On the Predictability of Classical Propositional Logic

In this work we provide a statistical form of empirical analysis of classical propositional logic decision methods called SAT solvers. This work is perceived as an empirical counterpart of a theoretical movement, called the enduring scandal of deduction, that opposes considering Boolean Logic as trivial in any sense. For that, we study the predictability of classical logic, which we take to be the distribution of the runtime of its decision process. We present a series of experiments that determines the run distribution of SAT solvers and discover a varying landscape of distributions, following the known existence of a transition of easy-hard-easy cases of propositional formulas. We find clear distributions for the easy areas and the transitions easy-hard and hard-easy. The hard cases are shown to be hard also for the detection of statistical distributions, indicating that several independent processes may be at play in those cases.

[1]  Salil P. Vadhan,et al.  Computational Complexity , 2005, Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security.

[2]  J. Hintikka Logic, language-games and information : Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic , 1973 .

[3]  Mukesh Dalal Anytime Families of Tractable Propositional Reasoners Introduction , .

[4]  Marcello D'Agostino,et al.  The enduring scandal of deduction , 2009, Synthese.

[5]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Hard and Easy Distributions of SAT Problems , 1992, AAAI.

[6]  Eugene Goldberg,et al.  BerkMin: A Fast and Robust Sat-Solver , 2002 .

[7]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Is Semantic Information Meaningful Data? , 2005, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

[8]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The SAT Phase Transition , 1994, ECAI.

[9]  Michael Dummett,et al.  The logical basis of metaphysics , 1991 .

[10]  Marcelo Finger,et al.  Approximate and Limited Reasoning: Semantics, Proof Theory, Expressivity and Control , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  Sharad Malik,et al.  Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver , 2001, Proceedings of the 38th Design Automation Conference (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37232).

[12]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Cut and Pay , 2006, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[13]  Jan Ručka,et al.  Jaakko Hintikka, Logic, Language - Games and Information. Kantian Themes in the Philosophy of Logic , 1974 .

[14]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[15]  Marco Schaerf,et al.  Tractable Reasoning via Approximation , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Stephen A. Cook,et al.  The complexity of theorem-proving procedures , 1971, STOC.

[17]  Marcelo Finger,et al.  The universe of propositional approximations , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[18]  Jaakko Hintikka,et al.  Logic, Language-Games And Information , 1972 .

[19]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Is Information Meaningful Data , 2005 .

[20]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  The enduring scandal of deduction Is propositional logic really uninformative ? , 2007 .

[21]  E. R. Cohen An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements , 1998 .

[22]  W. Stahel,et al.  Log-normal Distributions across the Sciences: Keys and Clues , 2001 .

[23]  Peter C. Cheeseman,et al.  Where the Really Hard Problems Are , 1991, IJCAI.

[24]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach , 2009 .