outline finite_set theory solver

Signed-off-by: Nikolaj Bjorner <nbjorner@microsoft.com>

src/ast/rewriter/finite_set_axioms.h

@@ -6,29 +6,9 @@ Module Name:
     finite_set_axioms.h
 
 Abstract:
-    Axiom schemas for finite sets.
 
-    Axiom schemars for finite sets are instantiated based on the state of the
-    congruence closure and existing assertions in for finite sets.
     This module implements axiom schemas that are invoked by saturating constraints
     with respect to the semantics of set operations. 
-
-    Let v1 ~ v2 mean that v1 and v2 are congruent
-
-    The set-based decision procedure relies on saturating with respect
-    to rules of the form:
-    
-      x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ set.empty
-    --------------------------------
-       not (x in set.empty)
-
-
-     x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.union v4 v5)
-     -----------------------------------------------
-           x in v1 <=> x in v4 or x in v5    
- 
-    set.size : (FiniteSet S) -> Int
-    set.subset : (FiniteSet S) (FiniteSet S) -> Bool
        
 --*/
 

src/smt/theory_finite_set.h

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+/*++
+Copyright (c) 2025 Microsoft Corporation
+
+Module Name:
+
+    theory_finite_set.h
+
+Abstract:
+
+    The theory solver relies on instantiating axiom schemas for finite sets.
+    The instantation rules can be represented as implementing inference rules
+    that encode the semantics of set operations.
+    It reduces satisfiability into a combination of satisfiability of arithmetic and uninterpreted functions.
+
+    This module implements axiom schemas that are invoked by saturating constraints
+    with respect to the semantics of set operations.
+
+    Let v1 ~ v2 mean that v1 and v2 are congruent
+
+    The set-based decision procedure relies on saturating with respect
+    to rules of the form:
+
+       x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ set.empty
+    -----------------------------------
+       v1 = set.empty => not (x in v1)
+
+
+     x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.union v4 v5)
+     -----------------------------------------------
+           x in v3 <=> x in v4 or x in v5
+
+     x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.intersect v4 v5)
+     ---------------------------------------------------
+           x in v3 <=> x in v4 and x in v5
+
+    x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.difference v4 v5)
+    ---------------------------------------------------
+         x in v3 <=> x in v4 and not (x in v5)
+
+    x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.singleton v4)
+    -----------------------------------------------
+         x in v3 <=> x == v4
+
+    x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.range lo hi)
+    -----------------------------------------------
+         x in v3 <=> (lo <= x <= hi)
+
+    x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.map f v4)
+    -----------------------------------------------
+     x in v3 <=> set.map_inverse(f, x, v4) in v4
+
+    x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.map f v4)
+   -----------------------------------------------
+        x in v4 => f(x) in v3
+
+   x in v1 == v2, v1 ~ v3, v3 == (set.select p v4)
+   -----------------------------------------------
+        x in v3 <=> p(x) and x in v4
+
+The central claim is that the above rules are sufficient to
+decide satisfiability of finite set constraints.
+Model construction proceeds by selecting every set.in(x_i, v) for a 
+congruence root v. Then the set of elements { x_i | set.in(x_i, v) } 
+is the interpretation.
+
+This approach, however, does not work with ranges, or is impractical.
+For ranges, we are going to extract an interpretation for set variable v
+directly from a set of range expressions.
+Inductively, the interpretation of a range expression is given by the
+range itself. It proceeds by taking unions, intersections and differences of range
+interpretations. 
+
+For Boolean lattice constraints given by equality, subset, strict subset and union, intersections, 
+the theory solver uses a stand-alone satisfiability checker for Boolean algebras to close branches.
+
+--*/