This might not beyond the scope of z3, I know in Z3 we can simplify expression, but I wonder if z3 can solve the equation instead of giving a model.
For example, I want the following equation always be true for any value of a. Using ForAll quantifier in this case would return unsat.
a == b - c + 2
The solution I expect is a formula for one specified variable while simplify doesn't deal with this, like
b == a + c - 2 or c == b - a + 2
Is there any API for this ? Thanks in advance.
Not sure what exactly the question is here, but it sounds like you want to get all satisfying solutions instead of a single satisfying solution. It is possible to encode that (with quantifiers), but not necessarily easy to solve; depending on the fragment of logic used within the quantifiers, Z3 may be slow, or it may simply give up relatively early (returning unknown). There is no dedicated API for this purpose, but the existing API has all the pieces required to solve the puzzle (e.g., use an uninterpreted function f to encode the solution symbolically and then get the func_interp for f from the model.)
For more information about getting more than one solution, see also Z3: finding all satisfying models and Z3 Enumerating all satisfying assignments.
Related
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.)
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
If I give Z3 a formula like p | q, I would expect Z3 to return p=true, q=don't care (or with p and q switched) but instead it seems to insist on assigning values to both p and q (even though I don't have completion turned on when calling Eval()). Besides being surprised at this, my question then is what if p and q are not simple prop. vars but expensive expressions and I know that typically either p or q will be true. Is there an easy way to ask Z3 to return a "minimal" model and not waste its time trying to satisfy both p and q? I already tried MkITE but that makes no difference. Or do i have to use some kind of tactic to enforce this?
thanks!
PS. I wanted to add that I have turned off AUTO_CONFIG, yet Z3 is trying to assign values to constants in both branches of the or: eg in the snippet below I want it to assign either to path2_2 and path2_1 or to path2R_2 and path2R_1 but not both
(or (and (select a!5 path2_2) a!6 (select a!5 path2_1) a!7)
(and (select a!5 path2R_2) a!8 (select a!5 path2R_1) a!9))
Z3 has a feature called relevancy propagation. It is described in this article. It does what you want. Note that, in most cases relevancy propagation has a negative impact on performance. In our experiments, it is only useful for problems containing quantifiers (quantifier reasoning is so expensive that it is pays off). By default, Z3 will use relevancy propagation in problems that contain quantifiers. Otherwise, it will not use it.
Here is an example on how to turn it on when the problem does not have quantifiers (the example is also available online here)
x, y = Bools('x y')
s = Solver()
s.set(auto_config=False, relevancy=2)
s.add(Or(x, y))
print s.check()
print s.model()
I'm playing with uninterpreted sorts and functions and cannot quite understand how quantified formulas interact with empty models. Here (also here http://rise4fun.com/Z3Py/6ets) are some simple examples that somewhat confuse me:
[∀v : False] is unsat, while "intuitively" it holds for an empty model.
Checking [∃v : v = v] yields an empty model while that does not have a satisfying assignment.
Some formulas, seemingly equivalent to [∃v : v = v], somehow prevent z3 from producing empty models. [∃v, v1 : v = v1] is one such example. E.g., if we add such formula to a solver and then try to create something resembling an allsat procedure (adding more and more constraints to rule out more and more models), we would run into unsat before getting an empty model.
So, could you please refer me to any documents/papers describing how z3 handles quantifiers and empty models?
Also, if I choose to restrict my attention to nonempty models only, what is the correct way to ask z3 for that? Things like [∃v, v1 : v = v1] seem to do the trick, but is there a better way?
Z3 does not consider empty models. This is a standard assumption in first-order logic. For more details search "first-order logic empty models", you will get many links explaining the motivation for this convention. The wikipedia page for first-order logic has a brief description (section "Empty domains").
Moreover, we should not confuse [] with the empty model. It is just saying that for satisfying the input formulas, Z3 does not need to assign an interpretation to any uninterpreted symbol in the input formula. Z3 displays only the interpretation of symbols that are needed to satisfy the formula. For example, the formula [∃v : v = v] does not contain any uninterpreted symbol, then Z3 just displays the empty assignment [].
I know that Z3 cannot check the satisfiability of formulas that contain recursive functions. But, I wonder if Z3 can handle such formulas over bounded data structures. For example, I've defined a list of length at most two in my Z3 program and a function, called last, to return the last element of the list. However, Z3 does not terminate when asked to check the satisfiability of a formula that contains last.
Is there a way to use recursive functions over bounded lists in Z3?
(Note that this related to your other question as well.) We looked at such cases as part of the Leon verifier project. What we are doing there is avoiding the use of quantifiers and instead "unrolling" the recursive function definitions: if we see the term length(lst) in the formula, we expand it using the definition of length by introducing a new equality: length(lst) = if(isNil(lst)) 0 else 1 + length(tail(lst)). You can view this as a manual quantifier instantiation procedure.
If you're interested in lists of length at most two, doing the manual instantiation for all terms, then doing it once more for the new list terms should be enough, as long as you add the term:
isCons(lst) => ((isCons(tail(lst)) => isNil(tail(tail(lst))))
for each list. In practice you of course don't want to generate these equalities and implications manually; in our case, we wrote a program that is essentially a loop around Z3 adding more such axioms when needed.
A very interesting property (very related to your question) is that it turns out that for some functions (such as length), using successive unrollings will give you a complete decision procedure. Ie. even if you don't constrain the size of the datastructures, you will eventually be able to conclude SAT or UNSAT (for the quantifier-free case).
You can find more details in our paper Satisfiability Modulo Recursive Programs, or I'm happy to give more here.
You may be interested in the work of Erik Reeber on SULFA, the ``Subclass of Unrollable List Formulas in ACL2.'' He showed in his PhD thesis how a large class of list-oriented formulas can be proven by unrolling function definitions and applying SAT-based methods. He proved decidability for the SULFA class using these methods.
See, e.g., http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~reeber/IJCAR-2006.pdf .