I have been searching on whether z3 supports complex numbers and have found the following: https://leodemoura.github.io/blog/2013/01/26/complex.html
The author states that (1) Complex numbers are not yet implemented in Z3 as a built-in (this was written in 2013), and (2) that Complex numbers can be encoded on top of the Real numbers provided by Z3.
The basic idea is to represent a Complex number as a pair of Real numbers. He defines the basic imaginary number with I=(0,1), that is: I means the real part equals 0 and the imaginary part equals 1.
He offers the encoding (I mean, we can test it on our machines), where we can solve the equation x^2+2=0. I received the following result:
sat
x = (-1.4142135623?)*I
The sat result does make sense, since this equation is solvable in the simulation of the theory of complex numbers (as a result of the theory of algebraically closed fields) we have just made. However, the root result does not make sense to me. I mean: what about (1.4142135623?)*I?
I would understand to receive the two roots, but, if only one received, I do not understand why I get the negated solution.
Maybe I misread something or I missed something.
Also, I would like to say if complex numbers have already been implemented built in Z3. I mean, with a standard:
x = Complex("x")
And with tactics of kind of a NCA (from nonlinear complex arithmetic).
I have not seen any reference to this theory in SMT-LIB either.
AFAIK there is no plan to add complex numbers to SMT-LIB. There's a Google group for SMT-LIB and it might make sense to send a post there to see if there is any interest there.
Note, that particular blog post says "find a root"; this is just satisfiability, i.e. it finds one solution, not all of them. (But you can ask for another one by adding an assertion that says x should be different from the first result.)
Related
In Z3 (Python) my SAT queries inside a loop are slowing down, can I use incremental SAT to overcome this problem?
The problem is the following: I am performing a concrete SAT search inside a loop. On each iteration, I get a model (of course, I store the negation of the model in order not to explore the same model again). And also, if that model satisfies a certain property, then I also add a subquery of it and add other restrictions to the formula. And iterate again, until UNSAT (i.e. "no more models") is obtained.
I offer an orientative snapshot of the code:
...
s = Solver()
s.add(True)
while s.check() == sat:
s.check()
m = s.model()
phi = add_modelNegation(m)
s.add(phi) #in order not to explore the same model again
if holds_property(m): #if the model holds a property
s = add_moreConstraints(s,m) #add other constrains to the formula
...
The question is that, as the formula that s has to solve gets greater, Z3 is starting to have more trouble to find those models. That is okay: this should happen, since finding a model is now more difficult because of the added restrictions. However, in my case, it is happening too much: the computation speed has been even halved; i.e. the time that the solver needs to find a new model is the double after some iterations.
Thus, I would like to implement some kind of incremental solving and wondered whether there are native methods in Z3 to do so.
I have been reading about this in many pages (see, for instance, How incremental solving works in Z3?), but only found this response in How to use incremental solving with z3py interesting:
The Python API is automatically "incremental". This simply means the ability to call the command check() multiple times, without the solver forgetting what it has seen before (i.e., call check(), assert more facts, call check() again; the second check() will take into account all the assertions from the very beginning).
I am not sure I understand, thus I make a simple question: that the response mean that the incremental SAT is indeed used in Z3's SAT? The point I think I am looking for another incrementality; for example: if in the SAT iteration number 230 it is inevitable that a variable (say b1) is true, then that is a fact that will not change afterwards, you can set it to 1, simplify the formula and not re-reason anything to do with b1, because all models if any will have b1. Is this incremental SAT of Z3 considering these kind of cases?
In case not, how could I implement this?
I know there are some implementations in PySat or in MiniSat, but I would like to do it in Z3.
As with anything related to performance of z3 solving, there's no one size fits all. Each specific problem can benefit from different ideas.
Incremental Solving The term "incremental solving" has a very specific meaning in the SAT/SMT context. It means that you can continue to add assertions to the system after a call to check, without it forgetting the assertions you added before hand. This is what makes it incremental. Additionally, you can set jump-points; i.e., you can tell the solver to "forget" the assertions you put in after a certain point in your program, essentially moving through a stack of assertions. For details, see Section 3.9 of https://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.6-r2021-05-12.pdf, specifically the part where it talks about the "Assertion Stack."
And, as noted before, you don't have to do anything specific for z3 to be incremental. It is incremental by default, i.e., you can simply add new assertions after calling check, or use push/pop calls etc. (Compare this to, for instance, CVC4; which is by default not incremental. If you want to use CVC4 in incremental mode, you have to pass a specific command line argument.) The main reason for this is that incremental mode requires extra bookkeeping, which CVC4 isn't willing to pay for unless you explicitly ask it to do so. For z3, the developers decided to always make it incremental without any command line switches.
Regarding your particular question about what happens if b1 is true: Well, if you somehow determined b1 is always true, simply assert it. And the solver will automatically take advantage of this; nothing special needs to be done. Note that z3 learns a ton of lemmas as it works through your program such as these and adds them to its internal database anyhow. But if you have some external mechanism that lets you deduce a particular constraint, just go ahead and add it. (Of course, the soundness of this will be on you, not on z3; but that's a different question.)
One specific "trick" in speeding up enumerating "find me all-solutions" loops like you are doing is to do a divide-and-conquer approach, instead of the "add the negation of the previous model and iterate." In practice this can make a significant difference in performance. I think you should try this idea. It's explained here: https://theory.stanford.edu/~nikolaj/programmingz3.html#sec-blocking-evaluations As you can see, the all_smt function defined at the end of that section takes specific advantage of incrementality (note the calls to push/pop) to speed up the model-search process, by carefully dividing the search space into disjoint segments, instead of doing a random-walk. Using this might give you the speed-up you need. But, again, as with anything performance specific, you'll need to tell us more about exactly what problem you are solving: None of these methods can avoid performance problems caused by modeling issues. (For instance, using integers to model booleans is one common pitfall.) See this answer for some generic advice: https://stackoverflow.com/a/57661441/936310
I am trying to find an optimal solution using the Z3 API for python. I have used set_option("verbose", 1) to print statements that Z3 generates while checking for sat. One of the statements it prints is pb.conflict statements. The statements look something like this -
pb.conflict statements.
I want to know what exactly is pb.conflict. What do these statements signify? Also, what are the two numbers that get printed along with it?
pb stands for Pseudo-boolean. A pseudo-boolean function is a function from booleans to some other domain, usually Real. A conflict happens when the choice of a variable leads to an unsatisfiable clause set, at which point the solver has to backtrack. Keeping the backtracking to a minimum is essential for efficiency, and many of the SAT engines carefully track that number. While the details are entirely solver specific (i.e., those two numbers you're asking about), in general the higher the numbers, the more conflict cases the solver met, and hence might decide to reset the state completely or take some other action. Often, there are parameters that users can set to specify when such actions are taken and exactly what those are. But again, this is entirely solver and implementation specific.
A google search on pseudo-boolean optimization will result in a bunch of scholarly articles that you might want to peruse.
If you really want to find Z3's treatment of pseudo-booleans, then your best bet is probably to look at the implementation itself: https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3/blob/master/src/smt/theory_pb.cpp
I have created a grammar to read a file of equations then created AST nodes for each rule.My question is how can I do simplification or substitute vales on the equations that the parser is able to read correctly. in which stage? before creating AST nodes or after?
Please provide me with ideas or tutorials to follow.
Thank you.
I'm assuming you equations are something like simple polynomials over real-value variables, like X^2+3*Y^2
You ask for two different solutions to two different problems that start with having an AST for at least one equation:
How to "substitute values" into the equation and compute the resulting value, e.g, for X==3 and Y=2, substitute into the AST for the formula above and compute 3^2+3*2^2 --> 21
How to do simplification: I assume you mean algebraic simplification.
The first problem of substituting values is fairly easy if yuo already have the AST. (If not, parse the equation to produce the AST first!) Then all you have to do is walk the AST, replacing every leaf node containing a variable name with the corresponding value, and then doing arithmetic on any parent nodes whose children now happen to be numbers; you repeat this until no more nodes can be arithmetically evaluated. Basically you wire simple arithmetic into a tree evaluation scheme.
Sometimes your evaluation will reduce the tree to a single value as in the example, and you can print the numeric result My SO answer shows how do that in detail. You can easily implement this yourself in a small project, even using JavaCC/JJTree appropriately adapted.
Sometimes the formula will end up in a state where no further arithmetic on it is possible, e.g., 1+x+y with x==0 and nothing known about y; then the result of such a subsitution/arithmetic evaluation process will be 1+y. Unfortunately, you will only have this as an AST... now you need to print out the resulting AST in order for the user to see the result. This is harder; see my SO answer on how to prettyprint a tree. This is considerably more work; if you restrict your tree to just polynomials over expressions, you can still do this in small project. JavaCC will help you with parsing, but provides zero help with prettyprinting.
The second problem is much harder, because you must not only accomplish variable substitution and arithmetic evaluation as above, but you have to somehow encode knowledge of algebraic laws, and how to match those laws to complex trees. You might hardwire one or two algebraic laws (e.g., x+0 -> x; y-y -> 0) but hardwiring many laws this way will produce an impossible mess because of how they interact.
JavaCC might form part of such an answer, but only a small part; the rest of the solution is hard enough so you are better off looking for an alternative rather than trying to build it all on top of JavaCC.
You need a more organized approach for this: a Program Transformation System (PTS). A typical PTS will allow you specify
a grammar for an arbitrary language (in your case, simply polynomials),
automatically parses instance to ASTs and can regenerate valid text from the AST. A good PTS will let you write source-to-source transformation rules that the PTS will apply automatically the instance AST; in your case you'd write down the algebraic laws as source-to-source rules and then the PTS does all the work.
An example is too long to provide here. But here I describe how to define formulas suitable for early calculus classes, and how to define algebraic rules that simply such formulas including applying some class calculus derivative laws.
With sufficient/significant effort, you can build your own PTS on top of JavaCC/JJTree. This is likely to take a few man-years. Easier to get a PTS rather than repeat all that work.
Let's say in the example lower case is constant and upper case is variable.
I'd like to have programs that can "intelligently" do specified tasks like algebra, but teaching the program new methods should be easy using symbols understood by humans. For example if the program told these facts:
aX+bX=(a+b)X
if a=bX then X=a/b
Then it should be able to perform these operations:
2a+3a=5a
3x+3x=6x
3x=1 therefore x=1/3
4x+2x=1 -> 6x=1 therefore x= 1/6
I was trying to do similar things with Prolog as it can easily "understand" variables, but then I had too many complications, mainly because two describing a relationship both ways results in a crash. (not easy to sort out)
To summarise: I want to know if a program which can be taught algebra by using mathematic symbols only. I'd like to know if other people have tried this and how complicated it is expected to be. The purpose of this is to make programming easier (runtime is not so important)
It depends on what do you want machine to do and how intelligent it should be.
Your question is mostly about AI but not ML. AI deals with formalization of "human" tasks while ML (though being a subset of AI) is about building models from data.
Described program may be implemented like this:
Each fact form a pattern. Program given with an expression and some patterns can try to apply some of them to expression and see what happens. If you want your program to be able to, for example, solve quadratic equations given rule like ax² + bx + c = 0 → x = (-b ± sqrt(b²-4ac))/(2a) then it'd be designed as follows:
Somebody gives a set of rules. Rule consists of a pattern and an outcome (solution or equivalent form). Think about the pattern as kind of a regular expression.
Then the program is asked to show some intelligence and prove its knowledge via doing something with a given expression. Here comes the major part:
you build a graph of expressions by applying possible rules (if a pattern is applicable to an expression you add new vertex with the corresponding outcome).
Then you run some path-search algorithm (A*, for example) to find sequence of transformations leading to the form like x = ...
I think this is an interesting question, although it off topic in SO (tool recommendation)
But nevertheless, because it captured my imagination, I wrote couple of function using R that can solve stuff like that quite easily
First, you'll have to install R, after words you'll need to download package called stringr
So in R console run
install.packages("stringr")
library(stringr)
And then you can define the following functions that I wrote
FirstFunc <- function(temp){
paste0(eval(parse(text = gsub("[A-Z]", "", temp))), unique(str_extract_all(temp, "[A-Z]")[[1]]))
}
SecondFunc <- function(temp){
eval(parse(text = strsplit(temp, "=")[[1]][2])) / eval(parse(text = gsub("[[:alpha:]]", "", strsplit(temp, "=")[[1]][1])))
}
Now, the first function will solve equations like
aX+bX=(a+b)X
While the second will solve equations like
4x+2x=1
For example
FirstFunc("3X+6X-2X-3X")
will return
"4X"
Now this functions is pretty primitive (mostly for the propose of illustration) and will solve equation that contain only one variable type, something like FirstFunc("3X-2X-2Y") won't give the correct result (but the function could be easily modified)
The second function will solve stuff like
SecondFunc("4x-2x=1")
will return
0.5
or
SecondFunc("4x+2x*3x=1")
will return
0.1
Note that this function also works only for one unknown variable (x) but could be easily modified too
I have asked a few questions about this recently and I am getting where I need to go, but have perhaps not been specific enough in my last questions to get all the way there. So, I am trying to put together a structure for calculating some metrics based on app data, which should be flexible to allow additional metrics to be added easily (and securely), and also relatively simple to use in my views.
The overall goal is that I will be able to have a custom helper that allows something like the following in my view:
calculate_metric(#metrics.where(:name => 'profit'),#customer,#start_date,#end_date)
This should be fairly self explanatory - the name can be substituted to any of the available metric names, and the calculation can be performed for any customer or group of customers, for any given time period.
Where the complexity arises is in how to store the formula for calculating the metric - I have shown below the current structure that I have put together for doing this:
You will note that the key models are metric, operation, operation_type and operand. This kind of structure works ok when the formula is very simple, like profit - one would only have two operands, #customer.sales.selling_price.sum and #customer.sales.cost_price.sum, with one operation of type subtraction. Since we don't need to store any intermediate values, register_target will be 1, as will return_register.
I don't think I need to write out a full example to show where it becomes more complicated, but suffice to say if I wanted to calculate the percentage of customers with email addresses for customers who opened accounts between two dates (but did not necessarily buy), this would become much more complex since the helper function would need to know how to handle the date variations.
As such, it seems like this structure is overly complicated, and would be hard to use for anything other than a simple formula - can anyone suggest a better way of approaching this problem?
EDIT: On the basis of the answer from Railsdog, I have made some slight changes to my model, and re-uploaded the diagram for clarity. Essentially, I have ensured that the reporting_category model can be used to hide intermediate operands from users, and that operands that may be used in user calculations can be presented in a categorised format. All I need now is for someone to assist me in modifying my structure to allow an operation to use either an actual operand or the result of a previous operation in a rails-esqe way.
Thanks for all of your help so far!
Oy vey. It's been years (like 15) since I did something similar to what it seems like you are attempting. My app was used to model particulate deposition rates for industrial incinerators.
In the end, all the computations boiled down to two operands and an operator (order of operations, parentheticals, etc). Operands were either constants, db values, or the result of another computation (a pointer to another computation). Any Operand (through model methods) could evaluate itself, whether that value was intrinsic, or required a child computation to evaluate itself first.
The interface wasn't particularly elegant (that's the real challenge I think), but the users were scientists, and they understood the computation decomposition.
Thinking about your issue, I'd have any individual Metric able to return it's value, and create the necessary methods to arrive at that answer. After all, a single metric just needs to know how to combine it's two operands using the indicated operator. If an operand is itself a metric, you just ask it what it's value is.