Following code I have tried in Online and Offline Z3
(set-option :smt.mbqi true)
(declare-var X Int)
(declare-var X_ Int)
(declare-var a_ Int)
(declare-var su_ Int)
(declare-var t_ Int)
(declare-var N1 Int)
(assert (>= X 0))
(assert (forall ((n1 Int)) (=> (< n1 N1) (>= X (* (+ n1 1) (+ n1 1))))))
(assert (= X_ X))
(assert (= a_ N1))
(assert (= su_ (* (+ N1 1) (+ N1 1))))
(assert (= t_ (* (+ N1 1) 2)))
(assert (< X (* (+ N1 1) (+ N1 1))))
(assert (not (< X (* (+ a_ 1) (+ a_ 1)))))
(check-sat)
Result unsat
Following code I have tried in Z3PY
set_option('smt.mbqi', True)
s=Solver()
s.add(X>=0)
s.add(ForAll(n1,Implies(n1 < N1,((n1+1)**2)<=X)))
s.add(((N1+1)**2)>X)
s.add(X_==X)
s.add(a_==N1)
s.add(su_==((N1+1)**2))
s.add(t_==(2*(N1+1)))
s.add(Not(((a_+1)**2)>X))
result- unknown
Is processing power different?
The reason for the difference in results is because the input is not the same. For instance, the expression
(N1+1)**2
is semantically the same as
(* (+ N1 1) (+ N1 1))
but because of the syntactic difference, Z3 will not simplify the formula to something that it can solve easily. The syntactically equivalent problem in Python is
s.add(X>=0)
s.add(ForAll(n1,Implies(n1 < N1,((n1+1)**2)<=X)))
s.add(((N1+1)*(N1+1)) > X)
s.add(X_==X)
s.add(a_==N1)
s.add(su_==((N1+1)*(N1+1)))
s.add(t_==(2*(N1+1)))
s.add(Not(((a_+1)*(a_+1))>X))
which yields the desired result.
Are the constraints the same?
I don't see the python variant of:
(assert (< X (* (+ N1 1) (+ N1 1))))
Related
I am having trouble attempting to prove this fairly simple Z3 query.
(set-option :smt.auto-config false) ; disable automatic self configuration
(set-option :smt.mbqi false) ; disable model-based quantifier instantiation
(declare-fun sum (Int) Int)
(declare-fun list () (Array Int Int))
(declare-fun i0 () Int)
(declare-fun s0 () Int)
(declare-fun i1 () Int)
(declare-fun s1 () Int)
(assert (forall ((n Int))
(! (or (not (<= n 0)) (= (sum n) 0))
:pattern ((sum n)))))
(assert (forall ((n Int))
(! (let ((a1 (= (sum n)
(+ (select list (- n 1))
(sum (- n 1))))))
(or (<= n 0) a1))
:pattern ((sum n)))))
(assert (>= i0 0))
(assert (= s0 (sum i0)))
(assert (= i1 (+ 1 i0)))
(assert (= s1 (+ 1 s0 (select list i0))))
(assert (not (= s1 (sum i1))))
(check-sat)
Seems to me that the final assertion should instantiate the second quantified statement for i1 while the assert involving s0 should instantiate the quantifiers for i0. These two should should easily lead to UNSAT.
However, Z3 returns unknown. What am I missing?
Never mind, there was an silly error in my query.
This code:
(assert (= s1 (+ 1 s0 (select list i0))))
should have been:
(assert (= s1 (+ s0 (select list i0))))
I'm trying to get z3 to work (most of the time) for very simple non-linear integer arithmetic problems. Unfortunately, I've hit a bit of a wall with exponentiation. I want to be able handle problems like x^{a+b+2} = (x * x * x^{a} * x{b}). I only need to handle non-negative exponents.
I tried redefining exponentiation as a recursive function (so that it's just allowed to return 1 for any non-positive exponent) and using a pattern to facilitate z3 inferring that x^{a+b} = x^{a} * x^{b}, but it doesn't seem to work - I'm still timing out.
(define-fun-rec pow ((x!1 Int) (x!2 Int)) Int
(if (<= x!2 0) 1 (* x!1 (pow x!1 (- x!2 1)))))
; split +
(assert (forall ((a Int) (b Int) (c Int))
(! (=>
(and (>= b 0) (>= c 0))
(= (pow a (+ b c)) (* (pow a c) (pow a b))))
:pattern ((pow a (+ b c))))))
; small cases
(assert (forall ((a Int)) (= 1 (pow a 0))))
(assert (forall ((a Int)) (= a (pow a 1))))
(assert (forall ((a Int)) (= (* a a) (pow a 2))))
(assert (forall ((a Int)) (= (* a a a) (pow a 3))))
; Our problem
(declare-const x Int)
(declare-const i Int)
(assert (>= i 0))
; This should be provably unsat, by splitting and the small case for 2
(assert (not (= (* (* x x) (pow x i)) (pow x (+ i 2)))))
(check-sat) ;times out
Am I using patterns incorrectly, is there a way to give stronger hints to the proof search, or an easier way to do achieve what I want?
Pattern (also called triggers) may only contain uninterpreted functions. Since + is an interpreted function, you essentially provide an invalid pattern, in which case virtually anything can happen.
As a first step, I disabled Z3's auto-configuration feature and also MBQI-based quantifier instantiation:
(set-option :auto_config false)
(set-option :smt.mbqi false)
Next, I introduced an uninterpreted plus function and replaced each application of + by plus. That sufficed to make your assertion verify (i.e. yield unsat). You can of course also axiomatise plus in terms of +, i.e.
(declare-fun plus (Int Int) Int)
(assert (forall ((a Int) (b Int))
(! (= (plus a b) (+ a b))
:pattern ((plus a b)))))
but your assertion already verifies without the definitional axioms for plus.
I have a problem with quantifier.
Let a(0) = 0, and a(n+1) would be either a(n)+1 or a(n)+2 based on the value of x(n). We may expect that for any kind of x(.) and for all n, a(n) <= n*2.
Here is the code for Z3:
(declare-fun a (Int) Int)
(declare-fun x (Int) Int)
(declare-fun N () Int)
(assert (forall
((n Int))
(=> (>= n 0)
(= (a (+ n 1))
(ite (> (x n) 0)
(+ (a n) 1)
(+ (a n) 2)
)
)
)
))
(assert (= (a 0) 0))
(assert (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(check-sat)
(get-model)
I hope Z3 could return "unsat", while it always "timeout".
I wonder if Z3 could handle this kind of quantifier, and if somebody could give some advice.
Thanks.
The formula is SAT, for N < 0, the graph of a is underspecified.
But the default quantifier instantiation engine can't determine this. You can take advantage of that you are defining a recursive function to enforce a different engine.
;(declare-fun a (Int) Int)
(declare-fun x (Int) Int)
(declare-fun y (Int) Int)
(declare-fun N () Int)
(define-fun-rec a ((n Int)) Int
(if (> n 0) (if (> (x (- n 1)) 0) (+ (a (- n 1)) 1) (+ (a (- n 1)) 2)) (y n)))
(assert (= (a 0) 0))
(assert (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(check-sat)
(get-model)
As Malte writes, there is no support for induction on such formulas so don't expect Z3 to produce induction proofs. It does find inductive invariants on a class of Horn clause formulas, but it requires a transformation to cast arbitrary formulas into this format.
Thanks, Malte and Nikolaj.
The variable N should be bounded:
(assert (> N 0))
(assert (< N 10000))
I replace
(assert (> (a N) (+ N N)))
with
(assert (and
(not (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(> (a (+ N 1)) (+ (+ N 1) (+ N 1)))
))
and it works for both definition of a(n).
Does this a kind of inductive proof as you mentioned?
Here are the two blocks of code, and both of them return "unsat":
(declare-fun a (Int) Int)
(declare-fun x (Int) Int)
(declare-fun N () Int)
(assert (forall
((n Int))
(=> (>= n 0)
(= (a (+ n 1))
(ite (> (x n) 0)
(+ (a n) 1)
(+ (a n) 2)
)
))
))
(assert (= (a 0) 0))
(assert (> N 0))
(assert (< N 10000))
;(assert (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(assert (and
(not (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(> (a (+ N 1)) (+ (+ N 1) (+ N 1)))
))
(check-sat)
;(get-model)
and
(declare-fun x (Int) Int)
(declare-fun y (Int) Int)
(declare-fun N () Int)
(define-fun-rec a ((n Int)) Int
(if (> n 0)
(if (> (x (- n 1)) 0) (+ (a (- n 1)) 1) (+ (a (- n 1)) 2)) (y n)))
(assert (= (a 0) 0))
(assert (> N 0))
(assert (< N 10000))
;(assert (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(assert (and
(not (> (a N) (+ N N)))
(> (a (+ N 1)) (+ (+ N 1) (+ N 1)))
))
(check-sat)
;(get-model)
When I tried following in z3, I got result timeout
(set-option :smt.mbqi true)
(declare-fun R(Int) Int)
(declare-fun Q(Int) Int)
(declare-var X Int)
(declare-var Y Int)
(declare-const k Int)
(assert (>= X 0))
(assert (> Y 0))
(assert (forall ((n Int)) (=> (= n 0) (= (Q n) 0))))
(assert (forall ((n Int)) (=> (= n 0) (= (R n) X))))
(assert (forall ((n Int)) (=> (> n 0) (= (R (+ n 1) ) (+ (R n) (* 2 Y))))))
(assert (forall ((n Int)) (=> (> n 0) (= (Q (+ n 1) ) (- (Q n) 2)))))
(assert (forall ((n Int)) (=> (> n 0) (= X (+ (* (Q n) Y) (R n))))))
(assert (forall ((n Int)) (= X (+ (* (Q n) Y) (R n)))))
(assert (= X (+ (* (Q k) Y) (R k))))
(assert (not (= (* X 2) (+ (* (Q (+ k 1)) Y) (R (+ k 1))))))
(check-sat)
Same when I tried in z3py using following code, I got result unsat which is wrong
from z3 import *
x=Int('x')
y=Int('y')
k=Int('k')
n1=Int('n1')
r=Function('r',IntSort(),IntSort())
q=Function('q',IntSort(),IntSort())
s=Solver()
s.add(x>=0)
s.add(y>0)
s.add(ForAll(n1,Implies(n1==0,r(0)==x)))
s.add(ForAll(n1,Implies(n1==0,q(0)==0)))
s.add(ForAll(n1,Implies(n1>0,r(n1+1)==r(n1)-(2*y))))
s.add(ForAll(n1,Implies(n1>0,q(n1+1)==q(n1)+(2))))
s.add(x==q(k)*y+r(k))
s.add(not(2*x==q(k+1)*y+r(k+1)))
if sat==s.check():
print s.check()
print s.model()
else :
print s.check()
Looking forward to Suggestions.
My suggestion is to use replace the built-in not operator by the Z3 function called Not, e.g.
not(2*x==q(k+1)*y+r(k+1))
is simplified to False by Python before Z3 gets to see it, while
Not(2*x==q(k+1)*y+r(k+1))
has the desired meaning.
I am getting timeout on the following example.
http://rise4fun.com/Z3/zbOcW
Is there any trick to make this work (eg.by reformulating the problem or using triggers)?
For this example, the macro finder will be useful (I think often with forall quantifiers with implications), you can enable it with:
(set-option :macro-finder true)
Here's your updated example that gets sat quickly (rise4fun link: http://rise4fun.com/Z3/Ux7gN ):
(set-option :macro-finder true)
(declare-const a (Array Int Bool))
(declare-const sz Int)
(declare-const n Int)
(declare-const d Int)
(declare-const r Bool)
(declare-const x Int)
(declare-const y Int)
;;ttff
(declare-fun ttff (Int Int Int) Bool)
(assert
(forall ((x1 Int) (y1 Int) (n1 Int))
(= (ttff x1 y1 n1)
(and
(forall ((i Int))
(=> (and (<= x1 i) (< i y1))
(= (select a i) true)))
(forall ((i Int))
(=> (and (<= y1 i) (< i n1))
(= (select a i) false)))))))
;; A1
(assert (and (<= 0 n) (<= n sz)))
;; A2
(assert (< 0 d))
;; A3
(assert (and (and (<= 0 x) (<= x y)) (<= y n)))
;; A4
(assert (ttff x y n))
;; A6
(assert
(=> (< 0 y)
(= (select a (- y 1)) true)))
;; A7
(assert
(=> (< 0 x)
(= (select a (- x 1)) false)))
;;G
(assert
(not
(iff
(and (<= (* 2 d) (+ n 1)) (ttff (- (+ n 1) (* 2 d)) (- (+ n 1) d) (+ n 1)))
(and (= (- (+ n 1) y) d) (<= d (- y x))))))
(check-sat)
(get-model)