[HN Gopher] Accidentally writing a fast SAT solver
___________________________________________________________________
Accidentally writing a fast SAT solver
Author : max__dev
Score : 39 points
Date : 2024-11-28 00:18 UTC (7 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.danielh.cc)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.danielh.cc)
| anonymousDan wrote:
| On a related note, anyone have any advice for getting started
| with something like Z3?
| porcoda wrote:
| Read up on smt-lib: learning how to encode problems in that is
| a good way to start. The Python z3 bindings are a good starting
| point to play with it too.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| https://theory.stanford.edu/~nikolaj/programmingz3.html - This
| one was useful for me to get started with it a while ago.
| Klaus23 wrote:
| https://smt.st/SAT_SMT_by_example.pdf
| porcoda wrote:
| Interesting post, but I'm not sure this really speaks to what
| goes into actually writing what would be considered a "fast" SAT
| solver. It seems more like a post about how SAT pops up in a lot
| of places if you look at them right. For the state of the art in
| what constitutes fast solvers, the annual SAT competition papers
| are quite interesting to read if you're interested in the
| techniques people come up with to make them fast. A few years ago
| I was working through Knuth's satisfiability book and writing my
| own solvers, and was always amazed how stunningly fast the SAT
| competition winners were compared to the ones I'd code up.
| RestartKernel wrote:
| I really like the styling of this blog. It's nice on the eyes,
| gets out of the way, and the collapsed containers for extra info
| is a nice touch. There's a bit of layout shift though, but that's
| about it.
| andai wrote:
| I'm on mobile too, I disabled JS in my browser to test it out,
| the site loads fine and the expanding boxes work too (I think
| it's the <details> tag).
| IshKebab wrote:
| Backtracking is not a fast SAT solver.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-05 23:00 UTC)