DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantifier Elimination in Presburger Arithmetic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantifier Elimination in Presburger Arithmetic Master Parisien de Recherche en Informatique 2011{2012 Proof Assistants Project { Quantifier Elimination in Presburger Arithmetic 1 Instructions • A significant part of the project consists in designing datatypes and writing functions. This can be done earlier and leave the proofs if you are not yet able to make proofs in Coq. But consider that often proofs catch bugs in your definitions! When no proof is required, it is wise to test the definitions (using Eval compute) on simple but not too trivial inputs. • Don't forget to write a short report (5 pages max.). It should provide all information needed to understand the sources, like the meaning of the main definitions or the design choices (when this is relevant). • It is better to give a partial solution than no solution at all, either by proving properties less general than what is required, or by finishing proofs relying on justified assumptions or axioms. 2 Overview of the project The goal of this project is to write the main components of a decision procedure for Presburger arithmetic, that is Peano arithmetic without multiplication. The problem is to decide whether a fisrt-order formula is valid or not. The main idea is, given an arbitrary arithmetic formula, to find an equivalent formula which contains no quantifier. The latter formula can be decided by mere computation. The quantifier elimination process is the following: for a formula 9x: P (x), we first eliminate quantifiers in P (recursively). Assuming we are able to eliminate one quantifier (see below), we are done. Other cases of formula are simpler to deal with. This is the subject of section 5. For the elimination of one qauntifier, if is easier to reason on formulas of a particular shape, called disjunctive normal form (DNF). Every formula can be turned into an equivalent DNF. This will be proven in section 4. It remains to see how an existentially quantified DNF can be transformed into an equivalent formula. To illustrate this, consider the formula P = x ≥ 2y ^ 2x ≤ 3y ^ 3 j x + y ^ 2 j x + 4y. Expression n j t means that the natural number n divides the value of expression t. Scalar multiplicative terms like 2x are allowed in Presburger arithmetic, it is just a notation for x + x. Given a value for y, the formula 9x: P (x) cannot be decided as is, because the range of the existential quantifier is infinite. We notice that the divisibility conditions are periodic: if some x0 satifies 3 j x + y ^ 2 j x + 4y then so does x0 + 6k for all k (6 is the least common multiple of 2 and 3). Thus, if we look for the least number that satisifes P , we only need to test P on a period starting from the lower bound 2y. It can be shown that 9x; P (x) () P (2y) _ P (2y + 1) _ P (2y + 2) _ P (2y + 3) _ P (2y + 4) _ P (2y + 5) 1 As a last remark, we point out that there might be several lower bounds and the one that is the tightest might depend on the value of y. To be sure not to miss the least solution, we have to test P on one period next to each of the bounds. This construction is delt with in section 6. 3 Presburger Arithmetic 3.1 Expressions Presburger arithmetic is a subset of Peano arithmetic where all expressions are linear. It can be encoded by the following inductive type: Definition var := nat . Inductive term : Type := | Nat : nat -> term | Var : var -> term | Add : term -> term -> term | Mul : nat -> term -> term . The intended meaning of each constructor is the following: • Nat is used for constant expressions • Var stands for variable expressions. Variables are encoded by a natural number, but any decidable set could be used instead. The type var has been introduced to distinguish numbers that represent variables from those denoting integer values (as in Nat). • Add and Mul represent respectively addition and scalar multiplication. a. Write the interpretation function tinterp of type (var ! nat) ! term ! nat such that (tinterp e t) returns the value of term t in the variable assignment e. b. Write a substitution function tsubst of type term ! term ! var ! term such that (tsubst t u x is t where every occurrence of x has been replaced by u. 3.2 Normalizing expressions Since our expressions are linear, we want to show that given a variable x, any expression t is equivalent to αx + t0 where x does not appear in t0. If α is 0, then we say that expression t does not depend on x. This normal form can be computed either by structural recursion on t, or by the formula t(x) = t(0) + (t(1) − t(0))x but the latter is slightly more complex. a. Write a normalization function computing the normal form of an expression t with respect to a variable x by returning a couple of a natural number α and an expression t0 not depending on x. b. Prove the correctness of the above function, by showing that t and αx + t0 match on every variable assignment: 8e: tinterp e t = α × e(x) + tinterp e t0 2 3.3 Formulas The formulas we will consider are the minimal first-order formulas (formed only on negation, disjunction, existential quantifier). The atomic predicates are: inequality (≤) and divisibility (njt). Other logical connectives and common arithmetical predicates can be derived easily. For instance A ^ B is a notation for :(:A _:B) and t1 = t2 is a notation for t1 ≤ t1 ^ t2 ≤ t1. a. Define formula the inductive type of formulas. Binders (9) can be represented in different ways, but we recommend to stick to the informal notation, where 9x: P (x) is represented by the existential quantification constructor applied to a variable x (the name of the bound variable) and a formula, where every occurrence of (Var x) refers to the bound variable. b. Write the substitution function (called fsubst) operating on formulas. Beware of variable captures: replacing x by 1 in 9x: x = x should return the formula unchanged! (Try it.) It is however assumed that in (fsubst t u x), the free variables of u do not overlap with the bound variables of t. c. Write the interpretation function (called holds) for formulas: given a variable assignment and a formula, return an object of type Prop expressing that the given formula is true when the free variables have been substituted as specified by the assignment. d. Explain why it is not possible to directly define the interpretation of holds e (9x: P ) as exists n, holds e (fsubst P (Nat n) x) ? However, prove that this property holds for the defini- tion accepted by Coq. 3.4 Quantifier-free formulas a. Write a boolean-valued function that determines whether a formula is quantifier-free or not. b. Write a boolean-valued function that decides whether a quantifier-free formula is valid or not in a given variable assignment. c. Prove the soundness of this decision function, that is that the boolean computed above reflects the proposition returned by holds. 4 Clauses in Distributive Normal Form A clause is a triple of sets1 of atomic formulas: • the first set contains formulas of the form t1 ≤ t2, • the second set contains formulas of the form njt, • the third set contains formulas of the form :njt. We can show that any quantifier-free formula is equivalent to a set of clauses called a \dis- junctive normal form" (DNF), with the intepretation that [[A11; ::: ; A1i1 ]; ::: ;[Ak1; ::: ; Akik ]] W V means i j Aij a. Define the type of clauses. b. Write clauses equivalent to the following formulas: >, ? and t1 ≤ t2 1To encode sets, you can either use the List library of Coq of the seq library of SSReflect 3 c. Write the interpretation function of DNFs towards quantifier-free formulas described above. 0 d. Given two DNFs C1 and C2, write a function computing a DNF C (written C1 ^ C2) such that 0 whenever C1 is equivalent to A and C2 equivalent to B, then C is equivalent to A ^ B, and prove it. e. Write a function (tkqf to dnf) that transform a quantifier-free formula into a DNF, and prove its correctness. To make it simpler, it is better to add an extra argument that accumulates negations: qf to dnf is of type formula ! bool ! dnf and (qf to dnf A b) represents A if b is true, and :A if b is false. 5 Quantifier Elimination In this section, we will assume that we have a way to eliminate one existential quantifier. This process is called a projector. More precisely a projector is a function φx from clauses to quantifier-free formulas such that φx(C) is equivalent to 9x: C. a. Write the assumptions corresponding to the existence of a projector. b. Generalize to DNFs: given a DNF D, return a quantifier-free formula equivalent to 9x: D. c. Write a recursive function that translates arbitrary formulas of Presburger arithmetic into an equivalent quantifier-free formula. d. Write a decision procedure for Presburger arithmetic: given a variable assignment and a for- mula, decide whether this formula holds in the given assignment, by composition of quantifier elimination and decidability of quantifier-free formulas. 6 Projector In this section we propose to code a projector. The correctness of a projector is beyond the scope of the current project and we only ask to code the functions and prove a reduced number of properties. We assume we want to eliminate variable x from a clause C = f(ti ≤ ui)i;(nj j vj)j;(:mk j wk)kg Solutions of C are the intersection of an interval (defined by (ti ≤ ui)i) and the divisibility atoms, which is periodic: there is a number πx(C) such that if x0 satisfies the divisibility atoms, then so does x0 + kπx(C) for all k.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coq in a Hurry Yves Bertot
    Coq in a Hurry Yves Bertot To cite this version: Yves Bertot. Coq in a Hurry. Types Summer School, also used at the University of Nice Goteborg, Nice, 2006. inria-00001173v2 HAL Id: inria-00001173 https://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00001173v2 Submitted on 24 May 2006 (v2), last revised 19 Oct 2017 (v6) HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Coq in a Hurry Yves Bertot May 24, 2006 These notes provide a quick introduction to the Coq system and show how it can be used to define logical concepts and functions and reason about them. It is designed as a tutorial, so that readers can quickly start their own experiments, learning only a few of the capabilities of the system. A much more comprehensive study is provided in [1], which also provides an extensive collection of exercises to train on. 1 Expressions and logical formulas The Coq system provides a language in which one handles formulas, verify that they are well-formed, and prove them. Formulas may also contain functions and limited forms of computations are provided for these functions. The first thing you need to know is how you can check whether a formula is well- formed.
    [Show full text]
  • Computation and Reflection in Coq And
    Computation and reflection in Coq and HOL John Harrison Intel Corporation, visiting Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen 20th August 2003 0 What is reflection? Stepping back from the straightforward use of a formal system and reasoning about it (‘reflecting upon it’). • Exploiting the syntax to prove general/meta theorems • Asserting consistency or soundness Similar concept in programming where programs can examine and modify their own syntax [Brian Cantwell Smith 1984]. The ‘reflection principle’ in ZF set theory is rather different. 1 Logical power of reflection The process of reflection may involve: • Adding new theorems that were not provable before • Adding a new, but conservative, rule to the logic • Making no extension of the logic [Giunchiglia and Smail 1989] use ‘reflection principles’ to refer to logic-strengthening rules only, but use ‘reflection’ to describe the process in all cases. 2 Reflection principles The classic reflection principle is an assertion of consistency. More generally, we can assert the ‘local reflection schema’: ⊢ Pr(pφq) ⇒ φ By Godel’s¨ Second Incompleteness Theorem, neither is provable in the original system, so this makes the system stronger. The addition of reflection principles can then be iterated transfinitely [Turing 1939], [Feferman 1962], [Franzen´ 2002]. 3 A conservative reflection rule Consider instead the following reflection rule: ⊢ Pr(pφq) ⊢ φ Assuming that the original logic is Σ-sound, this is a conservative extension. On the other hand, it does make some proofs much shorter. Whether it makes any interesting ones shorter is another matter. 4 Total internal reflection We can exploit the syntax-semantics connection without making any extensions to the logical system.
    [Show full text]
  • A Complete Proof of Coq Modulo Theory
    EPiC Series in Computing Volume 46, 2017, Pages 474–489 LPAR-21. 21st International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning Coq without Type Casts: A Complete Proof of Coq Modulo Theory Jean-Pierre Jouannaud1;2 and Pierre-Yves Strub2 1 INRIA, Project Deducteam, Université Paris-Saclay, France 2 LIX, École Polytechnique, France Abstract Incorporating extensional equality into a dependent intensional type system such as the Calculus of Constructions provides with stronger type-checking capabilities and makes the proof development closer to intuition. Since strong forms of extensionality lead to undecidable type-checking, a good trade-off is to extend intensional equality with a decidable first-order theory T , as done in CoqMT, which uses matching modulo T for the weak and strong elimination rules, we call these rules T -elimination. So far, type-checking in CoqMT is known to be decidable in presence of a cumulative hierarchy of universes and weak T -elimination. Further, it has been shown by Wang with a formal proof in Coq that consistency is preserved in presence of weak and strong elimination rules, which actually implies consistency in presence of weak and strong T -elimination rules since T is already present in the conversion rule of the calculus. We justify here CoqMT’s type-checking algorithm by showing strong normalization as well as the Church-Rosser property of β-reductions augmented with CoqMT’s weak and strong T -elimination rules. This therefore concludes successfully the meta-theoretical study of CoqMT. Acknowledgments: to the referees for their careful reading. 1 Introduction Type checking for an extensional type theory being undecidable, as is well-known since the early days of Martin-Löf’s type theory [16], most proof assistants implement an intensional type theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculi for Program Incorrectness and Arithmetic Philipp Rümmer
    Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Calculi for Program Incorrectness and Arithmetic Philipp R¨ummer Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers University of Technology and G¨oteborg University SE-412 96 G¨oteborg Sweden G¨oteborg, 2008 Calculi for Program Incorrectness and Arithmetic Philipp R¨ummer ISBN 978-91-628-7242-7 c Philipp R¨ummer, 2008 Technical Report no. 50D Department of Computer Science and Engineering Research Group: Formal Methods Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers University of Technology and G¨oteborg University SE-412 96 G¨oteborg, Sweden Telephone +46 (0)31–772 1000 Printed at Chalmers, G¨oteborg, 2008 II Abstract This thesis is about the development and usage of deductive methods in two main areas: (i) the deductive dis-verification of programs, i.e., how techniques for deductive verification of programs can be used to detect program defects, and (ii) reasoning modulo integer arithmetic, i.e., how to prove the validity (and, in special cases, satisfiability) of first-order formulae that involve integer arithmetic. The areas of program verification and of testing are traditionally considered as complementary: the former searches for a formal proof of program correctness, while the latter searches for witnesses of program incorrectness. Nevertheless, de- ductive verification methods can discover bugs indirectly: the failure to prove the absence of bugs is interpreted as a sign for the incorrectness of the program. This approach is bound to produce “false positives” and bugs can be reported also for correct programs. To overcome this problem, I investigate how techniques that are normally used for verification can be used to directly prove the incorrectness of programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Presburger Arithmetic: Cooper’S Algorithm Top- Ics in Em- Michael R
    02917 Ad- 02917 Advanced Topics in Embedded Systems vanced Presburger Arithmetic: Cooper’s algorithm Top- ics in Em- Michael R. Hansen bed- ded Sys- tems Michael R. Hansen 1 DTU Informatics, Technical University of Denmark Presburger Arithmetic: Cooper’s algorithm MRH 17/06/2010 Introduction 02917 Ad- vanced Presburger Arithmetic (introduced by Mojzesz Presburger in 1929), is Top- the first-order theory of natural numbers with addition. ics in Em- Examples of formulas are: ∃x.2x = y and ∃x.∀y.x + y > z. bed- ded Unlike Peano Arithmetic, which also includes multiplication, Sys- Presburger Arithmetic is a decidable theory. tems Michael R. Hansen We shall consider the algorithm introduced by D.C Cooper in 1972. The presentation is based on: Chapter 7: Quantified Linear Arithmetic of The Calculus of Computation by Bradley and Manna. 2 DTU Informatics, Technical University of Denmark Presburger Arithmetic: Cooper’s algorithm MRH 17/06/2010 Introduction 02917 Ad- vanced Presburger Arithmetic (introduced by Mojzesz Presburger in 1929), is Top- the first-order theory of natural numbers with addition. ics in Em- Examples of formulas are: ∃x.2x = y and ∃x.∀y.x + y > z. bed- ded Unlike Peano Arithmetic, which also includes multiplication, Sys- Presburger Arithmetic is a decidable theory. tems Michael R. Hansen We shall consider the algorithm introduced by D.C Cooper in 1972. The presentation is based on: Chapter 7: Quantified Linear Arithmetic of The Calculus of Computation by Bradley and Manna. 3 DTU Informatics, Technical University of Denmark Presburger Arithmetic: Cooper’s algorithm MRH 17/06/2010 Introduction 02917 Ad- vanced Presburger Arithmetic (introduced by Mojzesz Presburger in 1929), is Top- the first-order theory of natural numbers with addition.
    [Show full text]
  • Decidability and Decision Procedures –Some Historical Notes–
    Satisfiability Checking Decidability and Decision Procedures –Some Historical Notes– Prof. Dr. Erika Ábrahám RWTH Aachen University Informatik 2 LuFG Theory of Hybrid Systems WS 19/20 Satisfiability Checking — Prof. Dr. Erika Ábrahám (RWTH Aachen University) WS 19/20 1 / 26 Propositional logic decidable SAT-solving Equational logic decidable SAT-encoding Equational logic with uninterpr. functions decidable SAT-encoding Linear real algebra (R with +) decidable Simplex Real algebra (R with + and ∗) decidable CAD virtual substitution Presburger arithmetic (N with +) decidable branch and bound, Omega test Peano arithmetic (N with + and ∗) undecidable - But actually what does it mean “decidable” or “undecidable”? FO theories and their decidability Some first-order theories: Logic decidability algorithm Satisfiability Checking — Prof. Dr. Erika Ábrahám (RWTH Aachen University) WS 19/20 2 / 26 decidable SAT-solving Equational logic decidable SAT-encoding Equational logic with uninterpr. functions decidable SAT-encoding Linear real algebra (R with +) decidable Simplex Real algebra (R with + and ∗) decidable CAD virtual substitution Presburger arithmetic (N with +) decidable branch and bound, Omega test Peano arithmetic (N with + and ∗) undecidable - But actually what does it mean “decidable” or “undecidable”? FO theories and their decidability Some first-order theories: Logic decidability algorithm Propositional logic Satisfiability Checking — Prof. Dr. Erika Ábrahám (RWTH Aachen University) WS 19/20 2 / 26 SAT-solving Equational logic decidable SAT-encoding Equational logic with uninterpr. functions decidable SAT-encoding Linear real algebra (R with +) decidable Simplex Real algebra (R with + and ∗) decidable CAD virtual substitution Presburger arithmetic (N with +) decidable branch and bound, Omega test Peano arithmetic (N with + and ∗) undecidable - But actually what does it mean “decidable” or “undecidable”? FO theories and their decidability Some first-order theories: Logic decidability algorithm Propositional logic decidable Satisfiability Checking — Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Presburger Arithmetic with Threshold Counting Quantifiers Is Easy
    Presburger arithmetic with threshold counting quantifiers is easy Dmitry Chistikov ! Centre for Discrete Mathematics and its Applications (DIMAP) & Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Christoph Haase ! Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Alessio Mansutti ! Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Abstract We give a quantifier elimination procedures for the extension of Presburger arithmetic with aunary threshold counting quantifier ∃≥cy that determines whether the number of different y satisfying some formula is at least c ∈ N, where c is given in binary. Using a standard quantifier elimination procedure for Presburger arithmetic, the resulting theory is easily seen to be decidable in 4ExpTime. Our main contribution is to develop a novel quantifier-elimination procedure for a more general counting quantifier that decides this theory in 3ExpTime, meaning that it is no harder to decide than standard Presburger arithmetic. As a side result, we obtain an improved quantifier elimination procedure for Presburger arithmetic with counting quantifiers as studied by Schweikardt [ACM Trans. Comput. Log., 6(3), pp. 634-671, 2005], and a 3ExpTime quantifier-elimination procedure for Presburger arithmetic extended with a generalised modulo counting quantifier. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Logic Keywords and phrases Presburger arithmetic, counting quantifiers, quantifier elimination Funding This work is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 852769, ARiAT). 1 Introduction Counting the number of solutions to an equation, or the number of elements in a set subject to constraints, is a fundamental problem in mathematics and computer science.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decidable Fragment of Second Order Logic with Applications to Synthesis
    A Decidable Fragment of Second Order Logic With Applications to Synthesis P. Madhusudan University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA [email protected] Umang Mathur University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7610-0660 Shambwaditya Saha University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA [email protected] Mahesh Viswanathan University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA [email protected] Abstract We propose a fragment of many-sorted second order logic called EQSMT and show that checking satisfiability of sentences in this fragment is decidable. EQSMT formulae have an ∃∗∀∗ quan- tifier prefix (over variables, functions and relations) making EQSMT conducive for modeling synthesis problems. Moreover, EQSMT allows reasoning using a combination of background the- ories provided that they have a decidable satisfiability problem for the ∃∗∀∗ FO-fragment (e.g., linear arithmetic). Our decision procedure reduces the satisfiability of EQSMT formulae to satis- fiability queries of ∃∗∀∗ formulae of each individual background theory, allowing us to use existing efficient SMT solvers supporting ∃∗∀∗ reasoning for these theories; hence our procedure can be seen as effectively quantified SMT (EQSMT ) reasoning. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Logic → Logic and verification Keywords and phrases second order logic, synthesis, decidable fragment Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.CSL.2018.30 Funding This work has been supported by NSF grants 1422798, 1329991, 1138994 and 1527395. 1 Introduction The goal of program synthesis is to automatically construct a program that satisfies a given arXiv:1712.05513v3 [cs.LO] 27 Sep 2018 specification. This problem has received a lot of attention from the research community in recent years [34, 4, 14].
    [Show full text]
  • Arithmetic, First-Order Logic, and Counting Quantifiers
    Arithmetic, First-Order Logic, and Counting Quantifiers NICOLE SCHWEIKARDT Humboldt-Universitat¨ Berlin, Germany This paper gives a thorough overview of what is known about first-order logic with counting quantifiers and with arithmetic predicates. As a main theorem we show that Presburger arithmetic is closed under unary counting quantifiers. Precisely, this means that for every first-order formula '(y; ~z) over the signature f<; +g there is a first-order formula (x; ~z) which expresses over the structure hN; <; +i (respectively, over initial segments of this structure) that the variable x is interpreted exactly by the number of possible interpretations of the variable y for which the formula '(y; ~z) is satisfied. Applying this theorem, we obtain an easy proof of Ruhl's result that reachability (and similarly, connectivity) in finite graphs is not expressible in first-order logic with unary counting quantifiers and addition. Furthermore, the above result on Presburger arithmetic helps to show the failure of a particular version of the Crane Beach conjecture. Categories and Subject Descriptors: F.4.1 [Mathematical Logic and Formal Languages]: Mathematical Logic General Terms: Theory, Languages Additional Key Words and Phrases: counting quantifiers, first-order logic, Presburger arithmetic, quantifier elimination 1. INTRODUCTION In computational complexity theory the complexity of a problem is measured by the amount of time or space resources that are necessary for solving a problem on an (idealized) com- putational device such as a Turing machine. Fagin’s seminal work tied this computational complexity to the descriptive complexity, i.e., to the complexity (or, the richness) of a logic that is capable of describing the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Gödel's Incompleteness
    Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 8 Gödel's Incompleteness Tyson Lipscomb Marshall University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj Recommended Citation Lipscomb, Tyson (2010) "Gödel's Incompleteness," Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal: Vol. 11 : Iss. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj/vol11/iss1/8 Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: A Revolutionary View of the Nature of Mathematical Pursuits Tyson Lipscomb Marshall University March 11th, 2010 Abstract The work of the mathematician Kurt Gödel changed the face of mathematics forever. His famous incompleteness theorem proved that any formalized system of mathematics would always contain statements that were undecidable, showing that there are certain inherent limitations to the way many mathematicians studies mathematics. This paper provides a history of the mathematical developments that laid the foundation for Gödel's work, describes the unique method used by Gödel to prove his famous incompleteness theorem, and discusses the far- reaching mathematical implications thereof. 2 I. Introduction For thousands of years mathematics has been the one field of human thought wherein truths have been known with absolute certainty. In other fields of thought, such as science and philosophy, there has always been a level of imprecision or speculation. In mathematics, however, there are truths that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt due to the methods of proof first devised by the ancient Greeks [10]. The unparallelled certainty of mathematics has throughout the past millennia led many to accept the notion that it would be possible to answer any mathematical question through expansive enough development of mathematical techniques [16].
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 14 Rosser's Theorem, the Length of Proofs, Robinson's
    Lecture 14 Rosser’s Theorem, the length of proofs, Robinson’s Arithmetic, and Church’s theorem Michael Beeson The hypotheses needed to prove incompleteness The question immediate arises whether the incompleteness of PA can be “fixed” by extending the theory. G¨odel’s original publication was about Russell and Whitehead’s theory in Principia Mathematica. First-order logic was not yet a standard concept– that really didn’t happen until the textbook of Hilbert-Bernays appeared in the last thirties, and because WWII arrived soon on the heels of Hilbert-Bernays, it was at least 1948 before the concept was widespread. G¨odel’s methods were new and confusing: first-order logic was ill-understood, G¨odel numbering was completely new, the diagonal method was confusing, the arithmetization of syntax was confusing. There were doubts about the generality of the result. Maybe it was a special property of Principia Mathematica? Then (as now) few people were familiar with that dense and difficult theory. Maybe we just “forgot some axioms”? An examination of the proof puts that idea to rest. Clearly the proof applies to any theory T such that ◮ T contains PA ◮ The proof predicate PrfT (k,x) (“k is a proof in T of the formula with G¨odel number x”) is recursive (so representable) ◮ the axioms of T are true in some model whose “integers” are isomorphic to the structure defined by N with standard successor, addition, and multiplication. It works for all the axiom systems we know ◮ In particular those conditions apply to the strongest axioms accepted by most mathematicians, for example Zermelo-Frankel set theory with the axiom of choice, ZFC.
    [Show full text]
  • Deciding Presburger Arithmetic Using Reflection Master’S Internship Under T
    Deciding Presburger arithmetic using reflection Master's internship under T. Altenkirch supervision University of Nottingham G. Allais May 12, 2011 Abstract The need to prove or disprove a formula of Presburger arithmetic is quite frequent in certified software development (constraints generated automatically) or when working on higher arithmetic (number theory). The fact that this theory is decidable and that Agda is now mature enough to be able to implement such a solver pushed us to try to tackle this problem. The numerous steps of Cooper's decision procedure makes it easy to introduce bugs in an unverified implementation. We will show how the use of reflection together with dependent types can allow us to develop a bug-free solver that is proved to be complete. In the following developments, k, m, n will refer to integers, x, y, z to variables ranging over the integers, P , Q, R to quantifier free propositions and Φ, Ψ to any formula of Presburger arithmetic. Part I Deciding Presburger arithmetic 1 Preliminaries 1.1 Definitions The main concern of this paper is to be able to deal automatically with formulas of an extension of Presburger arithmetic without free variable. The first-order theory on natural numbers with addition but without multiplication (Presburger arithmetic) is extended with the use of the canonical order on the integers and a couple notions that are only syntactic sugar on top of it: • We allow the use of multiplication when the multiplicand is an integer: k ∗ e is only a shortcut for sign(k):e + ··· + sign(k):e ; | {z } jkj times • We also allow the use of k div e which is just a shortcut for 9x; e = k ∗ x.
    [Show full text]