Satisfiability in the context of "Vacuous truth"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Satisfiability in the context of "Vacuous truth"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Satisfiability

In mathematical logic, a formula is satisfiable if it is true under some assignment of values to its variables. For example, the formula is satisfiable because it is true when and , while the formula is not satisfiable over the integers. The dual concept to satisfiability is validity; a formula is valid if every assignment of values to its variables makes the formula true. For example, is valid over the integers, but is not.

Formally, satisfiability is studied with respect to a fixed logic defining the syntax of allowed symbols, such as first-order logic, second-order logic or propositional logic. Rather than being syntactic, however, satisfiability is a semantic property because it relates to the meaning of the symbols, for example, the meaning of in a formula such as . Formally, we define an interpretation (or model) to be an assignment of values to the variables and an assignment of meaning to all other non-logical symbols, and a formula is said to be satisfiable if there is some interpretation which makes it true. While this allows non-standard interpretations of symbols such as , one can restrict their meaning by providing additional axioms. The satisfiability modulo theories problem considers satisfiability of a formula with respect to a formal theory, which is a (finite or infinite) set of axioms.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Satisfiability in the context of Vacuous truth

In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement (specifically a universal statement that can be converted to a conditional statement) that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.

It is sometimes said that a statement is vacuously true because it does not really say anything. For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" (alternatively said "for all x in this room, if x is a cellphone then x is turned off") will be true when no cell phones are present in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and all cell phones in the room are turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Satisfiability in the context of Boolean satisfiability problem

In logic and computer science, the Boolean satisfiability problem (sometimes called propositional satisfiability problem and abbreviated SATISFIABILITY, SAT or B-SAT) asks whether there exists an interpretation that satisfies a given Boolean formula. In other words, it asks whether the formula's variables can be consistently replaced by the values TRUE or FALSE to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. If this is the case, the formula is called satisfiable, else unsatisfiable. For example, the formula "a AND NOT b" is satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = FALSE, which make (a AND NOT b) = TRUE. In contrast, "a AND NOT a" is unsatisfiable.

SAT is the first problem that was proven to be NP-complete—this is the Cook–Levin theorem. This means that all problems in the complexity class NP, which includes a wide range of natural decision and optimization problems, are at most as difficult to solve as SAT. There is no known algorithm that efficiently solves each SAT problem (where "efficiently" means "deterministically in polynomial time"). Although such an algorithm is generally believed not to exist, this belief has not been proven or disproven mathematically. Resolving the question of whether SAT has a polynomial-time algorithm would settle the P versus NP problem - one of the most important open problems in the theory of computing.

↑ Return to Menu

Satisfiability in the context of Universal quantification

In mathematical logic, a universal quantification is a type of quantifier, a logical constant which is interpreted as "given any", "for all", "for every", or "given an arbitrary element". It expresses that a predicate can be satisfied by every member of a domain of discourse. In other words, it is the predication of a property or relation to every member of the domain. It asserts that a predicate within the scope of a universal quantifier is true of every value of a predicate variable.

It is usually denoted by the turned A (∀) logical operator symbol, which, when used together with a predicate variable, is called a universal quantifier ("x", "∀(x)", or sometimes by "(x)" alone). Universal quantification is distinct from existential quantification ("there exists"), which only asserts that the property or relation holds for at least one member of the domain.

↑ Return to Menu

Satisfiability in the context of Action language

In computer science, an action language is a language for specifying state transition systems, and is commonly used to create formal models of the effects of actions on the world. Action languages are commonly used in the artificial intelligence and robotics domains, where they describe how actions affect the states of systems over time, and may be used for automated planning.

Action languages fall into two classes: action description languages and action query languages. Examples of the former include STRIPS, PDDL, Language A (a generalization of STRIPS; the propositional part of Pednault's ADL), Language B (an extension of A adding indirect effects, distinguishing static and dynamic laws) and Language C (which adds indirect effects also, and does not assume that every fluent is automatically "inertial"). There are also the Action Query Languages P, Q and R. Several different algorithms exist for converting action languages, and in particular, action language C, to answer set programs. Since modern answer-set solvers make use of boolean SAT algorithms to very rapidly ascertain satisfiability, this implies that action languages can also enjoy the progress being made in the domain of boolean SAT solving.

↑ Return to Menu

Satisfiability in the context of Satisfiability modulo theories

In computer science and mathematical logic, satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) is the problem of determining whether a mathematical formula is satisfiable. It generalizes the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) to more complex formulas involving real numbers, integers, and/or various data structures such as lists, arrays, bit vectors, and strings. The name is derived from the fact that these expressions are interpreted within ("modulo") a certain formal theory in first-order logic with equality (often disallowing quantifiers). SMT solvers are tools that aim to solve the SMT problem for a practical subset of inputs. SMT solvers such as Z3 and cvc5 have been used as a building block for a wide range of applications across computer science, including in automated theorem proving, program analysis, program verification, and software testing.

Since Boolean satisfiability is already NP-complete, the SMT problem is typically NP-hard, and for many theories it is undecidable. Researchers study which theories or subsets of theories lead to a decidable SMT problem and the computational complexity of decidable cases. The resulting decision procedures are often implemented directly in SMT solvers; see, for instance, the decidability of Presburger arithmetic. SMT can be thought of as a constraint satisfaction problem and thus a certain formalized approach to constraint programming.

↑ Return to Menu