1 First order theories. 2 Satisfiability The classic SAT problem: given a propositional formula , is...

1

First order theories

2

Satisfiability

The classic SAT problem: given a propositional formula , is satisfiable ?

Example:

Let x1,x2 be propositional variables

Let := (x1 → x2) Æ (x1 Æ :: x2)

Is satisfiable ?

3

Satisfiability Modulo Theories

Now let the predicates be equalities

Example:

Let x1,x2,x3 2 Z

Let := ((x1 = x2) → (x2 = x3)) Æ x1 x3

Is satisfiable ?

4

Satisfiability Modulo Theories

Now let the predicates be from linear arithmetic

Example:

Let x1,x2,x3 2 R

Let := ((x1 + 2x3 < 5) Ç :(x3 · 1) Æ (x1 ¸ 3))

Is satisfiable ?

5

Satisfiability Modulo Theories

Now let the predicates represent arrays

Example:

Let i,j,a[] 2 Z

Let := (i = j Æ a[j] = 1) Æ a[i] 1

Is satisfiable ?

6

Generalization

Equalities, linear predicates, arrays, ... Is there a general framework to define them ?

Yes ! It is called first-order logic

Each of the above examples is a first-order theory.

7

Some useful first-order theories

The SMT web page: http://combination.cs.uiowa.edu/smtlib/

8

What lies ahead...

As in the case of propositional logic, we need to define Syntax Semantics

But it is more difficult, because: First-order logic is a template for defining theories Semantics cannot be defined with truth-tables

The domains can be infinite !

9

First-order logic: Terms & predicates

Let x,y be variables f,g be function symbols (unary & binary, respectively) a,b,c be propositional variables p be a binary predicate symbol

Example of terms: x f(f(x)) g(f(x),g(y,z)))

Example of predicates: a p(f(x),g(x,y))

10

First-order logic – Grammar

A FOL formula is a predicate, or An application of a propositional connective over FOL

formula(s) An application of a quantifier (9, 8) over a FOL formula

Examples:

11

First-order Logic / scopes

Each quantifier has a scope

If a variable is not quantified, it is called free

A formula without free variables is called a sentence

Here, b is free

13

First order logic

We distinguish between Logical symbols: Æ Ç : 8 9 ( ) Non-logical Symbols :

function symbols (incl. constants) predicate symbols

is the ‘signature’ of the theory restricts the syntax The theory also restricts the semantics of the symbols in

We will see how...

14

Example 1

= {0,1,f,p} ‘0’,’1’ are constant symbols ‘f’ is a binary function symbol ‘p’ is a binary predicate

An example of a -formula:

9y 8x. p(x, y)

Is it true ? depends on the interpretation we give to p. Does there exists a satisfying interpretation?

15

Example 2

= {1,p1,p2, p3} ‘1’ is a constant symbol p1, p2 are binary predicates p3 is a unary predicate

An example -formula:

8n 9k. p2(n,1) ! p3(k) Æ p1(n,k) Æ p1(k, 2n).

is this formula satisfiable ? i.e., is there an interpretation that makes it true ?

16

Example 2, interpreted

set p1 = ‘>’, p2 = ‘<‘, p3 = isPrime.

So now the formula is:

8n 9k. n > 1 ! isprime(k) Æ n < k < 2n.

This is Bertrand’s postulate Proven separately by Chhebyshev, Ramanujan, Erdos.

17

Without interpretations...

Technically, we should also assign interpretation to symbols that are already ‘taken’: ‘+’,’*’, ‘<‘, ... In practice no one in their right mind gives them non-

standard interpretation.

Example: Let = {0,1,+,=} where 0,1 are

constants, + is a binary function and = a predicate.

Let = 9x. x + 0 = 1 Q: Is true in N0 ?

18

An interpretation is given by a structure A structure is given by:

1. A domain to each variable

2. An interpretation of the nonlogical symbols: i.e., Maps each function symbol to a function of the same arity Maps each constant symbol to a domain element Maps each predicate symbol to a predicate of the same arity

3. An assignment of a domain element to each free (unquantified) variable

19

Structures

= 9x. f(x, 0) = 1 Consider the structure S:

Domain: N0

Interpretation: ‘f’ * (multiplication) ‘0’ and ‘1’ are mapped to 0 and 1 in N0

‘=‘ = (equality)

Now, is true in S ?

20

Satisfying structures

Definition: A formula is satisfiable if there exists a structure that satisfies it

Example: = 9x. f(x, 0) = 1 is satisfiable Consider the structure S’:

Domain: N0

Interpretation: ‘0’ and ‘1’ are mapped to 0 and 1 in N0

‘=’ = (equality) ‘f’ + (addition)

is satisfied by S’. S’ is a model of .

21

Two ways to define a theory

We can define a theory

1. The easy, “direct” way, Define the grammar, Assume standard interpretation of the symbols.

2. The hard, “formal” way. Define the signature Restrict possible interpretations with sentences/axioms

Very useful for defining algorithms and proving

general theorems

22

1. Defining a theory: the easy way

Example: The quantifier-free theory of equalities

Grammar: A Boolean combination of predicates of the form “x = y”, where x,y 2 R.

Example: x = y Ç :(y = z ! x = z)

Note that here... we implicitly say that ‘=‘ is the equality predicate, and we predefine the domain of the variables

23

2. Defining a theory: the hard way

Let be a signature

A theory defined over is called a -theory

A -theory restricts the interpretations that we can give the symbols in . How ?

24

2. Definitions...

For a signature :

-formula: a formula over symbols + logical symbols.

A -theory T is defined by a set of -sentences.

25

2. Definitions…

Let T be a -theory

A -formula is T-satisfiable if there exists a structure

that satisfies both and the sentences defining T.

A -formula is T-valid if all structures that satisfy the

sentences defining T also satisfy .

26

2. Theories through axioms

The number of sentences that are necessary for defining a theory might be large or infinite.

Instead, it is common to define a theory through a set of axioms.

The theory is defined by these axioms, and everything that can be inferred from them by a sound

inference system.

27

2. Axioms for some ‘famous’ predicates Let ‘T’ be: (defining ‘=‘):

Example: = ((x = y) Æ :(y = z)) ! :(x = z) Is Á T-valid ?

Every structure that satisfies these axioms, satisfies . Hence is T-valid.

8 x. x = x(reflexivity)

8 x,y. x = y ! y = x (symmetry)

8 x,y,z. x = y Æ y = z ! x = z (transitivity)

28

2. Axioms for some ‘famous’ predicates Let ‘T’ be: (defining ‘<‘)

Example: Á: 8x. 9y. y < x Is Á T-satisfiable?

We will show a model for it. Domain: Z ‘< ‘ <

8x,y,z. x < y Æ y < z → x < z (transitivity)

8x,y. x < y → :(y < x) (anti-symmetry)

29

2. Axioms for some ‘famous’ predicates Let ‘T’ be: (defining ‘<‘)

Example: Á: 8x. 9y. y < x Is Á T-valid?

8x,y,z. x < y Æ y < z → x < z (transitivity)

8x,y. x < y → :(y < x) (anti-symmetry)

We will show a structure to the contrary

Domain: N0

‘<‘ <

30

2. Axioms for some ‘famous’ predicates Let = {‘<‘} Consider the -formula Á: 8x. 9y. y < x Consider the theory T:

Is Á T-valid?

We will show a structure to the contrary Domain: N0

‘<‘ <

8x,y,z. x < y Æ y < z → x < z (transitivity)

8x,y. x < y → :(y < x) (anti-symmetry)

31

Fragments

So far we only restricted the nonlogical symbols. Sometimes we want to

restrict the grammar restrict the allowed logical symbols.

These are called logic fragments.

Examples: The quantifier-free fragment over = {=,+,0,1} The conjunctive fragment over = {=,+,0,1}

32

Fragments

Let = {} (T must be empty: no nonlogical symbols to interpret)

Q: What is the quantifier-free fragment of T ? A: propositional logic

Thus, propositional logic is also a first-order theory. A very degenerate one.

33

Theories

Let = {} (T must be empty: no nonlogical symbols to interpret)

Q: What is T ? A: Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF)

Example: 8x1 9x2 8x3. x1 → (x2 Ç x3)

34

Some famous theories

Presburger arithmetic: = {0,1,+,=} Peano arithmetic: = {0,1,+,*,=} Theory of reals Theory of integers Theory of arrays Theory of pointers Theory of sets Theory of recursive data structures …

35

Expressiveness of a theory

Each formula defines a language:the set of satisfying assignments (‘models’) are the words accepted by this language.

Consider the fragment ‘2-CNF’formula : ( literal Ç literal ) | formula Æ formulaliteral: Boolean-variable | :Boolean-variable

(x1 Ç :x2) Æ (:x3 Ç x2)

36

Expressiveness of a theory

Now consider a Propositional Logic formula (x1 Ç x2 Ç x3).

Q: Can we express this language with 2-CNF? A: No.

Proof: The language accepted by has 7 words: all assignments

other than x1 = x2 = x3 = F. The first 2-CNF clause removes ¼ of the assignments,

which leaves us with 6 accepted words. Additional clauses only remove more assignments.

37

Expressiveness of a theory

Claim: 2-CNF Á Propositional Logic Generally there is only a partial order between

theories.

Languages defined by L2

Languages defined by L1

L2 is more expressive than L1.

Denote: L1 Á L2

38

The tradeoff

So we see that theories can have different expressive power

Q: why would we want to restrict ourselves to a theory or a fragment ? why not take some ‘maximal theory’…

A: Adding axioms to the theory may make it harder to decide or even undecidable.

39

Example: First Order Peano Arithmetic = {0,1,‘+’, ‘*’, ‘=’} Domain: Natural numbers

Axioms (“semantics”):1. 8 x. (0 x + 1) 2. 8 x, y. (x y) ! (x + 1 y + 1) 3. Induction4. 8 x. x + 0 = x 5. 8 x, y. (x + y) + 1 = x + (y + 1) 6. 8 x. x * 0 = 0 7. 8 x, y. x * (y + 1) = x * y + x

+

*

Undecidable!

These axioms define the semantics of ‘+’

40

Example: First Order Presburger Arithmetic = {0,1,‘+’, ‘*’, ‘=’} Domain: Natural numbers

Axioms (“semantics”):1. 8 x. (0 x + 1) 2. 8 x, y. (x y) ! (x + 1 y + 1) 3. Induction4. 8 x. x + 0 = x 5. 8 x, y. (x + y) + 1 = x + (y + 1) 6. 8 x. x * 0 = 0 7. 8 x, y. x * (y + 1) = x * y + x

+

*

decidable!

These axioms define the semantics of ‘+’

41

Tradeoff: expressiveness/computational hardness. Assume we are given theories L1 Á … Á Ln

More expressiveEasier to decide

UndecidableDecidable

Intractable(exponential)

Tractable(polynomial)

Computational Challenge! LnL1

Our course

42

When is a specific theory useful?

1. Expressible enough to state something interesting.

2. Decidable (or semi-decidable) and more efficiently solvable than richer theories.

3. More expressive, or more natural for expressing some models in comparison to ‘leaner’ theories.

43

Expressiveness and complexity

Q1: Let L1 and L2 be two theories whose satisfiability problem is decidable and in the same complexity class. Is the satisfiability problem of an L1 formula reducible to a satisfiability problem of an L2 formula?

44

Expressiveness and complexity

Q2: Let L1 and L2 be two theories whose satisfiability problems are reducible to one another. Are L1 and L2 in the same complexity class ?