I was reading F# code when I found two operators I was not aware of.
"Clean"
==> "ResolveDependencies"
==> "SetBuildNumber"
=?> ("PatchAssemblyInfo", buildServer = TeamCity)
I looked into the F# documentation page for the operators without success. I did not find anything about them. What are they?
F# supports custom operators and that's what they are. You did not look into the right documentation. I guess you are using Fake. Fake defines exactly those operators:
AdditionalSyntax
Provides functions and operators to deal with FAKE targets and target dependencies.
Functions and values
( ? ) f s Allows to use Tokens instead of strings
( ?<- ) f str action Allows to use Tokens instead of strings for TargetNames
( ?=> ) x y Defines a soft dependency. x must run before y, if it is present, but y does not require x to be run.
( <=? ) y x Defines a soft dependency. x must run before y, if it is present, but y does not require x to be run.
( <=> ) x y Defines that x and y are not dependent on each other but y is dependent on all dependencies of x.
( =?> ) x (y, condition) Defines a conditional dependency - y is dependent on x if the condition is true
( ==> ) x y Defines a dependency - y is dependent on x
...
source
Related
In Z3-Py, I am performing quantifier elimination (QE) over the following formulae:
Exists y. Forall x. (x>=2) => ((y>1) /\ (y<=x))
Forall x. Exists y. (x>=2) => ((y>1) /\ (y<=x)),
where both x and y are Integers. I did QE in the following way:
x, y = Ints('x, y')
t = Tactic("qe")
negS0= (x >= 2)
s1 = (y > 1)
s2 = (y <= x)
#EA
ea = Goal()
ea.add(Exists([y],Implies(negS0, (ForAll([x], And(s1,s2))))))
ea_qe = t(ea)
print(ea_qe)
#AE
ae = Goal()
ae.add(ForAll([x],Implies(negS0, (Exists([y], And(s1,s2))))))
ae_qe = t(ae)
print(ae_qe)
Result QE for ae is as expected: [[]] (i.e., True). However, as for ea, QE outputs: [[Not(x, >= 2)]], which is a results that I do not know how to interpret since (1) it has not really performed QE (note the resulting formula still contains x and indeed does not contain y which is the outermost quantified variable) and (2) I do not understand the meaning of the comma in x, >=. I cannot get the model either:
phi = Exists([y],Implies(negS0, (ForAll([x], And(s1,s2)))))
s_def = Solver()
s_def.add(phi)
print(s_def.model())
This results in the error Z3Exception: model is not available.
I think the point is as follows: since (x>=2) is an implication, there are two ways to satisfy the formula; by making the antecedent False or by satisfying the consequent. In the second case, the model would be y=2. But in the first case, the result of QE would be True, thus we cannot get a single model (as it happens with a universal model):
phi = ForAll([x],Implies(negS0, (Exists([y], And(s1,s2)))))
s_def = Solver()
s_def.add(phi)
print(s_def.model())
In any case, I cannot 'philosophically' understand the meaning of a QE of x where x is part of the (quantifier-eliminated) answer.
Any help?
There are two separate issues here, I'll address them separately.
The mysterious comma This is a common gotcha. You declared:
x, y = Ints('x, y')
That is, you gave x the name "x," and y the name "y". Note the comma after the x in the name. This should be
x, y = Ints('x y')
I guess you can see the difference: The name you gave to the variable x is "x," when you do the first; i.e., comma is part of the name. Simply skip the comma on the right hand side, which isn't what you intended anyhow. And the results will start being more meaningful. To be fair, this is a common mistake, and I wish the z3 developers ignored the commas and other punctuation in the string you give; but that's just not the case. They simply break at whitespace.
Quantification
This is another common gotcha. When you write:
ea.add(Exists([y],Implies(negS0, (ForAll([x], And(s1,s2))))))
the x that exists in negS0 is not quantified over by your ForAll, since it's not in the scope. Perhaps you meant:
ea.add(Exists([y],ForAll([x], Implies(negS0, And(s1,s2)))))
It's hard to guess what you were trying to do, but I hope the above makes it clear that the x wasn't quantified. Also, remember that a top-level exist quantifier in a formula is more or less irrelevant. It's equivalent to a top-level declaration for all practical purposes.
Once you make this fix, I think things will become more clear. If not, please ask further clarifying questions. (As a separate question on Stack-overflow; as edits to existing questions only complicate the matters.)
In the implementation of the prelude for cubical agda, there is a definition of 3 component path composition
_∙∙_∙∙_ : w ≡ x → x ≡ y → y ≡ z → w ≡ z
This definition feels reasonably natural and clean to me. But then to get the 2 component path composition operator there are 3 choices: One for fixing each of the arguments as refl.
The standard ∙ is done by fixing the first argument, and another implementation (∙') is given for fixing the third argument. There is then a proof that they are the same. But the version fixing the 2nd argument is not discussed.
It seems to me that the 2nd argument version (call it ∘) has a nice property that
sym (p1 ∘ p2) is equal to sym p2 ∘ sym p1 definitionally. This seems like it can reduce the book keeping in some proofs.
Are there reasons why this version is not the standard version? Are there other computational properties that are better with the standard version?
So I'm trying to get all of the elements from a set of sets but am getting the error:
"a set comprehension must produce a finite set, but Dafny's heuristics can't figure out how to produce a bounded set of values for 'x' "
I think it may be to do with the fact that you can't get the cardinality of a set.
Appreciate all help.
function flatten(nested: set<set<int>>) : set<int>
{ set x | forall y :: y in nested && x in y :: x }
Perhaps the following will do what you want:
function flatten(nested: set<set<int>>) : set<int>
{
set x, y | y in nested && x in y :: x
}
Your definition is quite different. It says something along the lines of "the set of elements such that for all y at all of type set<int>, y is in nested and x is in y." This is typically false (and thus useless) because it requires that nested be a finite set that contains all sets of type set<int>.
Finally, also note that you can get the cardinality of a set S using the expression |S|.
(define make (lambda (x) (lambda (y) (cons x (list y)))))
(let ((x 7)
(p (make 4)))
(cons x (p 0)))
I'm new to Scheme and functional program, so I am a bit clunky with walking through programs, but I get that if I used deep binding this program will return (7 4 0). Makes sense. What would this program do using shallow binding? I get this may sound dumb but is the p in the line with cons a redefinition? So in that case, we would return (7 0)?
Basically, I understand the concept of deep v. shallow binding, but I feel like I'm jumbling it up when looking at Scheme because I'm not crazy familiar with it.
Deep or shallow binding is an implementational technique and can not be observed from inside the program. The difference for the programmer is between lexical and dynamic scoping rules, but both can be implemented with any of the two techniques (i.e. one notion has got nothing to do with the other).
Deep or shallow refers to the choice of stack frame to hold a given outer scoped variable's binding. In deep binding there is a chain of frames to be accessed until the correct frame is entered holding the record for the variable; in shallow binding all bindings are present in one, shallow environment. See also "rerooting" (which only makes sense in the context of shallow binding implementation of lexical scoping).
To your specific question, under lexical scoping rules your code would return (7 4 0) and under dynamic - (7 7 0), because the call ((lambda(y) (list x y)) 0) is done inside the dynamic scope of x=7 binding (as a side note, (cons x (list y)) is the same as (list x y)):
x = 7
p = (lambda (y) (list x y)) ; x=4 is unused, in p=(make 4)
(cons 7 (p 0)) == (list 7 7 0) ; 'x' in this line and in lambda body for p
; both refer to same binding that is
; in effect, i.e. x=7
NB same terms (deep/shallow binding) are used in other language(s) now with completely different meaning (they do have something to do with the scoping rules there), which I don't care to fully understand. This answer is given in the context of Scheme.
Reference: Shallow Binding in LISP 1.5 by Baker, Henry G. Jr., 1977.
See this wikipedia article for a discussion on scoping (it mentions lexical/dynamic scoping and deep/shallow binding) bearing in mind that Scheme is lexically scoped. Will Ness' answer provides additional information.
For now, let's see step-by-step what's happening in this snippet of code:
; a variable called x is defined and assigned the value 7
(let ((x 7)
; make is called and returns a procedure p, inside its x variable has value 4
(p (make 4)))
; 7 is appended at the head of the result of calling p with y = 0
(cons x (p 0)))
=> '(7 4 0)
Notice that in the second line a closure is created in the lambda returned by make, and the variable x inside will be assigned the value 4. This x has nothing to do with the outer x, because Scheme is lexically scoped.
The last line is not a redefinition, as mentioned in the previous paragraph the x inside make is different from the x defined in the let expression.
I have 2 formulas F1 and F2. These two formulas share most variables, except some 'temporary' (or I call them 'free') variables having different names, that are there for some reasons.
Now I want to prove F1 == F2, but prove() method of Z3 always takes into account all the variables. How can I tell prove() to ignore those 'free' variables, and focuses only on a list of variables I really care about?
I mean with all the same input to the list of my variables, if at the output time, F1 and F2 have the same value of all these variables (regardless the values of 'free' variables), then I consider them 'equivalence'
I believe this problem has been solved in other researches before, but I dont know where to look for the information.
Thanks so much.
We can use existential quantifiers to capture 'temporary'/'free' variables.
For example, in the following example, the formulas F and G are not equivalent.
x, y, z, w = Ints('x y z w')
F = And(x >= y, y >= z)
G = And(x > z - 1, w < z)
prove(F == G)
The script will produce the counterexample [z = 0, y = -1, x = 0, w = -1].
If we consider y and w as 'temporary' variables, we may try to prove:
prove(Exists([y], F) == Exists([w], G))
Now, Z3 will return proved. Z3 is essentially showing that for all x and z, there is a y that makes F true if and only if there is a w that makes G true.
Here is the full example.
Remark: when we add quantifiers, we are making the problem much harder for Z3. It may return unknown for problems containing quantifiers.
Apparently, I cannot comment, so I have to add another answer. The process of "disregarding" certain variables is typically called "projection" or "forgetting". I am not familiar with it in contexts going beyond propositional logic, but if direct existential quantification is possible (which Leo described), it is conceptually the simplest way to do it.