DOCSLIB.ORG

A Structure-Aware Satisfiability Solver

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Structure-Aware Satisfiability Solver SymChaff: A Structure-Aware Satisfiability Solver Ashish Sabharwal Computer Science and Engineering University of Washington, Box 352350 Seattle, WA 98195-2350, U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract performing specific solvers on problems from many real- world domains including hardware verification (Biere et We present a novel low-overhead framework for encoding al. 1999; Velev & Bryant 2001), automatic test pattern and utilizing structural symmetry in propositional satisfiabil- generation (Konuk & Larrabee 1993; Stephan, Brayton, & ity algorithms (SAT solvers). We use the notion of com- plete multi-class symmetry and demonstrate the efficacy of Sangiovanni-Vincentelli 1996), planning (Kautz & Selman our technique through a solver SymChaff that achieves ex- 1992), and scheduling (Gomes et al. 1998). With a large ponential speedup by using simple tags in the specification of community of researchers working towards a better under- problems from both theory and practice. standing of SAT, it is not surprising that many competing Efficient implementations of DPLL-based SAT solvers are general purpose systematic SAT solvers have come into light routinely used in areas as diverse as planning, scheduling, in the past decade such as Grasp (Marques-Silva & Sakallah design automation, model checking, verification, testing, and 1996), Relsat (Bayardo Jr. & Schrag 1997), SATO (Zhang algebra. A natural feature of many application domains is the 1997), zChaff (Moskewicz et al. 2001), Berkmin (Gold- presence of symmetry, such as that amongst all trucks at a berg & Novikov 2002), and March-eq by Marijn Heule and certain location in logistics planning and all wires connecting Hans van Maaren. All of these solvers fall into the cate- two switch boxes in an FPGA circuit. Many of these prob- gory of systematic DPLL-based solvers, and build upon a lems turn out to have a concise description in many-sorted basic branch and backtrack technique (Davis, Logemann, & first order logic. This description can be easily specified by the problem designer and almost as easily inferred automat- Loveland 1962). With the addition of features such as smart ically. SymChaff, an extension of the popular SAT solver branch selection heuristics, conflict clause learning, random zChaff, uses information obtained from the “sorts” in the first restarts, conflict-directed backjumping, fast unit propagation order logic constraints to create symmetry sets that are used using watched literals, etc., these have been quite effective to partition variables into classes and to maintain and utilize in solving challenging problems from various domains. symmetry information dynamically. Despite the success, one aspect of many theoretical as Current approaches designed to handle symmetry include: well as real-world problems that we believe has not been (A) symmetry breaking predicates (SBPs), (B) pseudo- fully exploited is the presence of symmetry. Symmetry oc- Boolean solvers with implicit representation for counting, (C) curs naturally in many application areas. For example, in modifications of DPLL that handle symmetry dynamically, FPGA routing, all wires or channels connecting two switch and (D) techniques based on ZBDDs. SBPs are prohibitively boxes are equivalent; in circuit modeling, all inputs to a mul- many, often large, and expensive to compute for problems tiple fanin AND gate are equivalent; in planning, all boxes such as the ones we report experimental results for. Pseudo- Boolean solvers are provably exponentially slow in certain that need to be moved from city A to city B are equivalent; in symmetric situations and their implicit counting representa- multi-processor scheduling (or cache coherency protocols), tion is not always appropriate. Suggested modifications of all available processors (or caches, respectively) are typi- DPLL either work on limited global symmetry and are dif- cally equivalent. While there has been work on using this ficult to extend, or involve expensive algebraic group com- equivalence or symmetry in domain-specific algorithms and putations. Finally, techniques based on ZBDDs often do not techniques, current general purpose complete SAT solvers compare well even with ordinary DPLL-based solvers. Sym- are unable to fully capitalize on symmetry as suggested by Chaff addresses and overcomes most of these limitations. our experimental results. Introduction Previous Work In recent years, general purpose propositional satisfia- A technique that has worked quite well in handling sym- bility algorithms (SAT solvers) have been designed and metry is to add symmetry breaking predicates (SBPs) to the shown to be very successful in handling and even out- input specification to weed out all but the lexically-first solu- tions (Crawford et al. 1996). Tools such as Shatter (Aloul, Copyright c 2005, American Association for Artificial Intelli- Markov, & Sakallah 2003) use graph isomorphism detectors gence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. like Saucy to generate SBPs. This latter problem of com- puting graph isomorphism is not known to have any polyno- rather than its CNF representation to obtain symmetry in- mial time solution, and is conjectured to be strictly between formation. (We give concrete examples of this later in the the complexity classes P and NP (see e.g. Kobler,¨ Schoning,¨ paper.) This leads to several advantages. The high level de- & Toran´ 1993). Further, the number of SBPs one needs to scription of a problem is typically very concise and reveals add in order to break all symmetries may be prohibitively its structure much better than a relatively large set of clauses large. This is typically handled by discarding “large” sym- encoding the same problem. It is simple, in many cases al- metries. This may, however, result in a much slower SAT most trivial, for the problem designer to specify global sym- solution as indicated by some of our experiments. metries at this level using straightforward “tagging.” If one Solvers such as PBS (Aloul et al. 2002a), pbChaff prefers to compute these symmetries automatically, off-the- (Dixon, Ginsberg, & Parkes 2004), and Galena (Chai & shelf graph isomorphism tools can be used. Using these Kuehlmann 2003) utilize non-CNF formulations known as tools on the concise high level description will, of course, pseudo-Boolean (PB) inequalities. They are based on the be much faster than using the same tools on a substantially Cutting Planes proof system which is known to be strictly larger CNF encoding. stronger than the resolution proof system on which DPLL While it is natural to pick a variable and branch two ways type CNF solvers are based (Cook, Coullard, & Turan 1987). by setting it to TRUE and FALSE, this is not necessarily the Since this more powerful proof system is difficult to imple- best option when k variables, x1, x2, . , xk, are known to ment in its full generality, PB solvers often implement only be arbitrarily interchangeable. The same applies to more a subset of it, typically learning only CNF clauses or re- complex symmetries where multiple classes of variables si- stricted PB constraints upon a conflict. PB solvers may lead multaneously depend on an index set I = {1, 2, . , k} and to purely syntactic representational efficiency in cases where can be arbitrarily interchanged in parallel within their re- a single constraint such as y1+y2+...+yk ≤ 1 is equivalent spective classes. We formalize this as a k-complete multi- k (k + 1) to 2 binary clauses. More importantly, they are relevant to class symmetry and handle it using a -way branch symmetry because they sometimes allow implicit encoding. based on I that maintains completeness of the search and For instance, the single constraint x1 + x2 + ... + xn ≤ m shrinks the search space by as much as O(k!). The index over n variables captures the essence of the pigeonhole for- sets are implicitly determined from the many-sorted first or- mula over nm variables (described in detail later) which is der logic representation of the problem at hand. We ex- provably exponentially hard to solve using resolution-based tend the standard notions of conflict and clause learning to methods without symmetry considerations. This implicit the multiway branch setting, introducing symmetric learn- representation, however, is not suitable in certain applica- ing. Our solver SymChaff integrates seamlessly with most tions such as clique coloring and planning that we discuss. of the standard features of modern SAT solvers, extending One could conceivably keep the CNF input unchanged but them in the context of symmetry wherever necessary. These modify the solver to detect and handle symmetries during include fast unit propagation, good restart strategy, effective the search phase as they occur. Although this approach is constraint database management, etc. quite natural, we are unaware of its implementation in a gen- eral purpose SAT solver besides sEqSatz (Li, Jurkowiak, Preliminaries & Purdom 2002) whose technique appears to be somewhat specific and whose results are not too impressive compared A propositional formula in conjunctive normal form (CNF) to zChaff itself. Related work has been done in specific ar- is a conjunction (AND) of clauses, where each clause is a eas of automatic test pattern generation (Marques-Silva & disjunction (OR) of literals and a literal is a propositional Sakallah 1997) and SAT-based model checking (Shtrichman (Boolean) variable or its negation. A pseudo-Boolean (PB) 2004), where the solver utilizes global information obtained formula is a conjunction of PB constraints,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “The Church-Turing “Thesis” As a Special Corollary of Gödel's
    “The Church-Turing “Thesis” as a Special Corollary of Gödel’s Completeness Theorem,” in Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and Beyond, B. J. Copeland, C. Posy, and O. Shagrir (eds.), MIT Press (Cambridge), 2013, pp. 77-104. Saul A. Kripke This is the published version of the book chapter indicated above, which can be obtained from the publisher at https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computability. It is reproduced here by permission of the publisher who holds the copyright. © The MIT Press The Church-Turing “ Thesis ” as a Special Corollary of G ö del ’ s 4 Completeness Theorem 1 Saul A. Kripke Traditionally, many writers, following Kleene (1952) , thought of the Church-Turing thesis as unprovable by its nature but having various strong arguments in its favor, including Turing ’ s analysis of human computation. More recently, the beauty, power, and obvious fundamental importance of this analysis — what Turing (1936) calls “ argument I ” — has led some writers to give an almost exclusive emphasis on this argument as the unique justification for the Church-Turing thesis. In this chapter I advocate an alternative justification, essentially presupposed by Turing himself in what he calls “ argument II. ” The idea is that computation is a special form of math- ematical deduction. Assuming the steps of the deduction can be stated in a first- order language, the Church-Turing thesis follows as a special case of G ö del ’ s completeness theorem (first-order algorithm theorem). I propose this idea as an alternative foundation for the Church-Turing thesis, both for human and machine computation. Clearly the relevant assumptions are justified for computations pres- ently known.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Proof
    Logic and Proof Computer Science Tripos Part IB Lent Term Lawrence C Paulson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge [email protected] Copyright c 2018 by Lawrence C. Paulson I Logic and Proof 101 Introduction to Logic Logic concerns statements in some language. The language can be natural (English, Latin, . ) or formal. Some statements are true, others false or meaningless. Logic concerns relationships between statements: consistency, entailment, . Logical proofs model human reasoning (supposedly). Lawrence C. Paulson University of Cambridge I Logic and Proof 102 Statements Statements are declarative assertions: Black is the colour of my true love’s hair. They are not greetings, questions or commands: What is the colour of my true love’s hair? I wish my true love had hair. Get a haircut! Lawrence C. Paulson University of Cambridge I Logic and Proof 103 Schematic Statements Now let the variables X, Y, Z, . range over ‘real’ objects Black is the colour of X’s hair. Black is the colour of Y. Z is the colour of Y. Schematic statements can even express questions: What things are black? Lawrence C. Paulson University of Cambridge I Logic and Proof 104 Interpretations and Validity An interpretation maps variables to real objects: The interpretation Y 7 coal satisfies the statement Black is the colour→ of Y. but the interpretation Y 7 strawberries does not! A statement A is valid if→ all interpretations satisfy A. Lawrence C. Paulson University of Cambridge I Logic and Proof 105 Consistency, or Satisfiability A set S of statements is consistent if some interpretation satisfies all elements of S at the same time.
    [Show full text]
  • Satisfiability 6 the Decision Problem 7
    Satisfiability Difficult Problems Dealing with SAT Implementation Klaus Sutner Carnegie Mellon University 2020/02/04 Finding Hard Problems 2 Entscheidungsproblem to the Rescue 3 The Entscheidungsproblem is solved when one knows a pro- cedure by which one can decide in a finite number of operations So where would be look for hard problems, something that is eminently whether a given logical expression is generally valid or is satis- decidable but appears to be outside of P? And, we’d like the problem to fiable. The solution of the Entscheidungsproblem is of funda- be practical, not some monster from CRT. mental importance for the theory of all fields, the theorems of which are at all capable of logical development from finitely many The Circuit Value Problem is a good indicator for the right direction: axioms. evaluating Boolean expressions is polynomial time, but relatively difficult D. Hilbert within P. So can we push CVP a little bit to force it outside of P, just a little bit? In a sense, [the Entscheidungsproblem] is the most general Say, up into EXP1? problem of mathematics. J. Herbrand Exploiting Difficulty 4 Scaling Back 5 Herbrand is right, of course. As a research project this sounds like a Taking a clue from CVP, how about asking questions about Boolean fiasco. formulae, rather than first-order? But: we can turn adversity into an asset, and use (some version of) the Probably the most natural question that comes to mind here is Entscheidungsproblem as the epitome of a hard problem. Is ϕ(x1, . , xn) a tautology? The original Entscheidungsproblem would presumable have included arbitrary first-order questions about number theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Boolean Satisfiability Problem Using the Parallel Paradigm Jury Composition
    Philosophæ doctor thesis Hoessen Benoît Solving the Boolean Satisfiability problem using the parallel paradigm Jury composition: PhD director Audemard Gilles Professor at Universit´ed'Artois PhD co-director Jabbour Sa¨ıd Assistant Professor at Universit´ed'Artois PhD co-director Piette C´edric Assistant Professor at Universit´ed'Artois Examiner Simon Laurent Professor at University of Bordeaux Examiner Dequen Gilles Professor at University of Picardie Jules Vernes Katsirelos George Charg´ede recherche at Institut national de la recherche agronomique, Toulouse Abstract This thesis presents different technique to solve the Boolean satisfiability problem using parallel and distributed architec- tures. In order to provide a complete explanation, a careful presentation of the CDCL algorithm is made, followed by the state of the art in this domain. Once presented, two proposi- tions are made. The first one is an improvement on a portfo- lio algorithm, allowing to exchange more data without loosing efficiency. The second is a complete library with its API al- lowing to easily create distributed SAT solver. Keywords: SAT, parallelism, distributed, solver, logic R´esum´e Cette th`ese pr´esente diff´erentes techniques permettant de r´esoudre le probl`eme de satisfaction de formule bool´eenes utilisant le parall´elismeet du calcul distribu´e. Dans le but de fournir une explication la plus compl`ete possible, une pr´esentation d´etaill´ee de l'algorithme CDCL est effectu´ee, suivi d'un ´etatde l'art. De ce point de d´epart,deux pistes sont explor´ees. La premi`ereest une am´eliorationd'un algorithme de type portfolio, permettant d'´echanger plus d'informations sans perte d’efficacit´e.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Mathematics
    Foundations of Mathematics November 27, 2017 ii Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Foundations of Geometry 3 2.1 Introduction . .3 2.2 Axioms of plane geometry . .3 2.3 Non-Euclidean models . .4 2.4 Finite geometries . .5 2.5 Exercises . .6 3 Propositional Logic 9 3.1 The basic definitions . .9 3.2 Disjunctive Normal Form Theorem . 11 3.3 Proofs . 12 3.4 The Soundness Theorem . 19 3.5 The Completeness Theorem . 20 3.6 Completeness, Consistency and Independence . 22 4 Predicate Logic 25 4.1 The Language of Predicate Logic . 25 4.2 Models and Interpretations . 27 4.3 The Deductive Calculus . 29 4.4 Soundness Theorem for Predicate Logic . 33 5 Models for Predicate Logic 37 5.1 Models . 37 5.2 The Completeness Theorem for Predicate Logic . 37 5.3 Consequences of the completeness theorem . 41 5.4 Isomorphism and elementary equivalence . 43 5.5 Axioms and Theories . 47 5.6 Exercises . 48 6 Computability Theory 51 6.1 Introduction and Examples . 51 6.2 Finite State Automata . 52 6.3 Exercises . 55 6.4 Turing Machines . 56 6.5 Recursive Functions . 61 6.6 Exercises . 67 iii iv CONTENTS 7 Decidable and Undecidable Theories 69 7.1 Introduction . 69 7.1.1 Gödel numbering . 69 7.2 Decidable vs. Undecidable Logical Systems . 70 7.3 Decidable Theories . 71 7.4 Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems . 74 7.5 Exercises . 81 8 Computable Mathematics 83 8.1 Computable Combinatorics . 83 8.2 Computable Analysis . 85 8.2.1 Computable Real Numbers . 85 8.2.2 Computable Real Functions .
    [Show full text]
  • Turing-Computable Functions  • Let F :(Σ−{ })∗ → Σ∗
    Turing-Computable Functions • Let f :(Σ−{ })∗ → Σ∗. – Optimization problems, root finding problems, etc. • Let M be a TM with alphabet Σ. • M computes f if for any string x ∈ (Σ −{ })∗, M(x)=f(x). • We call f a recursive functiona if such an M exists. aKurt G¨odel (1931, 1934). c 2017 Prof. Yuh-Dauh Lyuu, National Taiwan University Page 60 Kurt G¨odela (1906–1978) Quine (1978), “this the- orem [···] sealed his im- mortality.” aThis photo was taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt (1898–1995). c 2017 Prof. Yuh-Dauh Lyuu, National Taiwan University Page 61 Church’s Thesis or the Church-Turing Thesis • What is computable is Turing-computable; TMs are algorithms.a • No “intuitively computable” problems have been shown not to be Turing-computable, yet.b aChurch (1935); Kleene (1953). bQuantum computer of Manin (1980) and Feynman (1982) and DNA computer of Adleman (1994). c 2017 Prof. Yuh-Dauh Lyuu, National Taiwan University Page 62 Church’s Thesis or the Church-Turing Thesis (concluded) • Many other computation models have been proposed. – Recursive function (G¨odel), λ calculus (Church), formal language (Post), assembly language-like RAM (Shepherdson & Sturgis), boolean circuits (Shannon), extensions of the Turing machine (more strings, two-dimensional strings, and so on), etc. • All have been proved to be equivalent. c 2017 Prof. Yuh-Dauh Lyuu, National Taiwan University Page 63 Alonso Church (1903–1995) c 2017 Prof. Yuh-Dauh Lyuu, National Taiwan University Page 64 Extended Church’s Thesisa • All “reasonably succinct encodings” of problems are polynomially related (e.g., n2 vs. n6). – Representations of a graph as an adjacency matrix and as a linked list are both succinct.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Metalogic an Introduction to Classical Model Theory & Computability
    Classical Metalogic An Introduction to Classical Model Theory & Computability Notes by R.J. Buehler January 5, 2015 2 Preface What follows are my personal notes created in preparation for the UC-Berkeley Group in Logic preliminary exam. I am not a computability theorist, nor a model theorist; I am a graduate student with some knowledge who is–alas–quite fallible. Accordingly, this text is made available as a convenient reference, set of notes, and summary, but without even the slight hint of a guarantee that everything contained within is factual and correct (indeed, some areas are entirely unchanged from the moment I copied them off the blackboard). This said, if you find a serious error, I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me know so that it can be corrected. The material for these notes derives from a wide variety of sources: Lectures by Wes Holliday Lectures by Antonio Montalban Lectures by John Steel Kevin Kelly’s computability theory notes David Marker’s “Model Theory: An Introduction” Wilfrid Hodge’s “A Shorter Model Theory” Robert Soare’s “Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees" Richard Kaye’s “Models of Peano Arithmetic” Chang and Keisler’s “Model Theory" While I certainly hope my notes are beneficial, if you’re attempting to learn the contained material for the first time, I would highly suggest picking up (at least) a copy of Marker and Soare’s texts in addition. To those Group in Logic students who may be using these notes to help themselves prepare for their preliminary exam, chapters 1-5, 7, and 9-18 contain relevant material, as well as chapter 8, section 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Λ-Calculus: the Other Turing Machine
    λ-Calculus: The Other Turing Machine Guy Blelloch and Robert Harper July 25, 2015 The early 1930s were bad years for the worldwide economy, but great years for what would even- tually be called Computer Science. In 1932, Alonzo Church at Princeton described his λ-calculus as a formal system for mathematical logic,and in 1935 argued that any function on the natural numbers that can be effectively computed, can be computed with his calculus [4]. Independently in 1935, as a master's student at Cambridge, Alan Turing was developing his machine model of computation. In 1936 he too argued that his model could compute all computable functions on the natural numbers, and showed that his machine and the λ-calculus are equivalent [6]. The fact that two such different models of computation calculate the same functions was solid evidence that they both represented an inherent class of computable functions. From this arose the so-called Church-Turing thesis, which states, roughly, that any function on the natural numbers can be effectively computed if and only if it can be computed with the λ-calculus, or equivalently, the Turing machine. Although the Church-Turing thesis by itself is one of the most important ideas in Computer Science, the influence of Church and Turing's models go far beyond the thesis itself. The Turing machine has become the core of all complexity theory [5]. In the early 1960's Juris Hartmanis and Richard Stearns initiated the study of the complexity of computation. In 1967 Manuel Blum developed his axiomatic theory of complexity, which although independent of any particular machine, was considered in the context of a spectrum of Turing machines (e.g., one tape, two tape, or two stack).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 13: Propositional Logic Metatheoretic Definitions
    Valid, Invalid, . Lecture 13: Logical Consequence Propositional Logic Metatheoretic Definitions Logical Equivalence Laws of the Algebra of . Module Home Page Aims: Title Page • To discuss what we mean by valid, invalid, satisfiable and unsatisfiable; JJ II • To discuss what we mean by logical consequence; • To discuss what we mean by logical equivalence; and J I • To look at laws of propositional logic. Page 1 of 12 Back Full Screen Close Quit 13.1. Valid, Invalid, Satisfiable and Unsatisfiable • The truth-tables we saw in the previous lecture show that some wffs evaluate to true no matter how their atomic wffs are interpreted (every interpretation satisfies them), Valid, Invalid, . some evaluate to false for every interpretation of their atomic wffs (no interpretation Logical Consequence satisfies them), and others are true for some interpretations and false for others (some Logical Equivalence interpretations satisfy them, others don’t.) There is some terminology for all of this. Laws of the Algebra of . (There would be, wouldn’t there?) always true sometimes true/sometimes false always false Module Home Page tautology contingency contradiction logically true contingency logically false Title Page valid invalid unfalsifiable falsifiable JJ II satisfiable unsatisfiable Some books also use ‘consistent’ for ‘satisfiable’ and ‘inconsistent’ for ‘unsatisfiable’ J I but this is to be avoided. We will use just the following: valid/invalid and satisfiable/unsatisfiable. I ignore all Page 2 of 12 the others to avoid terminology overload: – A wff is valid if all interpretations satisfy it. Otherwise (i.e. if at least one does Back not satisfy it), it is invalid.
    [Show full text]
  • My Slides for a Course on Satisfiability
    Satisfiability Victor W. Marek Computer Science University of Kentucky Spring Semester 2005 Satisfiability – p.1/97 Satisfiability story ie× Á Satisfiability - invented in the ¾¼ of XX century by philosophers and mathematicians (Wittgenstein, Tarski) ie× Á Shannon (late ¾¼ ) applications to what was then known as electrical engineering ie× ie× Á Fundamental developments: ¼ and ¼ – both mathematics of it, and fundamental algorithms ie× Á ¼ - progress in computing speed and solving moderately large problems Á Emergence of “killer applications” in Computer Engineering, Bounded Model Checking Satisfiability – p.2/97 Current situation Á SAT solvers as a class of software Á Solving large cases generated by industrial applications Á Vibrant area of research both in Computer Science and in Computer Engineering ¯ Various CS meetings (SAT, AAAI, CP) ¯ Various CE meetings (CAV, FMCAD, DATE) ¯ CE meetings Stressing applications Satisfiability – p.3/97 This Course Á Providing mathematical and computer science foundations of SAT ¯ General mathematical foundations ¯ Two- and Three- valued logics ¯ Complete sets of functors ¯ Normal forms (including ite) ¯ Compactness of propositional logic ¯ Resolution rule, completeness of resolution, semantical resolution ¯ Fundamental algorithms for SAT ¯ Craig Lemma Satisfiability – p.4/97 And if there is enough of time and will... Á Easy cases of SAT ¯ Horn ¯ 2SAT ¯ Linear formulas Á And if there is time (but notes will be provided anyway) ¯ Expressing runs of polynomial-time NDTM as SAT, NP completeness ¯ “Mix and match” ¯ Learning in SAT, partial closure under resolution ¯ Bounded Model Checking Satisfiability – p.5/97 Various remarks Á Expected involvement of Dr. Truszczynski Á An extensive set of notes (> 200 pages), covering most of topics will be provided f.o.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Topics Related to Propositional Logic
    Some Topics Related to Propositional Logic Xishun Zhao [email protected] Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 1/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 2/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Why SAT is so important? PversusNP Applications Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 2/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Why SAT is so important? PversusNP Applications Challenges for SAT Solving and Its Applications Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 2/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Why SAT is so important? PversusNP Applications Challenges for SAT Solving and Its Applications Minimal Unsatisfiability Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 2/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Why SAT is so important? PversusNP Applications Challenges for SAT Solving and Its Applications Minimal Unsatisfiability Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF) Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 2/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Why SAT is so important? PversusNP Applications Challenges for SAT Solving and Its Applications Minimal Unsatisfiability Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF) Expressive Power and Complexity Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p. 2/42 Outline Propositional Logic The Satisfiability Problem Why SAT is so important? PversusNP Applications Challenges for SAT Solving and Its Applications Minimal Unsatisfiability Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBF) Expressive Power and Complexity Future Work Sun Yat-sen University Topics Related to Propositional Logic December 5, 2010 – p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Explanatory Power of a New Proof: Henkin's Completeness Proof
    The explanatory power of a new proof: Henkin’s completeness proof John Baldwin February 25, 2017 Mancosu writes But explanations in mathematics do not only come in the form of proofs. In some cases expla- nations are sought in a major recasting of an entire discipline. ([Mancosu, 2008], 142) This paper takes up both halves of that statement. On the one hand we provide a case study of the explanatory value of a particular milestone proof. In the process we examine how it began the recasting of a discipline. Hafner and Mancosu take a broad view towards the nature of mathematical explanation. They ar- gue that before attempting to establish a model of explanation, one should develop a ‘taxonomy of re- current types of mathematical explanation’ ([Hafner and Mancosu, 2005], 221) and preparatory to such a taxonomy propose to examine in depth various examples of proofs. In [Hafner and Mancosu, 2005] and [Hafner and Mancosu, 2008], they study deep arguments in real algebraic geometry and analysis to test the models of explanation of Kitcher and Steiner. In their discussion of Steiner’s model they challenge1 the as- sertion [Resnik and Kushner, 1987] that Henkin’s proof of the completeness theorem is explanatory, asking ‘what the explanatory features of this proof are supposed to consist of?’ As a model theorist the challenge to ‘explain’ the explanatory value of this fundamental argument is irresistible. In contrasting the proofs of Henkin and Godel,¨ we seek for the elements of Henkin’s proofs that permit its numerous generalizations. In Section 2 we try to make this analysis more precise through Steiner’s notion of characterizing property.
    [Show full text]