new to PDDL - problem listing the pre-requisites of a particular material

[neyti...@gmail.com]

Hi,

Please find under this link dhe domain and problem:

http://editor.planning.domains/#edit_session=kYnazKi6wXzKKx7

Thank you.



On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 3:32:28 PM UTC+2, Christian Muise wrote:

Hello,

If you'd like to try and diagnose things further on the solver(.planning.domains) side, feel free to post a message here (this google group typically focuses on just the FastDownward planning system):

- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!categories/planning-domains/solver

Further, if you'd like to share your working copy of the domains, you can paste them to the online editor ( editor.planning.domains ), and then use the Session->Save functionality to generate a read-only link (would also allow others to see the full domain and run it against the remote solver.

Cheers,

Christian

[Christian Muise]

Hello,

So right away we can see two things from the output:

1. The "...overwrites..." lines indicate that you have quantified variables that are also listed as parameters. You should remove ?prec, ?pret, and ?prel from the study_lm parameters, and use the types in the forall statement when you define them there (same syntax as parameters).

2. There is a type mismatch for ?pret. Note that your declaration of predicate is-prereq has ?pret as type studyPrerequisitTopic, but the action parameter (or, if fixed, the forall parameter) has ?pret as type studyTopic. The usage in actions should match the predicate definitions.

That said, it seems to give a segmentation fault when those two things are fixed:

- http://editor.planning.domains/#read_session=D8JOVhoBgb

I'll forward this example over to the planner authors to see if they have any thoughts. Also, it might be better if you share the "Read Only" links for sessions, as otherwise anyone could hit save and overwrite what you have there. When you open a read only session, then hit save, it will create a new pair of URL's that you can share (so consider them snapshots in a sense). Not the most intuitive, I know, but it gets the job done...

Cheers

--
http://planning.domains/
https://bitbucket.org/planning-tools/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planning.Domains" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planning-domai...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planning-domains/a62e4293-702a-4f5c-a8c6-61d7770f6b1a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Christian Muise]

Just had a chance to run it by the latest fast downward version, and the errors so far seem obvious (see below).

When you define objects/constants, you should only do so once for a given name. For this example, you have the same object appearing as multiple types, which will certainly cause an issue.

If you want to update the domain/problem files with all of the suggestions so far, I'd be happy to take another look.

Cheers,

Christian

[neyti...@gmail.com]

Hi Christian,

Thank you very much for your time and effort. I just generated a read-only link, under this URL:
http://editor.planning.domains/#edit_session=zee6SQsL2SwWvbV

Still can't create a plan, dealing with this error (as you mentioned, the segmentation fault):

Suspected timeout.

/app/plan: line 3:   766 Segmentation fault      timeout 10 "$(dirname "$0")"/siw-then-bfsf --domain $1 --problem $2 --output $3

I will try to work on this and for any other situation, will post again a message here.


Thank you in advanced.

[Christian Muise]

Taking this off-list now that we’re down to debugging relaxed unreachable goals…

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planning-domains/cbdb6236-78e3-4951-b714-6c2aec6374f9%40googlegroups.com.