In SMT/SAT solving, is there some technique to determine irrelevant variables from a formula? i.e., those that can have any value and do not not affect the satisfiability of the formula.
For the case of propositional satisfiablity where a formula is a conjunction of clauses, each of which is a disjunction of literals. e.g. (A | B) & (!B | A) & (!A | B | A)
If a variable appears either only as a positive literal or only as a negative literal throughout the formula, it can be safely removed and any clauses that it appears in can be removed and regarded as satisfied. In a strict sense though, such a variable's value is not irrelevant as it may be the only variable that can satisfy those clauses in a satisfying assignment for certain formulae. Such variables are called pure and this phase is called pure literal elimination.
Before pure literal elimination, the formula should be cleaned so that any clause that contains a variable that appears both un-negated and negated is removed. This can lead to some variables becoming pure. Moreover, throughout the solution procedure, when a variable is identified as being pure, it should be eliminated.
e.g. the clause (!A | B | A) is trivially satisfied: no matter what value A takes, it is satisfied.
Then (A | B) & (!B | A) & (!A | B | A) -> (A | B) & (!B | A)
Now A is pure and can be set to True resulting in a satisfying assignment being found. Note that the solution was found without having to make any decisions, we simply applied two rules.
Related
I have those rules to build a simple calculator :
statement -> assignment | calculation
assignment -> variable '=' sum end
calculation -> sum end
sum -> product (('+' product)|('-' product))*
product -> factor (('*' factor)|('/' factor))*
factor -> term
term -> variable | number
My problem is how to model the rules for postfix and prefix increment and decrement. How can represent it in this grammar above so that, for example, if I have the assignment :
x=1
j=x++ +2
the result will be j=3 and x=2. How do I do post-increment after assignment?
The simplest grammar change would be to add the new operators to term:
term -> variable
| '++' variable | '--' variable
| variable '++' | variable '--'
| number
The new rules could have been added to factor instead, particularly since factor currently has no point at all and could be removed. However, if you ever add more complicated lvalues than a single variable (array subscripts for example) then that will have to be adjusted. Also, adding the operators to factor would make nonsense like ++2 syntactically possible, or (a+b)++ once you implement parentheses. So, although putting them in some non-terminal other than term is more common and probably more appropriate, it's not necessarily the best solution in this particular case.
The questions about the AST and the evaluation of the AST can't be answered without knowing a lot more about how you structure your ASTs. You're free to build ASTs in any way you feel appropriate, but it's probably worth noting that the AST must be able to distinguish between post- and pre-increment. Either you need to use a different operator symbol for the two cases, or you need some hack (such as the C++ hack of adding a fake operand to one of the two cases).
I am trying to build a syntax tree for regular expression. I use the strategy similar to arithmetic expression evaluation (i know that there are ways like recursive descent), that is, use two stack, the OPND stack and the OPTR stack, then to process.
I use different kind of node to represent different kind of RE. For example, the SymbolExpression, the CatExpression, the OrExpression and the StarExpression, all of them are derived from RegularExpression.
So the OPND stack stores the RegularExpression*.
while(c || optr.top()):
if(!isOp(c):
opnd.push(c)
c = getchar();
else:
switch(precede(optr.top(), c){
case Less:
optr.push(c)
c = getchar();
case Equal:
optr.pop()
c = getchar();
case Greater:
pop from opnd and optr then do operation,
then push the result back to opnd
}
But my primary question is, in typical RE, the cat operator is implicit.
a|bc represents a|b.c, (a|b)*abb represents (a|b)*.a.b.b. So when meeting an non-operator, how should i do to determine whether there's a cat operator or not? And how should i deal with the cat operator, to correctly implement the conversion?
Update
Now i've learn that there is a kind of grammar called "operator precedence grammar", its evaluation is similar to arithmetic expression's. It require that the pattern of the grammar cannot have the form of S -> ...AB...(A and B are non-terminal). So i guess that i just cannot directly use this method to parse the regular expression.
Update II
I try to design a LL(1) grammar to parse the basic regular expression.
Here's the origin grammar.（\| is the escape character, since | is a special character in grammar's pattern)
E -> E \| T | T
T -> TF | F
F -> P* | P
P -> (E) | i
To remove the left recursive, import new Variable
E -> TE'
E' -> \| TE' | ε
T -> FT'
T' -> FT' | ε
F -> P* | P
P -> (E) | i
now, for pattern F -> P* | P， import P'
P' -> * | ε
F -> PP'
However, the pattern T' -> FT' | ε has problem. Consider case (a|b):
E => TE'
=> FT' E'
=> PT' E'
=> (E)T' E'
=> (TE')T'E'
=> (FT'E')T'E'
=> (PT'E')T'E'
=> (iT'E')T'E'
=> (iFT'E')T'E'
Here, our human know that we should substitute the Variable T' with T' -> ε, but program will just call T' -> FT', which is wrong.
So, what's wrong with this grammar? And how should i rewrite it to make it suitable for the recursive descendent method.
1. LL(1) grammar
I don't see any problem with your LL(1) grammar. You are parsing the string
(a|b)
and you have gotten to this point:
(a T'E')T'E' |b)
The lookahead symbol is | and you have two possible productions:
T' ⇒ FT'
T' ⇒ ε
FIRST(F) is {(, i}, so the first production is clearly incorrect, both for the human and the LL(1) parser. (A parser without lookahead couldn't make the decision, but parsers without lookahead are almost useless for practical parsing.)
2. Operator precedence parsing
You are technically correct. Your original grammar is not an operator grammar. However, it is normal to augment operator precedence parsers with a small state machine (otherwise algebraic expressions including unary minus, for example, cannot be correctly parsed), and once you have done that it is clear where the implicit concatenation operator must go.
The state machine is logically equivalent to preprocessing the input to insert an explicit concatenation operator where necessary -- that is, between a and b whenever a is in {), *, i} and b is in {), i}.
You should take note that your original grammar does not really handle regular expressions unless you augment it with an explicit ε primitive to represent the empty string. Otherwise, you have no way to express optional choices, usually represented in regular expressions as an implicit operand (such as (a|), also often written as a?). However, the state machine is easily capable of detecting implicit operands as well because there is no conflict in practice between implicit concatenation and implicit epsilon.
I think just keeping track of the previous character should be enough. So if we have
(a|b)*abb
^--- we are here
c = a
pc = *
We know * is unary, so 'a' cannot be its operand. So we must have concatentation. Similarly at the next step
(a|b)*abb
^--- we are here
c = b
pc = a
a isn't an operator, b isn't an operator, so our hidden operator is between them. One more:
(a|b)*abb
^--- we are here
c = b
pc = |
| is a binary operator expecting a right-hand operand, so we do not concatenate.
The full solution probably involves building a table for each possible pc, which sounds painful, but it should give you enough context to get through.
If you don't want to mess up your loop, you could do a preprocessing pass where you insert your own concatenation character using similar logic. Can't tell you if that's better or worse, but it's an idea.
Dafny has no problem with this definition of a set intersection function.
function method intersection(A: set<int>, B: set<int>): (r: set<int>)
{
set x | x in A && x in B
}
But when it comes to union, Dafny complains, "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'". A and B are finite, and so, clearly the union is, too.
function method union(A: set<int>, B: set<int>): (r: set<int>)
{
set x | x in A || x in B
}
What explains this, to-a-beginner seemingly discrepant, behavior?
This is indeed potentially surprising!
First, let me note that in practice, Dafny has built-in operators for intersection and union that it knows preserve finiteness. So you don't need to use set comprehensions to express these ideas. Instead you could just say A * B and A + B respectively.
However, my guess is that you're running into a more complicated example where you're using a set comprehension with a disjunction and are confused about why Dafny can't prove it finite.
Dafny uses syntactic heuristics to determine whether a set comprehension is finite. Unfortunately, these heuristics are not well documented anywhere. For purposes of this question, the key point is that the heuristics either depend on the type of the comprehension's bound variables, or look for a conjunct that constrains elements to be bounded in some other way. For example, Dafny can prove
set x: int | 0 <= x < 10 && ...
finite, as well as
set x:A | x in S && ...
In both cases, it is essential that the relevant bounds be conjuncts. Dafny has no syntactic heuristic for proving a bound for disjunctions, although one could imagine adding one. That is why Dafny cannot prove your union function finite.
As an aside, another work around would be to use potentially infinite sets (written iset in Dafny). If you don't need use the cardinality of the sets, then these might work better.
Goal: find a way to formally define a grammar that recognizes elements from a set 0 or 1 times in any order. Subsequently, I want to parse it and generate an AST as well.
For example: Say the set of valid strings in my language is {A, B, C}. I want to define a grammar that recognizes all valid permutations of any number of those elements.
Syntactically valid strings would include:
(the empty string)
A,
B A, and
C A B
Syntactically invalid strings would include:
A A, and
B A C B
To be clear, defining all possible permutations explicitly in a CFG is unacceptable for my purposes, since larger sets would be impossible to maintain.
From what I understand, such a language fails the pumping lemma for context free languages, so the solution will not be context free or regular.
Update
What I'm after is called a "permutation language", which Benedek Nagy has done some theoretical work on as an extension to context free languages.
Regarding a parser generator, I've only found talk of implementing parsers with a permutation phase (link). Parsers evidently have an exponential lower bound on the size of resulting CFG, and I haven't found any parser generators that support it anyhow.
A sort-of solution to this problem was written in ANTLR. It uses semantic predicates to 'code around' the issue.
Assuming that the set of alternative strings is fixed and known in advance, say of size n, one can come up with a (non context-free) grammar of size O(n!). This is not asymptotically smaller than enumerating all permutations, so I suppose it cannot be considered a good solution. I believe that this grammar can be reformulated as a context-sensitive grammar (although in the form I'm suggesting below it is not).
For the example {a, b, c} mentioned in the question, one such grammar is the following. I'm using lower case letters for terminal symbols and upper case letters for non-terminals, as is customary. S is the initial non-terminal symbol.
S ::= XabcY
XabcY ::= aXbcY | bXacY | cXabY
XabY ::= ab | ba
XacY ::= ac | ca
XbcY ::= bc | cb
Non-terminals X and Y enclose the substring in the production which has not been finalized yet; this substring will eventually be replaced by a permutation of the terminals that are given between X and Y (in some arbitrary order).
I've got a simple grammar. Actually, the grammar I'm using is more complex, but this is the smallest subset that illustrates my question.
Expr ::= Value Suffix
| "(" Expr ")" Suffix
Suffix ::= "->" Expr
| "<-" Expr
| Expr
| epsilon
Value matches identifiers, strings, numbers, et cetera. The Suffix rule is there to eliminate left-recursion. This matches expressions such as:
a -> b (c -> (d) (e))
That is, a graph where a goes to both b and the result of (c -> (d) (e)), and c goes to d and e. I'm trying to produce an abstract syntax tree for these expressions, but I'm running into difficulty because all of the operators can accept any number of operands on each side. I'd rather keep the logic for producing the AST within the recursive descent parsing methods, since it avoids having to duplicate the logic of extracting an expression. My current strategy is as follows:
If a Value appears, push it to the output.
If a From or To appears:
Output a separator.
Get the next Expr.
Create a Link node.
Pop the first set of operands from output into the Link until a separator appears.
Erase the separator discovered.
Pop the second set of operands into the Link until a separator.
Push the Link to the output.
If I run this through without obeying steps 2.3–2.7, I get a list of values and separators. For the expression quoted above, a -> b (c -> (d) (e)), the output should be:
A sep_1 B sep_2 C sep_3 D E
Applying the To rule would then yield:
A sep_1 B sep_2 (link from C to {D, E})
And subsequently:
(link from A to {B, (link from C to {D, E})})
The important thing to note is that sep_2, crucial to delimit the left-hand operands of the second ->, does not appear, so the parser believes that the expression was actually written:
a -> (b c -> (d) (e))
In order to solve this with my current strategy, I would need a way to produce a separator between adjacent expressions, but only if the current expression is a From or To expression enclosed in parentheses. If that's possible, then I'm just not seeing it and the answer ought to be simple. If there's a better way to go about this, however, then please let me know!
I haven't tried to analyze it in detail, but: "From or To expression enclosed in parentheses" starts to sound a lot like "context dependent", which recursive descent can't handle directly. To avoid context dependence you'll probably need a separate production for a From or To in parentheses vs. a From or To without the parens.
Edit: Though it may be too late to do any good, if my understanding of what you want to match is correct, I think I'd write it more like this:
Graph :=
| List Sep Graph
;
Sep := "->"
| "<-"
;
List :=
| Value List
;
Value := Number
| Identifier
| String
| '(' Graph ')'
;
It's hard to be certain, but I think this should at least be close to matching (only) the inputs you want, and should make it reasonably easy to generate an AST that reflects the input correctly.