Running Windows x64 builds of Z3 4.3.2 (official download) and Z3 4.4 0ab54b9e0c33 on this program (which is unfortunately quite long) yields an invalid rational value passed as an integer.
The problem does not appear to be a type checker problem, because the apparently offending formula (the last check-sat in the program) looks fine type-wise:
(declare-const i#99 Int)
(declare-const k#38 Int)
...
(assert (not (and (<= 0 i#99) (< i#99 (+ k#38 1)))))
(check-sat) ; ERROR
My guess is that the problem occurs during proof search because marginally changing the program makes the error disappear. I experimented with changing Z3's configuration options and observed that the error disappears if smt.arith.nl is set to false, respectively, if smt.qi.eager_threshold is set to a value lower than 10. Moreover, removing essentially any push-pop scope preceding the last check-sat also makes the error disappear (I didn't actually try to remove every single scope, though). Both observations make me believe that the error is raised during proof search and in an "area" of the search space that is only reached under specific circumstances.
The offending line as well as lines I experimented with are marked by [XXX].
Is this a bug or is something else going on here?
The issue can be followed on Z3's GitHub page: https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3/issues/32.
Related
In Maxima, I am trying to simplify the expression
sqrt(1 - sin(x)) * sqrt(1 + sin(x))
to yield
cos(x)
I properly restricted the definition of x
declare(x, real) $
assume(x > 0, x < %pi/2) $
and tried several simplification commands including radcan, trigsimp, trigreduce and trigexpand, but without any success. How can this be done?
Try trigsimp(rootscontract(expr))
The restrictions you assert do not uniquely determine the simplified result you request.
It would seem both harmless and obviously unnecessary to declare or assume the following:
declare(9, real)
assume(9>0)
and yet, sqrt(9) is still the set {-3, +3}, mathematically speaking, as opposed to "what I learned in 6th grade".
Stavros' suggestion give |cos(x)|, which is not quite what the original questioner wanted.
Another way of getting the same result, one which may more explicitly exhibit the -in general falseness - of the result, is to square and then use the semi-bogus sqrt, that attempts to pick the positive answer.
trigsimp (sqrt(expand(expr^2)));
If you think this is a way of simplifying expr, note that it changes -3 to 3.
Can I save the constraints I created for a z3 solver and later reload them to continue looking for more solutions?
I have learned there is the SMT-LIB2 format for such things and that z3 and z3py have an API for saving and loading in that format. Unfortunately I cannot make it work.
Here's my example program which pointlessly saves and reloads:
import z3
filename = 'z3test.smt'
# Make a solver with some arbitrary useless constraint
solver = z3.Solver()
solver.add(True)
# Save to file
smt2 = solver.sexpr()
with open(filename, mode='w', encoding='ascii') as f: # overwrite
f.write(smt2)
f.close()
# Load from file
solver.reset()
solver.from_file(filename)
It fails with:
Exception has occurred: ctypes.ArgumentError
argument 3: <class 'TypeError'>: wrong type
File "C:\Users\Marian Aldenhövel\Desktop\FridgeIQ\z3\z3-4.8.4.d6df51951f4c-x64-win\bin\python\z3\z3core.py", line 3449, in Z3_solver_from_file
_elems.f(a0, a1, _to_ascii(a2))
File "C:\Users\Marian Aldenhövel\Desktop\FridgeIQ\z3\z3-4.8.4.d6df51951f4c-x64-win\bin\python\z3\z3.py", line 6670, in from_file
_handle_parse_error(e, self.ctx)
File "C:\Users\Marian Aldenhövel\Desktop\FridgeIQ\src\z3test.py", line 17, in <module>
solver.from_file(filename)
Is this a problem with my understanding or my code? Can it be done like this? Are sexpr() and from_file() the right pair of API calls?
I am using z3 and z3py 4.8.4 from https://github.com/z3prover/z3/releases on Windows 10 64bit.
More detail if required:
I am playing with z3 in Python to find solutions for a large disection-puzzle.
To find all solutions I am calling solver.check(). When it returns a sat verdict I interpret the model as image of my puzzle solution. I then add a blocking clause ruling out that specific solution and call solver.check() again.
This works fine and I am delighted.
The runtime to find all solutions will be on the order of many days or until I get bored. I am concerned that my machine will not be running continuously for that long. It may crash, run out of power, or be rebooted for other reasons.
I can easily recreate the initial constraints which is the whole point of the program. But the blocking clauses are a runtime product and a function of how far we have gotten.
I thought I could save the state of the solver and if at runtime I find such a file restart by loading that with the blocking clauses intact and go on finding more solutions instead of having to start over.
Thank you for taking your time reading and thinking.
Marian
With z3 4.4.1 and z3 4.8.5, I would dump (and reload) the constraints in smt2 format as follows:
import z3
filename = "z3test.smt2"
x1 = z3.Real("x1")
x2 = z3.Real("x2")
solver = z3.Solver()
solver.add(x1 != x2)
#
# STORE
#
with open(filename, mode='w') as f:
f.write(solver.to_smt2())
#
# RELOAD
#
solver.reset()
constraints = z3.parse_smt2_file(filename, sorts={}, decls={})
solver.add(constraints)
print(solver)
output:
~$ python t.py
[And(x1 != x2, True)]
file z3test.smt2:
(set-info :status unknown)
(declare-fun x2 () Real)
(declare-fun x1 () Real)
(assert
(and (distinct x1 x2) true))
(check-sat)
I have no idea whether the API changed in the version you are using. Feedback is welcome.
UPDATE:
I now realize that the question was stupid, I should have just filed the issue. In hindsight, I don't see why I even asked this question.
The issue is here: https://github.com/fsharp/FSharp.Compiler.Service/issues/544
Original question:
I'm using FSharp Compiler Services for parsing some F# code.
The particular piece of code that I'm facing right now is this:
let f x y = x+y
let g = f 1
let h = (g 2) + 3
This program yields a TAST without the (+) call on the last line. That is, the compiler service returns TAST as if the last line was just let h = g 2.
The question is: is this is a legitimate bug that I ought to report or am I missing something?
Some notes
Here is a repo containing minimal repro (I didn't want to include it in this question, because Compiler Services require quite a bit of dancing around).
Adding more statements after the let h line does not change the outcome.
When compiled to IL (as opposed to parsed with Compiler Services), it seems to work as expected (e.g. see fiddle)
If I make g a value, the program parses correctly.
If I make g a normal function (rather than partially applied one), the program parses correctly.
I have no priori experience with FSharp.Compiler.Services but nevertheless I did a small investigation using Visual Studio's debugger. I analyzed abstract syntax tree of following string:
"""
module X
let f x y = x+y
let g = f 1
let h = (g 2) + 3
"""
I've found out that there's following object inside it:
App (Val (op_Addition,NormalValUse,D:\file.fs (6,32--6,33) IsSynthetic=false),TType_forall ([T1; T2; T3],TType_fun (TType_var T1,TType_fun (...,...))),...,...,...)
As you can see, there's an addition in 6th line between characters 32 and 33.
The most likely explanation why F# Interactive doesn't display it properly is a bug in a library (maybe AST is in an inconsistent state or pretty-printing is broken). I think that you should file a bug in project's issue tracker.
UPDATE:
Aforementioned object can be obtained in a debbuger in a following way:
error.[0]
(option of Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.SourceCodeServices.FSharpImplementationFileDeclaration.Entity)
.Item2
.[2]
(option of Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.SourceCodeServices.FSharpImplementationFileDeclaration.MemberOrFunctionOrValue)
.Item3
.f (private member)
.Value
(option of Microsoft.FSharp.Compiler.SourceCodeServices.FSharpExprConvert.ConvExprOnDemand#903)
.expr
simple multiplication is failling in my script-fu.
the folowing code
(print "hello")
(print (/ 4 3))
(print (* 3 4))
(print "world")
Gives :
"hello"
1,333333333.0
Error: ( : 1) not enough arguments
Any idea ?
Thanks
I ran into a similar problem when trying to add new functionality to someone else's script. I wanted to provide my solution in case anyone else runs into a similar issue.
In this case, there was a '(let* (...))' statement that was being used to initialize some variables. The original author of the script wrote '(let * (...))' - with a space between let and star - which means every vector in the 'let' statement becomes the expected arguments for the '*' statement.
More info: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/let.html
Please excuse (and correct if necessary) any incorrect nomenclature regarding Scheme. I have barely just been exposed to it.
The problem is pretty simple.
I assert following statement in Z3 using the C API interface.
(assert(>= (xA 1) (- (yB 0) period))))
Now Sometimes, I need to check what kind of assertions have been fed and the result in the SatSolver. I do this, by generating a text file by using ast_to_string() API. This API returns me above statement as -
(assert(>= (xA 1) (+ (yB 0) (* -1 period))))
When I feed this file to the Sat Solver it complains me with the error -
(error "ERROR: line 150 column 56: could not locate id -1.")
So then, I have to manually fix all -1 in the code and run the sat solver.
Is there any other way where I can avoid this?
Remember to set:
Z3_set_ast_print_mode(ctx,Z3_PRINT_SMTLIB2_COMPLIANT);
before using ast_to_string() in order that that output formulas comply with SMTLIB 2.0 format.