Z3

问题 I am trying to count the number of satisfying assignments by Z3. I am wondering if Z3 provides such information. If so, how can I count models in Z3 and particularly in Z3Py? 回答1: While Taylor's answer will give you the number of satisfying assignments, it will iterate over all of them. In principle, it is possible to do it without such an expensive iteration, but Z3 does not offer it. There are efficient model counters for propositional logic, the same language used in SAT (search for

问题 I can not find .net api for (elim-quantifiers (exists ((x Int)) (and (< t1 x) (< x t2)))) is it a Tactic? Could someone help me using .net API of Z3 to implement the following scripts? (declare-const t1 Int) (declare-const t2 Int) (elim-quantifiers (exists ((x Int)) (and (< t1 x) (< x t2)))) 回答1: Yes, you can use a tactic. Here is an example using the .NET API (I didn't run this particular example so it may need some minor modification, but I use roughly the same in a program of mine). //

问题 I can not find .net api for (elim-quantifiers (exists ((x Int)) (and (< t1 x) (< x t2)))) is it a Tactic? Could someone help me using .net API of Z3 to implement the following scripts? (declare-const t1 Int) (declare-const t2 Int) (elim-quantifiers (exists ((x Int)) (and (< t1 x) (< x t2)))) 回答1: Yes, you can use a tactic. Here is an example using the .NET API (I didn't run this particular example so it may need some minor modification, but I use roughly the same in a program of mine). //

问题 Z3Py snippet : x = Int('x') fun = Function('fun', IntSort(), IntSort(), IntSort()) phi = ForAll(x, (fun(x, x) != x)) print phi solve(phi) Permalink : http://rise4fun.com/Z3Py/KZbR Output : ∀x : fun(x, x) ≠ x [elem!0 = 0, fun!6 = [(1, 1) → 2, else → 1], fun = [else → fun!6(ζ5(ν0), ζ5(ν1))], ζ5 = [1 → 1, else → 0]] Question : I am trying to understand the model generated by Z3. I have following doubts. In the model generated by z3, fun has only the else part. So on first glance, it looks like

问题 We prove the following theorem in Frobenius Algebras The proof is performed using the following code ;; Frobenius algebra object (A,mu,eta,delta, epsilon) (declare-sort A) (declare-sort AA) (declare-sort A_AA) (declare-sort AA_A) (declare-sort I) (declare-sort I_A) (declare-sort A_I) (declare-fun alpha (AA_A) A_AA) (declare-fun inv_alpha (A_AA) AA_A) (declare-fun mu (AA) A) (declare-fun eta (I) A) (declare-fun mu_id (AA_A) AA) (declare-fun id_mu (A_AA) AA) (declare-fun eta_id (I_A) AA)

问题 If "pop" completely destroys context (i.e., learned lemmas) in incremental constraint solving what is the purpose of using "stack mode"? Rationale: I imagine that if I have just 1 constraint (several conjuncts) it would be preferable to make a single query as opposed to stacking the conjuncts in separate frames onto the stack. If I have more than 1 constraint and decide to use incremental solving with stack, then I would need to (make at least one) pop after querying one constraint and that

问题 I am working on a component of a research tool; I am interested in retrieving (for QF_LRA) -multiple (minimal or otherwise) UNSAT cores and -multiple SAT assignments I have checked the forum for earlier discussions on this topic e.g., How to get different unsat cores when using z3 on logic QF_LRA They refer to the z3 Python tutorial(s) e.g, http://rise4fun.com/Z3Py/tutorial/musmss which seems to be offline for now. I have tried other suggestions of github etc to find the mentioned tutorial,

问题 I have a question about Quantifiers. Suppose that I have an array and I want to calculate array index 0, 1 and 2 for this array - (declare-const cpuA (Array Int Int)) (assert (or (= (select cpuA 0) 0) (= (select cpuA 0) 1))) (assert (or (= (select cpuA 1) 0) (= (select cpuA 1) 1))) (assert (or (= (select cpuA 2) 0) (= (select cpuA 2) 1))) Or otherwise I can specify the same using forall construct as - (assert (forall ((x Int)) (=> (and (>= x 0) (<= x 2)) (or (= (select cpuA x) 0) (= (select

问题 I have a question about Quantifiers. Suppose that I have an array and I want to calculate array index 0, 1 and 2 for this array - (declare-const cpuA (Array Int Int)) (assert (or (= (select cpuA 0) 0) (= (select cpuA 0) 1))) (assert (or (= (select cpuA 1) 0) (= (select cpuA 1) 1))) (assert (or (= (select cpuA 2) 0) (= (select cpuA 2) 1))) Or otherwise I can specify the same using forall construct as - (assert (forall ((x Int)) (=> (and (>= x 0) (<= x 2)) (or (= (select cpuA x) 0) (= (select

问题 Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers. Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow. Closed 5 years ago . Given an arbitrary propositional formula PHI (linear constraints on some variables), what is the best way to determine the (approximate) upper and lower bound for each variable? Some variables may be unbounded. In this case, an algorithm should conclude that there's no upper/lower bound for those variables. e.g.