Revisiting the Equivalence of Shininess and Politeness

  • Filipe Casal
  • João Rasga
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8312)


The Nelson-Oppen method [4] allows the combination of satisfiability procedures of stably infinite theories with disjoint signatures. Due to its importance, several attempts to extend the method to different and wider classes of theories were made. In 2005, it was shown that shiny [9] and polite [6] theories could be combined with an arbitrary theory (the relationship between these classes was analysed in [6]). Later, a stronger notion of polite theory was proposed, see [3], in order to overcome a subtle issue with a proof in [6]. In this paper, we analyse the relationship between shiny and strongly polite theories in the onesorted case. We show that a shiny theory with a decidable quantifier-free satisfiability problem is strongly polite and provide two different sufficient conditions for a strongly polite theory to be shiny. Based on these results, we derive a combination method for the union of a polite theory with an arbitrary theory.


Nelson-Oppen method combination of satisfiability procedures polite theories strongly polite theories shiny theories 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barrett, C., Conway, C.L., Deters, M., Hadarean, L., Jovanović, D., King, T., Reynolds, A., Tinelli, C.: CVC4. In: CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 171–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christ, J., Hoenicke, J., Nutz, A.: SMTInterpol: An interpolating SMT solver. In: Donaldson, A., Parker, D. (eds.) SPIN 2012. LNCS, vol. 7385, pp. 248–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jovanović, D., Barrett, C.: Polite theories revisited. In: Fermüller, C.G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-17. LNCS, vol. 6397, pp. 402–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson, G., Oppen, D.C.: Simplification by cooperating decision procedures. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1(2), 245–257 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oppen, D.C.: Complexity, convexity and combinations of theories. Theoretical Computer Science 12, 291–302 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ranise, S., Ringeissen, C., Zarba, C.G.: Combining data structures with nonstably infinite theories using many-sorted logic. In: Gramlich, B. (ed.) FroCos 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3717, pp. 48–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tinelli, C., Harandi, M.T.: A new correctness proof of the Nelson-Oppen combination procedure. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Frontiers of Combining Systems (FroCoS 1996). Applied Logic Series, vol. 3, pp. 103–119 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tinelli, C., Harandi, M.T.: Constraint logic programming over unions of constraint theories. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming 1998(6) (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tinelli, C., Zarba, C.G.: Combining nonstably infinite theories. Journal of Automated Reasoning 34(3), 209–238 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe Casal
    • 1
  • João Rasga
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.SQIG, Instituto de TelecomunicaçõesLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.Dep. Matemática, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations