gt(ace,ten).
gt(ten,king).
gt(king,queen).
gt(queen,jack).
gt_(X,Y) :-
( gt(X,Z1), gt(Z1,Z2), gt(Z2,Z3), gt(Z3,Y) ) ;
( gt(X,Z1), gt(Z1,Z2), gt(Z2,Y) ) ;
( gt(X,Z1), gt(Z1,Y) ) ;
gt(X,Y)
.
gt means "greater than" and should be transitive. that means for example gt_(ace, jack) should yield true.
The above explicit implementation works but it is obviously unsatisfying to have all possible transitive indirection written out.
What would be a better more succinct way to write gt_?
Your previous code was in the right direction except you would use a fact for the direct relations and the rule with different name for the recursive step:
gt(ace,ten).
gt(ten,king).
gt(king,queen).
gt(queen,jack).
gt_(X,Y) :- ( gt(X,Z1), gt_(Z1,Y) ) ; gt(X,Y) .
sample run:
?- gt_(X,Y).
X = ace,
Y = jack ;
X = ace,
Y = queen ;
X = ace,
Y = king ;
X = ten,
Y = jack ;
X = ten,
Y = queen ;
X = king,
Y = jack ;
X = ace,
Y = ten ;
X = ten,
Y = king ;
X = king,
Y = queen ;
X = queen,
Y = jack.
?- gt_(ten,ace).
false.