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.
I have tried to implement Floor and Ceiling Function as defined in the following link
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3619044/floor-or-ceiling-function-encoding-in-first-order-logic/3619320#3619320
But Z3 query returning counterexample.
Floor Function
_X=Real('_X')
_Y=Int('_Y')
_W=Int('_W')
_n=Int('_n')
_Floor=Function('_Floor',RealSort(),IntSort())
..
_s.add(_X>=0)
_s.add(_Y>=0)
_s.add(Implies(_Floor(_X)==_Y,And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W ==_Y,_W<_Y))))))
_s.add(Implies(And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W==_Y,_W<_Y))),_Floor(_X)==_Y))
_s.add(Not(_Floor(0.5)==0))
Expected Result - Unsat
Actual Result - Sat
Ceiling Function
_X=Real('_X')
_Y=Int('_Y')
_W=Int('_W')
_Ceiling=Function('_Ceiling',RealSort(),IntSort())
..
..
_s.add(_X>=0)
_s.add(_Y>=0)
_s.add(Implies(_Ceiling(_X)==_Y,And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W ==_Y,_Y<_W))))))
_s.add(Implies(And(Or(_Y==_X,_Y<_X),ForAll(_W,Implies(And(_W>=0,_W<_X),And(_W==_Y,_Y<_W)))),_Ceiling(_X)==_Y))
_s.add(Not(_Ceilng(0.5)==1))
Expected Result - Unsat
Actual Result - Sat
[Your encoding doesn't load to z3, it gives a syntax error even after eliminating the '..', as your call to Implies needs an extra argument. But I'll ignore all that.]
The short answer is, you can't really do this sort of thing in an SMT-Solver. If you could, then you can solve arbitrary Diophantine equations. Simply cast it in terms of Reals, solve it (there is a decision procedure for Reals), and then add the extra constraint that the result is an integer by saying Floor(solution) = solution. So, by this argument, you can see that modeling such functions will be beyond the capabilities of an SMT solver.
See this answer for details: Get fractional part of real in QF_UFNRA
Having said that, this does not mean you cannot code this up in Z3. It just means that it will be more or less useless. Here's how I would go about it:
from z3 import *
s = Solver()
Floor = Function('Floor',RealSort(),IntSort())
r = Real('R')
f = Int('f')
s.add(ForAll([r, f], Implies(And(f <= r, r < f+1), Floor(r) == f)))
Now, if I do this:
s.add(Not(Floor(0.5) == 0))
print(s.check())
you'll get unsat, which is correct. If you do this instead:
s.add(Not(Floor(0.5) == 1))
print(s.check())
you'll see that z3 simply loops forever. To make this usefull, you'd want the following to work as well:
test = Real('test')
s.add(test == 2.4)
result = Int('result')
s.add(Floor(test) == result)
print(s.check())
but again, you'll see that z3 simply loops forever.
So, bottom line: Yes, you can model such constructs, and z3 will correctly answer the simplest of queries. But with anything interesting, it'll simply loop forever. (Essentially whenever you'd expect sat and most of the unsat scenarios unless they can be constant-folded away, I'd expect z3 to simply loop.) And there's a very good reason for that, as I mentioned: Such theories are just not decidable and fall well out of the range of what an SMT solver can do.
If you are interested in modeling such functions, your best bet is to use a more traditional theorem prover, like Isabelle, Coq, ACL2, HOL, HOL-Light, amongst others. They are much more suited for working on these sorts of problems. And also, give a read to Get fractional part of real in QF_UFNRA as it goes into some of the other details of how you can go about modeling such functions using non-linear real arithmetic.
I am writing a parser for a query engine. My parser DCG query is not deterministic.
I will be using the parser in a relational manner, to both check and synthesize queries.
Is it appropriate for a parser DCG to not be deterministic?
In code:
If I want to be able to use query/2 both ways, does it require that
?- phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]).
true;
false.
or should I be able to obtain
?- phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]).
true.
nevertheless, given that the first snippet would require me to use it as such
?- bagof(X, phrase(query, [q,u,e,r,y]), [true]).
true.
when using it to check a formula?
The first question to ask yourself, is your grammar deterministic, or in the terminology of grammars, unambiguous. This is not asking if your DCG is deterministic, but if the grammar is unambiguous. That can be answered with basic parsing concepts, no use of DCG is needed to answer that question. In other words, is there only one way to parse a valid input. The standard book for this is "Compilers : principles, techniques, & tools" (WorldCat)
Now you are actually asking about three different uses for parsing.
A recognizer.
A parser.
A generator.
If your grammar is unambiguous then
For a recognizer the answer should only be true for valid input that can be parsed and false for invalid input.
For the parser it should be deterministic as there is only one way to parse the input. The difference between a parser and an recognizer is that a recognizer only returns true or false and a parser will return something more, typically an abstract syntax tree.
For the generator, it should be semi-deterministic so that it can generate multiple results.
Can all of this be done with one, DCG, yes. The three different ways are dependent upon how you use the input and output of the DCG.
Here is an example with a very simple grammar.
The grammar is just an infix binary expression with one operator and two possible operands. The operator is (+) and the operands are either (1) or (2).
expr(expr(Operand_1,Operator,Operand_2)) -->
operand(Operand_1),
operator(Operator),
operand(Operand_2).
operand(operand(1)) --> "1".
operand(operand(2)) --> "2".
operator(operator(+)) --> "+".
recognizer(Input) :-
string_codes(Input,Codes),
DCG = expr(_),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]).
parser(Input,Ast) :-
string_codes(Input,Codes),
DCG = expr(Ast),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]).
generator(Generated) :-
DCG = expr(_),
phrase(DCG,Codes,[]),
string_codes(Generated,Codes).
:- begin_tests(expr).
recognizer_test_case_success("1+1").
recognizer_test_case_success("1+2").
recognizer_test_case_success("2+1").
recognizer_test_case_success("2+2").
test(recognizer,[ forall(recognizer_test_case_success(Input)) ] ) :-
recognizer(Input).
recognizer_test_case_fail("2+3").
test(recognizer,[ forall(recognizer_test_case_fail(Input)), fail ] ) :-
recognizer(Input).
parser_test_case_success("1+1",expr(operand(1),operator(+),operand(1))).
parser_test_case_success("1+2",expr(operand(1),operator(+),operand(2))).
parser_test_case_success("2+1",expr(operand(2),operator(+),operand(1))).
parser_test_case_success("2+2",expr(operand(2),operator(+),operand(2))).
test(parser,[ forall(parser_test_case_success(Input,Expected_ast)) ] ) :-
parser(Input,Ast),
assertion( Ast == Expected_ast).
parser_test_case_fail("2+3").
test(parser,[ forall(parser_test_case_fail(Input)), fail ] ) :-
parser(Input,_).
test(generator,all(Generated == ["1+1","1+2","2+1","2+2"]) ) :-
generator(Generated).
:- end_tests(expr).
The grammar is unambiguous and has only 4 valid strings which are all unique.
The recognizer is deterministic and only returns true or false.
The parser is deterministic and returns a unique AST.
The generator is semi-deterministic and returns all 4 valid unique strings.
Example run of the test cases.
?- run_tests.
% PL-Unit: expr ........... done
% All 11 tests passed
true.
To expand a little on the comment by Daniel
As Daniel notes
1 + 2 + 3
can be parsed as
(1 + 2) + 3
or
1 + (2 + 3)
So 1+2+3 is an example as you said is specified by a recursive DCG and as I noted a common way out of the problem is to use parenthesizes to start a new context. What is meant by starting a new context is that it is like getting a new clean slate to start over again. If you are creating an AST, you just put the new context, items in between the parenthesizes, as a new subtree at the current node.
With regards to write_canonical/1, this is also helpful but be aware of left and right associativity of operators. See Associative property
e.g.
+ is left associative
?- write_canonical(1+2+3).
+(+(1,2),3)
true.
^ is right associative
?- write_canonical(2^3^4).
^(2,^(3,4))
true.
i.e.
2^3^4 = 2^(3^4) = 2^81 = 2417851639229258349412352
2^3^4 != (2^3)^4 = 8^4 = 4096
The point of this added info is to warn you that grammar design is full of hidden pitfalls and if you have not had a rigorous class in it and done some of it you could easily create a grammar that looks great and works great and then years latter is found to have a serious problem. While Python was not ambiguous AFAIK, it did have grammar issues, it had enough issues that when Python 3 was created, many of the issues were fixed. So Python 3 is not backward compatible with Python 2 (differences). Yes they have made changes and libraries to make it easier to use Python 2 code with Python 3, but the point is that the grammar could have used a bit more analysis when designed.
The only reason why code should be non-deterministic is that your question has multiple answers. In that case, you'd of course want your query to have multiple solutions. Even then, however, you'd like it to not leave a choice point after the last solution, if at all possible.
Here is what I mean:
"What is the smaller of two numbers?"
min_a(A, B, B) :- B < A.
min_a(A, B, A) :- A =< B.
So now you ask, "what is the smaller of 1 and 2" and the answer you expect is "1":
?- min_a(1, 2, Min).
Min = 1.
?- min_a(2, 1, Min).
Min = 1 ; % crap...
false.
?- min_a(2, 1, 2).
false.
?- min_a(2, 1, 1).
true ; % crap...
false.
So that's not bad code but I think it's still crap. This is why, for the smaller of two numbers, you'd use something like the min() function in SWI-Prolog.
Similarly, say you want to ask, "What are the even numbers between 1 and 10"; you write the query:
?- between(1, 10, X), X rem 2 =:= 0.
X = 2 ;
X = 4 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 8 ;
X = 10.
... and that's fine, but if you then ask for the numbers that are multiple of 3, you get:
?- between(1, 10, X), X rem 3 =:= 0.
X = 3 ;
X = 6 ;
X = 9 ;
false. % crap...
The "low-hanging fruit" are the cases where you as a programmer would see that there cannot be non-determinism, but for some reason your Prolog is not able to deduce that from the code you wrote. In most cases, you can do something about it.
On to your actual question. If you can, write your code so that there is non-determinism only if there are multiple answers to the question you'll be asking. When you use a DCG for both parsing and generating, this sometimes means you end up with two code paths. It feels clumsy but it is easier to write, to read, to understand, and probably to make efficient. As a word of caution, take a look at this question. I can't know that for sure, but the problems that OP is running into are almost certainly caused by unnecessary non-determinism. What probably happens with larger inputs is that a lot of choice points are left behind, there is a lot of memory that cannot be reclaimed, a lot of processing time going into book keeping, huge solution trees being traversed only to get (as expected) no solutions.... you get the point.
For examples of what I mean, you can take a look at the implementation of library(dcg/basics) in SWI-Prolog. Pay attention to several things:
The documentation is very explicit about what is deterministic, what isn't, and how non-determinism is supposed to be useful to the client code;
The use of cuts, where necessary, to get rid of choice points that are useless;
The implementation of number//1 (towards the bottom) that can "generate extract a number".
(Hint: use the primitives in this library when you write your own parser!)
I hope you find this unnecessarily long answer useful.
If I want to compute a^b mod c then there is an efficient way of doing this, without computing a^b in full.
However, when programming, if I write f g x then g(x) is computed regardless of f.
J provides for composing f and g in special cases, and the modulo power function is one of them. For instance, the following runs extremely quickly.
1000&| # (2&^) 10000000x
This is because the 'atop' conjunction # tells the language to compose the functions if possible. If I remove it, it goes unbearably slowly.
If however I want to work with x^x , then ^~ no longer works and I get limit errors for large values. Binding those large values however does work.
So
999&| # (100333454&^) 100333454x
executes nice and fast but
999&| # ^~ 100333454x
gives me a limit error - the RHS is too big.
Am I right in thinking that in this case, J is not using an efficient power-modulo algorithm?
Per the special code page:
m&|#^ dyad avoids exponentiation for integer arguments
m&|#(n&^) monad avoids exponentiation for integer arguments
The case for ^~ is not supported by special code.
https://github.com/Pascal-J/BN-openssl-bindings-for-J
includes bindings for openssl (distributed with J on windows, and pre-installed on all other compatible systems)'s BN library including modexp. The x ^ x case will be especially efficient due to fewer parameters converted from J to "C" (BN)
I have to partition a multiset into two sets who sums are equal. For example, given the multiset:
1 3 5 1 3 -1 2 0
I would output the two sets:
1) 1 3 3
2) 5 -1 2 1 0
both of which sum to 7.
I need to do this using Z3 (smt2 input format) and "Linear Arithmetic Logic", which is defined as:
formula : formula /\ formula | (formula) | atom
atom : sum op sum
op : = | <= | <
sum : term | sum + term
term : identifier | constant | constant identifier
I honestly don't know where to begin with this and any advice at all would be appreciated.
Regards.
Here is an idea:
1- Create a 0-1 integer variable c_i for each element. The idea is c_i is zero if element is in the first set, and 1 if it is in the second set. You can accomplish that by saying that 0 <= c_i and c_i <= 1.
2- The sum of the elements in the first set can be written as 1*(1 - c_1) + 3*(1 - c_2) + ... +
3- The sum of the elements in the second set can be written as 1*c1 + 3*c2 + ...
While SMT-Lib2 is quite expressive, it's not the easiest language to program in. Unless you have a hard requirement that you have to code directly in SMTLib2, I'd recommend looking into other languages that have higher-level bindings to SMT solvers. For instance, both Haskell and Scala have libraries that allow you to script SMT solvers at a much higher level. Here's how to solve your problem using the Haskell, for instance: https://gist.github.com/1701881.
The idea is that these libraries allow you to code at a much higher level, and then perform the necessary translation and querying of the SMT solver for you behind the scenes. (If you really need to get your hands onto the SMTLib encoding of your problem, you can use these libraries as well, as they typically come with the necessary API to dump the SMTLib they generate before querying the solver.)
While these libraries may not offer everything that Z3 gives you access to via SMTLib, they are much easier to use for most practical problems of interest.