Constrained Pseudo-Propositional Logic


Propositional logic, with the aid of SAT solvers, has become capable of solving a range of important and complicated problems. Expanding this range, to contain additional varieties of problems, is subject to the complexity resulting from encoding counting constraints in conjunctive normal form (CNF). Due to the limitation of the expressive power of propositional logic, generally, such an encoding increases the numbers of variables and clauses excessively. This work eliminates the indicated drawback by interpolating constraint symbols and the set of natural numbers \({\mathbb {N}}\) into the alphabet of propositional logic and adjusting the underlying language accordingly. In the extended logic counting constraints are naturally formulated, while many important aspects, such as Boolean nature and the soundness and completeness theorems, are kept preserved.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Counting constraints are Pseudo-Boolean constraints with positive coefficients.

  2. 2.

    This addition is easily distinguished from the addition of formulas that appears in definition 2.1.

  3. 3.

    Zorns’s lemma If every chain in a nonempty partially ordered set S is bounded then S has a maximal element.


  1. 1.

    Aavani, A., Mitchell, D.G., Ternovska, E.: New encoding for translating pseudo-boolean constraints into SAT. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation, SARA 2013, 11–12 July 2013, Leavenworth, Washington, USA. (2013).

  2. 2.

    Azizi-Sultan, A.: Pseudo-propositional logic. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Automated Reasoning in Quantified Non-Classical Logics (ARQNL 2018) affiliated with the International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2018), Oxford, UK, July 18, 2018., pp. 26–33 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., Roussel, O.: New encodings of pseudo-boolean constraints into CNF. In: Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2009, 12th International Conference, SAT 2009, Swansea, UK, June 30–July 3, 2009. Proceedings, pp. 181–194 (2009).

  4. 4.

    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Fujita, M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking using sat procedures instead of bdds. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, DAC ’99, pp. 317–320. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1999).

  5. 5.

    Biere, A., Cimatti, A., Clarke, E.M., Zhu, Y.: Symbolic model checking without bdds. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, TACAS ’99, pp. 193–207. Springer, London, UK, UK (1999).

  6. 6.

    Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 3–5, 1971, Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA, pp. 151–158 (1971).

  7. 7.

    Cook, W.J., Coullard, C.R., Turán, G.: On the complexity of cutting-plane proofs. Discret. Appl. Math. 18(1), 25–38 (1987).

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., McAloon, K., Tretkoff, C.: Randomization in backtrack search: Exploiting heavy-tailed profiles for solving hard scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 1998, pp. 208–213 (1998).

  9. 9.

    Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence—Volume 2, AAAI’96, pp. 1194–1201. AAAI Press (1996).

  10. 10.

    Lang, S.: Real and Functional Analysis, 3rd edn. Springer, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial intelligence - a modern approach, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence. Prentice Hall (2003).

  12. 12.

    Velev, M.N., Bryant, R.E.: Effective use of boolean satisfiability procedures in the formal verification of superscalar and vliw microprocessors. J. Symb. Comput. 35(2), 73–106 (2003).

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Vinyals, M., Elffers, J., Giráldez-Cru, J., Gocht, S., Nordström, J.: In between resolution and cutting planes: A study of proof systems for pseudo-boolean SAT solving. In: O. Beyersdorff, C.M. Wintersteiger (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing - SAT 2018 - 21st International Conference, SAT 2018, Held as Part of the Federated Logic Conference, FloC 2018, Oxford, UK, July 9-12, 2018, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10929, pp. 292–310. Springer (2018).

Download references


I would like to thank Prof. Steffen Hölldobler, Director of the International Center for Computational Logic, Dresden, Germany. I have learned from him how to rationalize logically rather than just thinking mathematically. Without his influence this work would not have been established.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad-Saher Azizi-Sultan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azizi-Sultan, AS. Constrained Pseudo-Propositional Logic. Log. Univers. 14, 523–535 (2020).

Download citation


  • Propositional logic
  • Proof system
  • Pseudo-Boolean constraints
  • SAT

Mathematics Subject Classification

  • Primary 03B05
  • Secondary 03B22
  • 03F03
  • 05A05