FindInstance boolean program is slow, but fast with BooleanConvert

FindInstance can be incredibly slow to solve a boolean program, but it can be significantly improved by using BooleanConvert to convert the constraints to "conjunctive normal form".

For example, here is a boolean program with some random constraints. My laptop can't solve it in 10 seconds.

vars = Array[x, 50];
SeedRandom[1234];
const = And @@ Table[Or[
     Xor[RandomChoice[vars], RandomChoice[vars]],
     Xor[RandomChoice[vars], RandomChoice[vars]]], 100];


TimeConstrained[FindInstance[const, vars, Booleans], 10, "Timeout!"]

(* Timeout! *)

Converting the constraints to "conjunctive normal form" helps FindInstance find a solution almost instantly:

AbsoluteTiming@FindInstance[ BooleanConvert[const,"CNF"], vars, Booleans ] // Short

(* {0.014715, {{x[1] -> False, x[2] -> False, <<46>>, x[49] -> False, x[50] -> False}}} *)

Wolfram's 4-color map-coloring example uses this trick; without BooleanConvert, it takes forever to run.

Does anyone know why this is so? I wish the FindInstance documentation would've mentioned this trick.

Related: 1, 2

Update: A colleague pointed out that "conjunctive normal form" has the appealing property that it allows short-circuiting, which allows the satisfiability solver to prune away large branches of the tree of candidate variable choices. For example,

BooleanConvert[Nand[x, y]~And~Xor[y, z], "CNF"]

converts the expression into the AND of a bunch of OR expressions:

(! x || ! y) && (! y || ! z) && (y || z)

When testing a candidate set of values for x,y,z, the solver can evaluate each OR expression in turn and stop as soon as it encounters one that evaluates to FALSE. For example, once it concludes that x=TRUE, y=TRUE makes the first OR clause FALSE, it can prune off the lower levels of the tree and doesn't need to try either value of z.

Comments

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.

Blog

Search This Blog