The GSAT (Greedy Satisfiability) algorithm can be used to find a solution to a search problem encoded in CNF. I'm aware that since GSAT is greedy, it is incomplete (which means there would be cases where a solution might exist, but GSAT cannot find it). From the following link, I learned that this can happen when flipping variables greedily traps us in a cycle such as I → I' → I'' → I.
http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~liberato/ar/incomplete/incomplete.html
I've been trying quite hard to come up with an actual instance that can show this, but have not been able to (and could not find examples elsewhere). Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks :)
P.S. I'm not talking about "hard" k-SAT problems in which the ratio of variables to clauses approaches 4.3. I'm just looking for a simple example, possibly involving the least number of variables and/or clauses required.
Take a small unsatisfiable formula with n variables and run GSAT for > 2^n steps. Since there are only 2^n different combinations to try, GSAT must repeat itself - it will not stop because the formula is not satisifed.
One small unsatisfiable formula is (A V B V C) ^ (~A V B V C) ^ (A V ~B V C) ^ (~A V ~B V C) ^ (A V B V ~C) ^ (~A V B V ~C) ^ (A V ~B V ~C) ^ (~A V ~B V ~C) - all 8 combinations of 3-variable terms.
In Knuth vol 4A section 7.1.1 equation 32 P 56 Knuth gives what he calls an interesting 8-clause formula with eight different variables.
What about the formula:
{x_1, x_2, -x_3}, {-x_1, x_2, -x_3}, {-x_2, -x_3}, {-x_2, -x_3}, {x_2, x_3}, {x_2, x_3}
This formula is satisfied via the assignment (0,1,0). However if one starts with the initial assignment (0,0,1) then one gets the scores (1,2,2) and therefore will flip x_1. Then one gets to the assignment (1,0,1) which again leads to the scores (1,2,2) and you are stuck. Then only a restart with another initial assignment will help you get out.
Of course this a little bit constructed due to the two doubled clauses but I am sure one can extend this easily to achieve a formula without repeated clauses.
Related
When attempting to solve logic problems on a computer, it is usual to first convert them to CNF, because the best solving algorithms expect CNF as input.
For propositional logic, the textbook rules for this conversion are simple, but if you apply them as is, the result is one of the very rare cases where a program encounters double exponential resource consumption without being specifically constructed to do so:
a <=> (b <=> (c <=> ...))
with N variables, generates 2^2^N clauses, one exponential blowup in the conversion of equivalence to AND/OR, and another in the distribution of OR into AND.
The solution to this is to rename subterms. If we rewrite the above as something like
r <=> (c <=> ...)
a <=> (b <=> r)
where r is a fresh symbol that is being defined to be equal to a subterm - in general, we may need O(N) such symbols - the exponential blowups can be avoided.
Unfortunately, this runs into a problem when we try to extend it to first-order logic. Using TPTP notation where ? means 'there exists' and variables begin with capital letters, consider
a <=> ?[X]:p(X)
Admittedly this case is simple enough that there is no actual need to rename the subterm, but it's necessary to use a simple case for illustration, so suppose we are using an algorithm that just automatically renames arguments of the equivalence operator; the point generalizes to more complex cases.
If we try the above trick and rename the ? subterm, we get
r <=> ?[X]:p(X)
Existential variables are converted to Skolem symbols, so that ends up as
r <=> p(s)
The original formula then expands to
(~a | r) & (a | ~r)
Which is by construction equivalent to
(~a | p(s)) & (a | ~p(s))
But this is not correct! Suppose we had not done the renaming, but just expanded the original formula as it was, we would get
(~a | ?[X]:p(X)) & (a | ~?[X]:p(X))
(~a | ?[X]:p(X)) & (a | ![X]:~p(X))
(~a | p(s)) & (a | ~p(X))
which is critically different from the version we got with the renaming.
The problem is that equivalence needs both the positive and negative versions of each argument, but applying negation to terms that contain universal or existential quantifiers, structurally changes those terms; you cannot just encapsulate them in a definition, then apply the negation to the defined symbol.
The upshot of this is that when you have equivalence and the arguments may contain such quantifiers, you actually need to recur through each argument twice, once for the positive version, once for the negative. This suffices to bring back the existential blowup we hoped to avoid by doing the renaming. As far as I can see, this problem is not caused by the way a particular algorithm works, but by the nature of the task.
So my question:
Given an input formula that may contain arbitrary nesting of equivalence and quantifiers, is there any algorithm that will correctly turn this to CNF with a polynomial rather than exponential number of clauses?
As you observed, an existential such as ∃X.p(X) is not in fact equivalent to a Skolemized expression p(S). Its negation ¬∃X.p(X) is not equivalent to ¬p(S), but to ∀Y.¬p(Y).
Possible approaches that avoid the exponential blow-up:
Convert existentials such as ∃X.p(X) to universals such as ¬∀Y.p(Y), or vice versa, so you have a canonical form. Skolemize at a later step.
Remember when you convert that your p(S) is a Skolemized existential, and that its negation is ∀Y.¬p(Y).
Define terms equivalent to universals and existentials, such that a represents ∀Y.p(Y) and ¬a then represents ¬∀Y.p(Y), or equivalently, ∃X.¬p(X).
Use the symmetry of Boolean duals, so that the same transformations apply with AND and OR swapped, De Morgan’s Laws, and the equivalence between existentials and negated universals, to restore the symmetry between the expansions of r and ~r. The negations in the conversion between universals and existentials and in De Morgan's Laws cancel each other out, and the duality of switching AND and OR means you can re-use the result on the left to generate the one on the right mechanically again?
Given that you need to support ALL and NOT ALL statements anyway, this should not create any new problems. Just canonicalize and use the same approach you would for a universal.
If you’re solving by converting to SAT, your terms can represent universals, too. So, in your example, you’re trying to replace a with r, but you can still use ~a, equivalent to the negative universal.
In your expressions. you’d still use (~a | r) & (a | ~r), but expand ~r to its correct rather than the incorrect value. That example is trivial, since that’s just ~a, but you’d normally define r as equivalent to a more complex transformation, and in that case you need to remember what both r and ~r represent. It is not really a simple mechanical transformation of the Skolemized expression.
In this example, I’m not sure why it’s a problem that (~a | r) & (a | ~r) is equivalent to (~a | r) & (a | ~a), which simplifies to (~a | r). That’s not going to give you exponential blow-up? When you translate back to first-order predicate logic, make the correct translation.
Update
Thanks for clarifying what the problem was in chat. As I currently think I understand it, what you have is an equivalence with a left and a right side, which contains other nested equivalences, and you want to expand both the equivalence and its negation. The problem is that, because the negation does not have symmetrical form, you need to recurse twice for each nested equivalence in the tree, once when expanding the equivalence and once when expanding its negation?
You should define a transformation that generates the negative expansion from the positive expansion in linear time, and divide-and-conquer the expressions containing nested equivalences using that. This seems to be what you were after with the ~p(S) transformation.
To do this, you recall that ¬∃X.p(X) is equivalent to ∀X.¬p(X), and vice versa. Then if you’ve expanded p(x) into normal form as conjunctions and disjunctions, De Morgan’s Laws lets you turn an expression like ¬(a ∨ ¬b) into ¬a ∧ b. The inner ¬ on the quantifier transformation and the outer ¬ on the De Morgan transformation cancel each other out. Finally, the dual of any Boolean equivalence remains valid when you replace each ∨ and ∧ with the other and any atom a or ¬a with its inverse.
So, while I might be making an error, especially at 1 AM, it looks to me like what you want is the dual transformation that substitutes:
An outer ∃ for ∀ and vice versa
∧ for ∨ and vice versa
Each term t with ¬t and vice versa
Apply this to the expansion of the positive equivalence to generate the negative dual in time proportional to its length, without further recursion.
I have a Relation f defined as f: A -> B × C. I would like to write a firsr-order formula to constrain this relation to be a bijective function from A to B × C?
To be more precise, I would like the first order counter part of the following formula (actually conjunction of the three):
∀a: A, ∃! bc : B × C, f(a)=bc -- f is function
∀a1,a2: A, f(a1)=f(a2) → a1=a2 -- f is injective
∀(b, c) : B × C, ∃ a : A, f(a)=bc -- f is surjective
As you see the above formulae are in Higher Order Logic as I quantified over the relations. What is the first-order logic equivalent of these formulae if it is ever possible?
PS:
This is more general (math) question, rather than being more specific to any theorem prover, but for getting help from these communities --as I think there are mature understanding of mathematics in these communities-- I put the theorem provers tag on this question.
(Update: Someone's unhappy with my answer, and SO gets me fired up in general, so I say what I want here, and will probably delete it later, I suppose.
I understand that SO is not a place for debates and soapboxes. On the other hand, the OP, qartal, whom I assume is the unhappy one, wants to apply the answer from math.stackexchange.com, where ZFC sets dominates, to a question here which is tagged, at this moment, with isabelle and logic.
First, notation is important, and sloppy notation can result in a question that's ambiguous to the point of being meaningless.
Second, having a B.S. in math, I have full appreciation for the logic of ZFC sets, so I have full appreciation for math.stackexchange.com.
I make the argument here that the answer given on math.stackexchange.com, linked to below, is wrong in the context of Isabelle/HOL. (First hmmm, me making claims under ill-defined circumstances can be annoying to people.)
If I'm wrong, and someone teaches me something, the situation here will be redeemed.
The answerer says this:
First of all in logic B x C is just another set.
There's not just one logic. My immediate reaction when I see the symbol x is to think of a type, not a set. Consider this, which kind of looks like your f: A -> BxC:
definition foo :: "nat => int × real" where "foo x = (x,x)"
I guess I should be prolific in going back and forth between sets and types, and reading minds, but I did learn something by entering this term:
term "B × C" (* shows it's of type "('a × 'b) set" *)
Feeling paranoid, I did this to see if had fallen into a major gotcha:
term "f : A -> B × C"
It gives a syntax error. Here I am, getting all pedantic, and our discussion is ill-defined because the notation is ill-defined.
The crux: the formula in the other answer is not first-order in this context
(Another hmmm, after writing what I say below, I'm full circle. Saying things about stuff when the context of the stuff is ill-defined.)
Context is everything. The context of the other site is generally ZFC sets. Here, it's HOL. That answerer says to assume these for his formula, wich I give below:
Ax is true iff x∈A
Bx is true iff x∈B×C
Rxy is true iff f(x)=y
Syntax. No one has defined it here, but the tag here is isabelle, so I take it to mean that I can substitute the left-hand side of the iff for the right-hand side.
Also, the expression x ∈ A is what would be in the formula in a typical set theory textbook, not Rxy. Therefore, for the answerer's formula to have meaning, I can rightfully insert f(x) = y into it.
This then is why I did a lot of hedging in my first answer. The variable f cannot be in the formula. If it's in the formula, then it's a free variable which is implicitly quantified. Here's the formula in Isar syntax:
term "∀x. (Ax --> (∃y. By ∧ Rxy ∧ (∀z. (Bz ∧ Rxz) --> y = z)))"
Here it is with the substitutions:
∀x. (x∈A --> (∃y. y∈B×C ∧ f(x)=y ∧ (∀z. (z∈B×C ∧ f(x)=z) --> y = z)))
In HOL, f(x) = f x, and so f is implicitly, universally quantified. If this is the case, then it's not first-order.
Really, I should dig deep to recall what I was taught, that f(x)=y means:
(x,f(x)) = (x,y) which means we have to have (x,y)∈(A, B×C)
which finally gets me:
∀x. (x∈A -->
(∃y. y∈B×C ∧ (x,y)∈(A,B×C) ∧ (∀z. (z∈B×C ∧ (x,z)∈(A,B×C)) --> y = z)))
Finally, I guess it turns out that in the context of math.stackexchange.com, it's 100% on.
Am I the only one who feels compulsive about questioning what this means in the context of Isabelle/HOL? I don't accept that everything here is defined well enough to show that it's first order.
Really, qartal, your notation should be specific to a particular logic.
First answer
With Isabelle, I answer the question based on my interpretation of your
f: A -> B x C, which I take as a ZFC set, in particular a subset of the
Cartesian product A x (B x C)
You're sort of mixing notation from the two logics, that of ZFC
sets and that of HOL. Consequently, I might be off on what I think you're
asking.
You don't define your relation, so I keep things simple.
I define a simple ZFC function, and prove the first
part of your first condition, that f is a function. The second part would be
proving uniqueness. It can be seen that f satisfies that, so once a
formula for uniqueness is stated correctly, auto might easily prove it.
Please notice that the
theorem is a first-order formula. The characters ! and ? are ASCII
equivalents for \<forall> and \<exists>.
(Clarifications must abound when
working with HOL. It's first-order logic if the variables are atomic. In this
case, the type of variables are numeral. The basic concept is there. That
I'm wrong in some detail is highly likely.)
definition "A = {1,2}"
definition "B = A"
definition "C = A"
definition "f = {(1,(1,1)), (2,(1,1))}"
theorem
"!a. a \<in> A --> (? z. z \<in> (B × C) & (a,z) \<in> f)"
by(auto simp add: A_def B_def C_def f_def)
(To completely give you an example of what you asked for, I would have to redefine my function so its bijective. Little examples can take a ton of work.)
That's the basic idea, and the rest of proving that f is a function will
follow that basic pattern.
If there's a problem, it's that your f is a ZFC set function/relation, and
the logical infrastructure of Isabelle/HOL is set up for functions as a type.
Functions as ordered pairs, ZFC style, can be formalized in Isabelle/HOL, but
it hasn't been done in a reasonably complete way.
Generalizing it all is where the work would be. For a particular relation, as
I defined above, I can limit myself to first-order formulas, if I ignore that
the foundation, Isabelle/HOL, is, of course, higher-order logic.
I wan to use the destruct tactic to prove a statement by cases. I have read a couple of examples online and I'm confused. Could someone explain it better?
Here is a small example (there are other ways to solve it but try using destruct):
Inductive three := zero
| one
| two.
Lemma has2b2: forall a:three, a<>zero /\ a<>one -> a=two.
Now some examples online suggest doing the following:
intros. destruct a.
In which case I get:
3 subgoals H : zero <> zero /\ zero <> one
______________________________________(1/3)
zero = two
______________________________________(2/3)
one = two
______________________________________(3/3)
two = two
So, I want to prove that the first two cases are impossible. But the machine lists them as subgoals and wants me to PROVE them... which is impossible.
Summary:
How to exactly discard the impossible cases?
I have seen some examples using inversion but I don't understand the procedure.
Finally, what happens if my lemma depends on several inductive types and I still want to cover ALL cases?
How to discard impossible cases? Well, it's true that the first two obligations are impossible to prove, but note they have contradicting assumptions (zero <> zero and one <> one, respectively). So you will be able to prove those goals with tauto (there are also more primitive tactics that will do the trick, if you are interested).
inversion is a more advanced version of destruct. Additional to 'destructing' the inductive, it will sometimes generate some equalities (that you may need). It itself is a simple version of induction, which will additionally generate an induction hypothesis for you.
If you have several inductive types in your goal, you can destruct/invert them one by one.
More detailed walk-through:
Inductive three := zero | one | two .
Lemma test : forall a, a <> zero /\ a <> one -> a = two.
Proof.
intros a H.
destruct H. (* to get two parts of conjunction *)
destruct a. (* case analysis on 'a' *)
(* low-level proof *)
compute in H. (* to see through the '<>' notation *)
elimtype False. (* meaning: assumptions are contradictory, I can prove False from them *)
apply H.
reflexivity.
(* can as well be handled with more high-level tactics *)
firstorder.
(* the "proper" case *)
reflexivity.
Qed.
If you see an impossible goal, there are two possibilities: either you made a mistake in your proof strategy (perhaps your lemma is wrong), or the hypotheses are contradictory.
If you think the hypotheses are contradictory, you can set the goal to False, to get a little complexity out of the way. elimtype False achieves this. Often, you prove False by proving a proposition P and its negation ~P; the tactic absurd P deduces any goal from P and ~P. If there's a particular hypothesis which is contradictory, contradict H will set the goal to ~H, or if the hypothesis is a negation ~A then the goal will be A (stronger than ~ ~A but usually more convenient). If one particular hypothesis is obviously contradictory, contradiction H or just contradiction will prove any goal.
There are many tactics involving hypotheses of inductive types. Figuring out which one to use is mostly a matter of experience. Here are the main ones (but you will run into cases not covered here soon):
destruct simply breaks down the hypothesis into several parts. It loses information about dependencies and recursion. A typical example is destruct H where H is a conjunction H : A /\ B, which splits H into two independent hypotheses of types A and B; or dually destruct H where H is a disjunction H : A \/ B, which splits the proof into two different subproofs, one with the hypothesis A and one with the hypothesis B.
case_eq is similar to destruct, but retains the connections that the hypothesis has with other hypotheses. For example, destruct n where n : nat breaks the proof into two subproofs, one for n = 0 and one for n = S m. If n is used in other hypotheses (i.e. you have a H : P n), you may need to remember that the n you've destructed is the same n used in these hypotheses: case_eq n does this.
inversion performs a case analysis on the type of a hypothesis. It is particularly useful when there are dependencies in the type of the hypothesis that destruct would forget. You would typically use case_eq on hypotheses in Set (where equality is relevant) and inversion on hypotheses in Prop (which have very dependent types). The inversion tactic leaves a lot of equalities behind, and it's often followed by subst to simplify the hypotheses. The inversion_clear tactic is a simple alternative to inversion; subst but loses a little information.
induction means that you are going to prove the goal by induction (= recursion) on the given hypothesis. For example, induction n where n : nat means that you'll perform integer induction and prove the base case (n replaced by 0) and the inductive case (n replaced by m+1).
Your example is simple enough that you can prove it as “obvious by case analysis on a”.
Lemma has2b2: forall a:three, a<>zero/\a<>one ->a=two.
Proof. destruct a; tauto. Qed.
But let's look at the cases generated by the destruct tactic, i.e. after just intros; destruct a.. (The case where a is one is symmetric; the last case, where a is two, is obvious by reflexivity.)
H : zero <> zero /\ zero <> one
============================
zero = two
The goal looks impossible. We can tell this to Coq, and here it can spot the contradiction automatically (zero=zero is obvious, and the rest is a first-order tautology handled by the tauto tactic).
elimtype False. tauto.
In fact tauto works even if you don't start by telling Coq not to worry about the goal and wrote tauto without the elimtype False first (IIRC it didn't in older versions of Coq). You can see what Coq is doing with the tauto tactic by writing info tauto. Coq will tell you what proof script the tauto tactic generated. It's not very easy to follow, so let's look at a manual proof of this case. First, let's split the hypothesis (which is a conjunction) into two.
destruct H as [H0 H1].
We now have two hypotheses, one of which is zero <> zero. This is clearly false, because it's the negation of zero = zero which is clearly true.
contradiction H0. reflexivity.
We can look in even more detail at what the contradiction tactic does. (info contradiction would reveal what happens under the scene, but again it's not novice-friendly). We claim that the goal is true because the hypotheses are contradictory so we can prove anything. So let's set the intermediate goal to False.
assert (F : False).
Run red in H0. to see that zero <> zero is really notation for ~(zero=zero) which in turn is defined as meaning zero=zero -> False. So False is the conclusion of H0:
apply H0.
And now we need to prove that zero=zero, which is
reflexivity.
Now we've proved our assertion of False. What remains is to prove that False implies our goal. Well, False implies any goal, that's its definition (False is defined as an inductive type with 0 case).
destruct F.
What would be the approach to a kind of problem that sounds like this:
A says B lies
B says C lies
D says B lies
C says B lies
E says A and D lie
How many lie and how many tell the truth?
I am not looking for the answer to the problem above, but the approach to this kind of problem. Thanks a lot.
A -> !B
B -> !C
D -> !B
C -> !B
E -> !A & !D
Reminder:
X -> Y <=> !X | Y
Transform the 5 equations into logical propositions, and you will find answers.
To solve equations of the form
X1 = NOT X 3
X5 = NOT X 2
etc
Form a graph with nodes as Xi and connecting Xi and X j iff the equation Xi = NOT X j appears.
Now try to 2-colour the graph using Breadth First Search.
Assuming you're looking to solve this with a program... it's actually pretty easy to brute force, if you've got a reasonably small input set. For example, in this case you've basically got 5 Boolean variables - whether each person is a truth-teller or not.
Encode the statements as tests, and then run through every possible combination to see which ones are valid.
This is obviously a "dumb" solution and will fail for large input sets, but it's likely to be rather easier to code than a full "reasoning" engine. Often I find that you can get away with doing a lot less work by taking into account what size of problem you're actually going to encounter :)
Use a logic programming language such as Prolog. They are specifically designed to solve such problems.
Other alternatives include functional-logic languages and model checkers.
Can anyone explain the algorithm for 2-satisfiability problem or provide me the links for the same? I could not find good links to understand it.
If you have n variables and m clauses:
Create a graph with 2n vertices: intuitively, each vertex resembles a true or not true literal for each variable. For each clause (a v b), where a and b are literals, create an edge from !a to b and from !b to a. These edges mean that if a is not true, then b must be true and vica-versa.
Once this digraph is created, go through the graph and see if there is a cycle that contains both a and !a for some variable a. If there is, then the 2SAT is not satisfiable (because a implies !a and vica-versa). Otherwise, it is satisfiable, and this can even give you a satisfying assumption (pick some literal a so that a doesn't imply !a, force all implications from there, repeat). You can do this part with any of your standard graph algorithms, ala Breadth-First Search , Floyd-Warshall, or any algorithm like these, depending on how sensitive you are to the time complexity of your algorithm.
You can solve it with greedy approach.
Or using Graph theory, here is link which explains the solution using graph theory.
http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~safra/Complexity/2SAT.ppt
Here is the Wikipedia page on the subject, which describes a polynomial time algorithm. (The brute force algorithm of just trying all the different truth assignments is exponential time.) Maybe a bit of further explanation will help.
The expression "if P then Q" is only false when P is true and Q is false. So the expression has the same truth table values as "Q or not P". It is also equivalent to its contrapositive, "if not Q then not P", and that in turn is equivalent to "not P or Q" (the same as the other one).
So the algorithm involves replacing every expression of the form "A or B", with the two expressions, "if not A then B" and "if not B then A". (Putting it another way, A and B can't both be false.)
Next, construct a graph representing these implications. Create nodes for each "A" and "not A", and add links for each of the implications obtained above.
The last step is to make sure that none of the variables is equivalent to its own negation. That is, for each variable A (or not A), follow the links to discover all the nodes that can be reached from it, taking care to detect loops.
If one of the variables, A, can reach "not A", and "not A" can also reach A, then the original expression is not satisfiable. (It is a paradox.) If none of the variables do this, then it is satisfiable.
(It's okay if A implies "not A", but not the other way around. That just means that A must be negated to satisfy the expression.)
2 satisfiabilty:
if x & !x is strongly connected
then from !x we can reach to x
from x we can reach to !x
so in our operation,
in case of x,
we have 2 options only,
1.taking x (x) that leads to !x
2.rejecting x (!x) that leads to x
and both the choices are leading to the paradox of taking and rejecting a choice at the same time
so the satisfiability is impossible :D