current constraint store and checked for satisfiability. Use the module prefix to distinguish the solvers if both clp(Q) and clp(R) were loaded.| ?-

`clpr:{Ar+Br=10}, Ar=Br, clpq:{Aq+Bq=10}, Aq=Bq.`Aq = 5, Ar = 5.0, Bq = 5, Br = 5.0Although clp(Q) and clp(R) are independent modules, you are asking for trouble if you (accidentally) share variables between them:

| ?-

`clpr:{A+B=10}, clpq:{A=B}.`! Type error in argument 2 of clpq:=/2 ! a rational number expected, but 5.0 found ! goal: _118=5.0This is because both solvers eventually compute values for the variables and Reals are incompatible with Rationals.

Here is the constraint grammar:

`Constraint`::= `C`| `C``,`

`C`{ conjunction } `C`::= `Expr``=:=`

`Expr`{ equation } | `Expr``=`

`Expr`{ equation } | `Expr``<`

`Expr`{ strict inequation } | `Expr``>`

`Expr`{ strict inequation } | `Expr``=<`

`Expr`{ nonstrict inequation } | `Expr``>=`

`Expr`{ nonstrict inequation } | `Expr``=\=`

`Expr`{ disequation } `Expr`::= *variable*{ Prolog variable } | *number*{ floating point or integer } | `+`

`Expr`{ unary plus } | `-`

`Expr`{ unary minus } | `Expr``+`

`Expr`{ addition } | `Expr``-`

`Expr`{ subtraction } | `Expr``*`

`Expr`{ multiplication } | `Expr``/`

`Expr`{ division } | `abs(`

`Expr`){ absolute value } | `sin(`

`Expr`){ trigonometric sine } | `cos(`

`Expr`){ trigonometric cosine } | `tan(`

`Expr`){ trigonometric tangent } | `pow(`

`Expr`,`Expr`){ raise to the power } | `exp(`

`Expr`,`Expr`){ raise to the power } | `min(`

`Expr`,`Expr`){ minimum of the two arguments } | `max(`

`Expr`,`Expr`){ maximum of the two arguments } | `#(`

`Const`){ symbolic numerical constants } Conjunctive constraints

`{`

have been made part of the syntax to control the granularity of constraint submission, which will be exploited by future versions of this software. Symbolic numerical constants are provided for compatibility only; see CLPQR Monash Examples.`C`,`C`} `entailed(`

`+Constraint`)-
Succeeds iff the linear

`Constraint`is entailed by the current constraint store. This predicate does not change the state of the constraint store.clp(q) ?-

`{A =< 4}, entailed(A=\=5).`{A=<4} clp(q) ?-`{A =< 4}, entailed(A=\=3).`no `inf(`

`+Expr`,`-Inf`)`inf(`

`+Expr`,`-Inf`,`+Vector`,`-Vertex`)-
Computes the infimum of the linear expression

`Expr`and unifies it with`Inf`. If given, then`Vector`should be a list of variables relevant to`Expr`, and`Vertex`will be unified a list of the same length as`Vector`containing the values for`Vector`, such that the infimum is produced when assigned. Failure indicates unboundedness. `sup(`

`+Expr`,`-Sup`)`sup(`

`+Expr`,`-Sup`,`+Vector`,`-Vertex`)-
Computes the supremum of the linear expression

`Expr`and unifies it with`Sup`. If given, then`Vector`should be a list of variables relevant to`Expr`, and`Vertex`will be unified a list of the same length as`Vector`containing the values for`Vector`, such that the supremum is produced when assigned. Failure indicates unboundedness.clp(q) ?-

`{ 2*X+Y =< 16, X+2*Y =< 11,``X+3*Y =< 15, Z = 30*X+50*Y``}, sup(Z, Sup, [X,Y], Vertex).`Sup = 310, Vertex = [7,2], {Z=30*X+50*Y}, {X+1/2*Y=<8}, {X+3*Y=<15}, {X+2*Y=<11} `minimize(`

`+Expr`)-
Computes the infimum of the linear expression

`Expr`and equates it with the expression, i.e. as if defined as:minimize(Expr) :- inf(Expr, Expr).

`maximize(`

`+Expr`)-
Computes the supremum of the linear expression

`Expr`and equates it with the expression.clp(q) ?-

`{ 2*X+Y =< 16, X+2*Y =< 11,``X+3*Y =< 15, Z = 30*X+50*Y``}, maximize(Z).`X = 7, Y = 2, Z = 310 `bb_inf(`

`+Ints`,`+Expr`,`-Inf`)-
Computes the infimum of the linear expression

`Expr`under the additional constraint that all of variables in the list`Ints`assume integral values at the infimum. This allows for the solution of mixed integer linear optimization problems; see CLPQR MIP.clp(q) ?-

`{X >= Y+Z, Y > 1, Z > 1}, bb_inf([Y,Z],X,Inf).`Inf = 4, {Y>1}, {Z>1}, {X-Y-Z>=0} `bb_inf(`

`+Ints`,`+Expr`,`-Inf`,`-Vertex`,`+Eps`)-
Computes the infimum of the linear expression

`Expr`under the additional constraint that all of variables in the list`Ints`assume integral values at the infimum.`Eps`is a positive number between 0 and 0.5 that specifies how close a number`X`must be to the next integer to be considered integral:`abs(round(`

. The predicate`X`)-`X`) <`Eps``bb_inf/3`

uses

. With clp(Q),`Eps`= 0.001

makes sense.`Eps`= 0`Vertex`is a list of the same length as`Ints`and contains the (integral) values for`Ints`, such that the infimum is produced when assigned. Note that this will only generate one particular solution, which is different from the situation with`minimize/1`

, where the general solution is exhibited.`bb_inf/5`

works properly for non-strict inequalities only! Disequations (`=\=`

) and higher dimensional strict inequalities (`>`

,`<`

) are beyond its scope. Strict bounds on the decision variables are honored however:clp(q) ?-

`{X >= Y+Z, Y > 1, Z > 1}, bb_inf([Y,Z],X,Inf,Vertex,0).`Inf = 4, Vertex = [2,2], {Y>1}, {Z>1}, {X-Y-Z>=0}The limitation(s) can be addressed by:

- transforming the original problem statement so that only non-strict
inequalities remain; for example,
`{X + Y > 0}`

becomes`{X + Y >= 1}`

for integral`X`

and`Y`

; - contemplating the use of clp(FD).

- transforming the original problem statement so that only non-strict
inequalities remain; for example,
`ordering(`

`+Spec`)-
Provides a means to control one aspect of the presentation of the answer constraints; see CLPQR Variable Ordering.

`dump(`

`+Target`,`-NewVars`,`-CodedAnswer`)-
Reflects the constraints on the target variables into a term, where

`Target`and`NewVars`are lists of variables of equal length and`CodedAnswer`is the term representation of the projection of constraints onto the target variables where the target variables are replaced by the corresponding variables from`NewVars`(see CLPQR Turning Answers into Terms).clp(q) ?-

`{A+B =< 10, A>=4},``dump([A,B],Vs,Cs),``dump([B],Bp,Cb).`Cb = [_A=<6], Bp = [_A], Cs = [_B>=4,_C+_B=<10], Vs = [_C,_B], {A>=4}, {A+B=<10}The current version of

`dump/3`

is incomplete with respect to nonlinear constraints. It only reports nonlinear constraints that are connected to the target variables. The following example has no solution. From the top level’s report we have a chance to deduce this fact, but`dump/3`

currently has no means to collect global constraints …q(X) :- {X>=10}, {sin(Z)>3}. clp(r) ?-

`q(X), dump([X],V,C).`C = [_A>=10.0], V = [_A], clpr:{3.0-sin(_B)<0.0}, {X>=10.0} `projecting_assert/1(`

`:Clause`)-
If you use the database, then the clauses you assert might have constraints associated with their variables. Use this predicate instead of

`assert/1`

in order to ensure that only the relevant and projected constraints get stored in the database. It will transform the clause into one with plain variables and extra body goals that set up the relevant constraint when called.

Send feedback on this subject.