Can I use declare-const to eliminate the forall universal quantifier?
Posted
by
monica
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by monica
Published on 2012-11-05T23:14:57Z
Indexed on
2012/11/07
5:00 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 284
z3
|theorem-proving
I have some confusion of using universal quantifier and declare-const without using forall
(set-option :mbqi true)
(declare-fun f (Int Int) Int)
(declare-const a Int)
(declare-const b Int)
(assert (forall ((x Int)) (>= (f x x) (+ x a))))
I can write like this:
(declare-const x Int)
(assert (>= (f x x) (+ x a))))
with Z3 will explore all the possible values of type Int in this two cases. So what's the difference? Can I really use the declare-const to eliminate the forall quantifier?
© Stack Overflow or respective owner