Automated Reasoning 7th International

Joint Conference IJCAR 2014 Held as

Part of the Vienna Summer of Logic
VSL 2014 Vienna Austria July 19 22
2014 Proceedings 1st Edition Stéphane
Demri
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/automated-reasoning-7th-international-joint-conferenc
e-ijcar-2014-held-as-part-of-the-vienna-summer-of-logic-vsl-2014-vienna-austria-july-
19-22-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-stephane-demri/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Computer Aided Verification 26th International

Conference CAV 2014 Held as Part of the Vienna Summer
of Logic VSL 2014 Vienna Austria July 18 22 2014
Proceedings 1st Edition Armin Biere
https://textbookfull.com/product/computer-aided-
verification-26th-international-conference-cav-2014-held-as-part-
of-the-vienna-summer-of-logic-vsl-2014-vienna-austria-
july-18-22-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-armin-biere/

Rewriting and Typed Lambda Calculi Joint International

Conference RTA TLCA 2014 Held as Part of the Vienna
Summer of Logic VSL 2014 Vienna Austria July 14 17 2014
Proceedings 1st Edition Gilles Dowek (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/rewriting-and-typed-lambda-
calculi-joint-international-conference-rta-tlca-2014-held-as-
part-of-the-vienna-summer-of-logic-vsl-2014-vienna-austria-
july-14-17-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-gilles-dowek/

Automated Reasoning 10th International Joint Conference

IJCAR 2020 Paris France July 1 4 2020 Proceedings Part
II Nicolas Peltier

https://textbookfull.com/product/automated-reasoning-10th-
international-joint-conference-ijcar-2020-paris-france-
july-1-4-2020-proceedings-part-ii-nicolas-peltier/

Automated Reasoning 10th International Joint Conference

IJCAR 2020 Paris France July 1 4 2020 Proceedings Part
I Nicolas Peltier

https://textbookfull.com/product/automated-reasoning-10th-
international-joint-conference-ijcar-2020-paris-france-
july-1-4-2020-proceedings-part-i-nicolas-peltier/
Learning and Collaboration Technologies Designing and
Developing Novel Learning Experiences First
International Conference LCT 2014 Held as Part of HCI
International 2014 Heraklion Crete Greece June 22 27
2014 Proceedings Part I 1st Edition Panayiotis Zaphiris
https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-and-collaboration-
technologies-designing-and-developing-novel-learning-experiences-
first-international-conference-lct-2014-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2014-heraklion-crete-greece-june-2/

Design User Experience and Usability User Experience

Design Practice Third International Conference DUXU
2014 Held as Part of HCI International 2014 Heraklion
Crete Greece June 22 27 2014 Proceedings Part IV 1st
Edition Aaron Marcus (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/design-user-experience-and-
usability-user-experience-design-practice-third-international-
conference-duxu-2014-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2014-heraklion-crete-greece-
june-22-27-2014-proceedings/
Informatics in Control Automation and Robotics 11th
International Conference ICINCO 2014 Vienna Austria
September 2 4 2014 Revised Selected Papers 1st Edition
Joaquim Filipe
https://textbookfull.com/product/informatics-in-control-
automation-and-robotics-11th-international-conference-
icinco-2014-vienna-austria-september-2-4-2014-revised-selected-
papers-1st-edition-joaquim-filipe/

Digital Human Modeling Applications in Health Safety

Ergonomics and Risk Management 5th International
Conference DHM 2014 Held as Part of HCI International
2014 Heraklion Crete Greece June 22 27 2014 Proceedings
1st Edition Vincent G. Duffy
https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-human-modeling-
applications-in-health-safety-ergonomics-and-risk-management-5th-
international-conference-dhm-2014-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2014-heraklion-crete-greece-june-22-27-2014/

Design User Experience and Usability Theories Methods

and Tools for Designing the User Experience Third
International Conference DUXU 2014 Held as Part of HCI
International 2014 Heraklion Crete Greece June 22 27
2014 Proceedings Part I 1st Edition Aaron Marcus (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/design-user-experience-and-
usability-theories-methods-and-tools-for-designing-the-user-
experience-third-international-conference-duxu-2014-held-as-part-
 Stéphane Demri
Deepak Kapur
Christoph Weidenbach (Eds.)
LNAI 8562

Automated Reasoning
7th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2014
Held as Part of the Vienna Summer of Logic, VSL 2014
Vienna, Austria, July 19–22, 2014, Proceedings

123
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 8562

Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science

LNAI Series Editors

Randy Goebel
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Yuzuru Tanaka
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Wolfgang Wahlster
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

LNAI Founding Series Editor

Joerg Siekmann
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Stéphane Demri Deepak Kapur
Christoph Weidenbach (Eds.)

Automated Reasoning
7th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2014
Held as Part of the Vienna Summer of Logic, VSL 2014
Vienna, Austria, July 19-22, 2014
Proceedings

13
Volume Editors
Stéphane Demri
New York University
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
250 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012, USA
E-mail: demri@lsv.ens.cachan.fr
Deepak Kapur
University of New Mexico
Department of Computer Science
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, USA
E-mail: kapur@cs.unm.edu
Christoph Weidenbach
Max Planck Institute for Informatics
Campus E1 4, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
E-mail: weidenbach@mpi-inf.mpg.de

ISSN 0302-9743 e-ISSN 1611-3349

ISBN 978-3-319-08586-9 e-ISBN 978-3-319-08587-6
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-08587-6
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014941780

LNCS Sublibrary: SL 7 – Artificial Intelligence

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location,
in ist current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use
may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution
under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,
neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or
omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein.
Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by Scientific Publishing Services, Chennai, India
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
 Foreword

In the summer of 2014, Vienna hosted the largest scientific conference in the
history of logic. The Vienna Summer of Logic (VSL, http://vsl2014.at) con-
sisted of twelve large conferences and 82 workshops, attracting more than 2000
researchers from all over the world. This unique event was organized by the Kurt
Gödel Society and took place at Vienna University of Technology during July
9 to 24, 2014, under the auspices of the Federal President of the Republic of
Austria, Dr. Heinz Fischer.
The conferences and workshops dealt with the main theme, logic, from three
important angles: logic in computer science, mathematical logic, and logic in
artificial intelligence. They naturally gave rise to respective streams gathering
the following meetings:

Logic in Computer Science / Federated Logic Conference (FLoC)

• 26th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV)

• 27th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF)
• 30th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP)
• 7th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR)
• 5th Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP)
• Joint meeting of the 23rd EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science
Logic (CSL) and the 29th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer
Science (LICS)
• 25th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications
(RTA) joint with the 12th International Conference on Typed Lambda Cal-
culi and Applications (TLCA)
• 17th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability
Testing (SAT)
• 76 FLoC Workshops
• FLoC Olympic Games (System Competitions)
VIII Foreword

Mathematical Logic

• Logic Colloquium 2014 (LC)

• Logic, Algebra and Truth Degrees 2014 (LATD)
• Compositional Meaning in Logic (GeTFun 2.0)
• The Infinity Workshop (INFINITY)
• Workshop on Logic and Games (LG)
• Kurt Gödel Fellowship Competition

Logic in Artificial Intelligence

• 14th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation

and Reasoning (KR)
• 27th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL)
• 15th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR)
• 6th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation for Health Care
2014 (KR4HC)

The VSL keynote talks which were directed to all participants were given by
Franz Baader (Technische Universität Dresden), Edmund Clarke (Carnegie Mel-
lon University), Christos Papadimitriou (University of California, Berkeley) and
Alex Wilkie (University of Manchester); Dana Scott (Carnegie Mellon Univer-
sity) spoke in the opening session. Since the Vienna Summer of Logic contained
more than a hundred invited talks, it would not be feasible to list them here.
The program of the Vienna Summer of Logic was very rich, including not only
scientific talks, poster sessions and panels, but also two distinctive events. One
was the award ceremony of the Kurt Gödel Research Prize Fellowship Competi-
tion, in which the Kurt Gödel Society awarded three research fellowship prizes
endowed with 100.000 Euro each to the winners. This was the third edition of
the competition, themed Logical Mind: Connecting Foundations and Technology
this year.
The 1st FLoC Olympic Games formed the other distinctive event and were
hosted by the Federated Logic Conference (FLoC) 2014. Intended as a new FLoC
element, the Games brought together 12 established logic solver competitions
by different research communities. In addition to the competitions, the Olympic
Games facilitated the exchange of expertise between communities, and increased
the visibility and impact of state-of-the-art solver technology. The winners in
the competition categories were honored with Kurt Gödel medals at the FLoC
Olympic Games award ceremonies.
Organizing an event like the Vienna Summer of Logic was a challenge. We
are indebted to numerous people whose enormous efforts were essential in mak-
ing this vision become reality. With so many colleagues and friends working
with us, we are unable to list them individually here. Nevertheless, as rep-
resentatives of the three streams of VSL, we would like to particularly ex-
press our gratitude to all people who helped to make this event a success:
the sponsors and the Honorary Committee; the Organization Committee and
 Foreword IX

the local organizers; the conference and workshop chairs and Program Commit-
tee members; the reviewers and authors; and of course all speakers and partici-
pants of the many conferences, workshops and competitions.
The Vienna Summer of Logic continues a great legacy of scientific thought
that started in Ancient Greece and flourished in the city of Gödel, Wittgenstein
and the Vienna Circle. The heroes of our intellectual past shaped the scientific
world-view and changed our understanding of science. Owing to their achieve-
ments, logic has permeated a wide range of disciplines, including computer sci-
ence, mathematics, artificial intelligence, philosophy, linguistics, and many more.
Logic is everywhere – or in the language of Aristotle,      

July 2014 Matthias Baaz

Thomas Eiter
Helmut Veith
 Preface

This volume contains the papers presented at IJCAR’14: 7th International Joint
Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR) held on July 19-22, 2014 in Vi-
enna. This year’s meeting was a merging of three leading events in automated
reasoning – CADE (International Conference on Automated Deduction), FroCoS
(International Symposium on Frontiers of Combining Systems) and TABLEAUX
(International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and
Related Methods). IJCAR is the premier international joint conference on all
topics in automated reasoning, including foundations, implementations, and ap-
plications. Previous IJCAR conferences were held at Siena (Italy) in 2001, Cork
(Ireland) in 2004, Seattle (USA) in 2006, Sydney (Australia) in 2008, Edinburgh
(UK) in 2010 and Manchester (UK) in 2012.
IJCAR 2014 is part of Federated Logic Conference (FLoC) that is itself part
of Vienna Summer in Logic (VSL) and 24 workshops are affiliated with IJCAR.
The Vienna Summer of Logic is a unique event organized by the Kurt Gödel
Society at Vienna University of Technology from July 9 to 24, 2014.
The call for papers for IJCAR’14 invited authors to submit full papers (of
15 pages) and system descriptions (of 7 pages). There were 83 submissions (63
regular papers and 20 system descriptions) of which 37 were accepted (26 regular
papers and 11 system descriptions). Each submission was assigned to at least
three Program Committee members, who carefully reviewed the papers, with the
help of 116 external referees. We wish to thank the Program Committee members
and all their reviewers for their works and efforts in evaluating the submissions. It
was a pleasure to work with all of them. The EasyChair conference management
system was a great help in dealing with all aspects of putting our program and
the proceedings together.
IJCAR 2014 had invited talks by Rajeev Goré (The Australian National Uni-
versity) and Ken McMillan (Microsoft Research). In addition, IJCAR together
with other FLoC conferences, had two invited plenary talks by Véronique Cortier
(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) and by Orna Kupferman (Hebrew
University). These proceedings contain three papers and an abstract of these in-
vited talks. We want to thank the invited speakers for contributing to the success
of the IJCAR 2014.
Many people helped to make IJCAR 2014 a success. We want to thank the
the conference co-chairs and the organizing committee consisting of Christian
Fermüller, Stefan Hetzl and Giselle Reis, the publicity chair Morgan Deters and
the workshop chair Matthias Horbach. We are also indebted to the FLoC and
VSL organization committees.
XII Preface

Most importantly, we would like to thank all the authors for submitting their
work to IJCAR 2014: we believe the outcome is an exciting technical program.

May 2014 Stéphane Demri

Deepak Kapur
Christoph Weidenbach

Program Committee
Franz Baader
Peter Baumgartner
Bernhard Beckert
Jasmin Christian
Blanchette
Bernard Boigelot
Maria Paola Bonacina
Agata Ciabattoni
Koen Claessen
Leonardo De Moura
Stéphanie Delaune
Stéphane Demri
Stephan Falke
Christian Fermüller
Pascal Fontaine
Silvio Ghilardi
Jürgen Giesl
Valentin Goranko
Radu Iosif
Deepak Kapur
Boris Konev
Konstantin Korovin
Daniel Kroening
Viktor Kuncak
Martin Lange
Stephan Merz
Aart Middeldorp
Enric Rodrı́guez Carbonell
Renate A. Schmidt
Carsten Schuermann
Roberto Sebastiani
Viorica
Sofronie-Stokkermans
Organization
TU Dresden, Germany
National ICT Australia
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
TU München, Germany
University of Liège, Belgium
Universita‘ degli Studi di Verona, Italy
TU Wien, Austria
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Microsoft Research, USA
CNRS, LSV, France
CNRS, France and NYU, USA
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),
Germany
TU Wien, Austria
Loria, INRIA, University of Nancy, France
Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
RWTH Aachen, Germany
Technical University of Denmark
Verimag/CNRS/University of Grenoble, France
University of New Mexico, USA
The University of Liverpool, UK
Manchester University, UK
Oxford University, UK
EPFL, Switzerland
University of Kassel, Germany
Inria Lorraine, France
University of Innsbruck, Austria
Technical University of Catalonia, Spain
University of Manchester, UK
IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark
DISI, University of Trento, Italy
University Koblenz-Landau, Germany
XIV Organization

Geoff Sutcliffe University of Miami, USA

Cesare Tinelli The University of Iowa, USA
Uwe Waldmann MPI für Informatik, Germany
Christoph Weidenbach MPI für Informatik, Germany
Jian Zhang Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, China

Additional Reviewers
Alama, Jesse Gimenez, Stéphane
Areces, Carlos Gladisch, Christoph
Armas, Ana Graham-Lengrand, Stéphane
Artale, Alessandro Grebing, Sarah
Atkey, Robert Greco, Giuseppe
Audemard, Gilles Griggio, Alberto
Badban, Bahareh Herda, Mihai
Baldi, Paolo Heule, Marijn
Barrett, Clark Hoder, Krystof
Bellodi, Elena Horbach, Matthias
Bengtson, Jesper Hou, Zhe
Benzmüller, Christoph Huang, Guan-Shieng
Bezhanishvili, Nick Hustadt, Ullrich
Bormer, Thorsten Jacobs, Swen
Bresolin, Davide Jovanović, Dejan
Brock-Nannestad, Taus Kapur, Deepak
Brockschmidt, Marc King, Timothy
Bruns, Daniel Koopmann, Patrick
Bruse, Florian Kop, Cynthia
Bucheli, Samuel Kuraj, Ivan
Chen, Hong-Yi Lammich, Peter
Conchon, Sylvain Leitsch, Alexander
Cyriac, Aiswarya Lellmann, Bjoern
De Nivelle, Hans Lisitsa, Alexei
Della Monica, Dario Liu, Jun
Demri, Stephane Liu, Wanwei
Dietl, Werner Lozes, Etienne
Dyckhoff, Roy Ludwig, Michel
Eades Iii, Harley Lutz, Carsten
Ehlers, Rüdiger Madhavan, Ravichandhran
Enea, Constantin Marchi, Jerusa
Erbatur, Serdar Mccabe-Dansted, John
Ferreira, Francisco Mclaughlin, Sean
Fiorino, Guido Metcalfe, George
Franconi, Enrico Momigliano, Alberto
Galmiche, Didier Nagele, Julian
 Organization XV

Neufeld, Eric Straccia, Umberto

Nieuwenhuis, Robert Strassburger, Lutz
Papacchini, Fabio Szeider, Stefan
Park, Sungwoo Tessaris, Sergio
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry Toman, David
Peltier, Nicolas Tsarkov, Dmitry
Pelzer, Björn Ulbrich, Mattias
Penczek, Wojciech Vescovi, Michele
Perrussel, Laurent Walther, Dirk
Peñaloza, Rafael Wand, Daniel
Poggiolesi, Francesca Wandelt, Sebastian
Popeea, Corneliu Wang, Kewen
Popescu, Andrei Weller, Daniel
Quaas, Karin Wiedijk, Freek
Ramanayake, Revantha Winkler, Sarah
Reynolds, Andrew Woltzenlogel Paleo, Bruno
Ringeissen, Christophe Xu, Ke
Rubio, Albert Zankl, Harald
Schrammel, Peter Zarrieß, Benjamin
Seylan, Inanc Zhan, Naijun
Simari, Gerardo Zhang, Heng
Spendier, Lara Zhang, Wenhui
Sternagel, Christian
Invited Talks
(Abstracts)
 From Reachability to Temporal Specifications
in Cost-Sharing Games

Guy Avni1 , Orna Kupferman1 , and Tami Tamir2

1
School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem,
Israel
2
School of Computer Science, The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel

Abstract. Multi-agents cost-sharing games are commonly used for mod-

eling settings in which different entities share resources. For example,
the setting in which entities need to route messages in a network is mod-
eled by a network-formation game: the network is modeled by a graph,
and each agent has to select a path satisfying his reachability objective.
In practice, the objectives of the entities are often more involved than
reachability. The need to specify and reason about rich specifications
has been extensively studied in the context of verification and synthesis
of reactive systems. This paper suggests and analyzes a generalization
of cost-sharing games that captures such rich specifications. In particu-
lar, we study network-formation games with regular objectives. In these
games, the edges of the graph are labeled by alphabet letters and the
objective of each player is a regular language over the alphabet of la-
bels. Thus, beyond reachability, a player may restrict attention to paths
that satisfy certain properties, referring, for example, to the providers
of the traversed edges, the actions associated with them, their quality
of service, or security. Our results show that the transition to regular
objectives makes the game considerably less stable.
 Electronic Voting: How Logic Can Help

Véronique Cortier

LORIA - CNRS, France

Abstract. Electronic voting should offer at least the same guarantees

than traditional paper-based voting systems. In order to achieve this,
electronic voting protocols make use of cryptographic primitives, as in
the more traditional case of authentication or key exchange protocols. All
these protocols are notoriously difficult to design and flaws may be found
years after their first release. Formal models, such as process algebra,
Horn clauses, or constraint systems, have been successfully applied to au-
tomatically analyze traditional protocols and discover flaws. Electronic
voting protocols however significantly increase the difficulty of the analy-
sis task. Indeed, they involve for example new and sophisticated crypto-
graphic primitives, new dedicated security properties, and new execution
structures.
After an introduction to electronic voting, we describe the current
techniques for e-voting protocols analysis and review the key challenges
towards a fully automated verification.


The research leading to these results has received funding from the European
Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no 258865, project ProSecure.
 And-Or Tableaux for Fixpoint Logics
with Converse: LTL, CTL, PDL and CPDL

Rajeev Goré

Logic and Computation Group

Research School of Computer Science
The Australian National University
rajeev.gore@anu.edu.au

Abstract. Over the last forty years, computer scientists have invented
or borrowed numerous logics for reasoning about digital systems. Here,
I would like to concentrate on three of them: Linear Time Temporal
Logic (LTL), branching time Computation Tree temporal Logic (CTL),
and Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL), with and without converse.
More specifically, I would like to present results and techniques on how
to solve the satisfiability problem in these logics, with global assump-
tions, using the tableau method. The issues that arise are the typical
tensions between computational complexity, practicality and scalability.
This is joint work with Linh Anh Nguyen, Pietro Abate, Linda Postniece,
Florian Widmann and Jimmy Thomson.
 Structured Search and Learning

Kenneth L. McMillan

Microsoft Research

Abstract. Most modern Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solvers use conflict-

driven clause learning (CDCL). In this approach, search for a model and
search for a refutation by resolution are tightly coupled in a way that
helps to focus search on relevant decisions and resolution on relevant
deductions. Decision making narrows the search by applying arbitrary
constraints. When a contradiction is reached, a “learned” fact is deduced
in response. This fact generalizes the conflict and constrains future deci-
sions. The learned fact can also be viewed as a Craig interpolant. As we
will see this view allows us to generalize the notion of conflict learning
in useful ways.
Satisfiability Module Theories (SMT solvers) of the lazy type apply
the same paradigm to first-order decision problems with certain back-
ground theories, such as linear arithmetic or the theory of arrays. In
this case, the interpolants may be validities of the theory generated by
“theory solvers”, but the basic conflict-driven mechanism remains the
same.
A common shortcoming of these procedures, successful though they
are, is that model search and conflict learning are essentially unstruc-
tured. That is, they do not take into account any modular structure that
may be present in the decision problem. Decisions are made on variables
regardless of their structural relationship, and consequently learned facts
do not reflect the problem structure. This is in contrast to a saturation
approach, in which we might order resolution so as to exploit, say, narrow
tree width of the problem.
In this talk we will consider structured approaches to conflict learning.
These techniques have been developed in the context of model checking,
an area in which the need to exploit structure is acute. Structured learn-
ing can produce facts about reachable states of a system or summaries of
procedures, which in turn can be combined to form inductive invariants.
Examples of such techniques include IC3 [1] and Lazy Annotation [2].
These techniques have similar search strategies, differing primarily
in their approach to computing interpolants. The approaches make dif-
ferent trade-offs between cost and generality, which in turn determine
the usefulness of the resulting generalizations. We observe, for example,
that more specialized decisions can make the learning problem easier,
but possibly at the cost of reduced generality or relevance of the learned
facts. Moreover, a substantial effort in generalizing the interpolants can
be justified by the corresponding reduction in search.
 Structured Search and Learning XXIII

The net effect of structured learning can be a dramatic improvement

in performance, as we observe by comparing with unstructured SMT
solvers on bounded software model checking problems.

References
1. Bradley, A.R.: SAT-based model checking without unrolling. In: Jhala, R., Schmidt,
D. (eds.) VMCAI 2011. LNCS, vol. 6538, pp. 70–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
2. McMillan, K.L.: Lazy annotation for program testing and verification. In: Touili,
T., Cook, B., Jackson, P. (eds.) CAV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6174, pp. 104–118. Springer,
Heidelberg (2010)
 Table of Contents

Invited Papers
From Reachability to Temporal Specifications in Cost-Sharing
Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Guy Avni, Orna Kupferman, and Tami Tamir
Electronic Voting: How Logic Can Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Véronique Cortier
And-Or Tableaux for Fixpoint Logics with Converse: LTL, CTL,
PDL and CPDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Rajeev Goré

HOL
Unified Classical Logic Completeness: A Coinductive Pearl . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Jasmin Christian Blanchette, Andrei Popescu, and Dmitriy Traytel
A Focused Sequent Calculus for Higher-Order Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Fredrik Lindblad

SAT and QBF

SAT-Based Decision Procedure for Analytic Pure Sequent Calculi . . . . . . 76
Ori Lahav and Yoni Zohar
A Unified Proof System for QBF Preprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Marijn J.H. Heule, Martina Seidl, and Armin Biere
The Fractal Dimension of SAT Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Carlos Ansótegui, Maria Luisa Bonet, Jesús Giráldez-Cru, and
Jordi Levy

SMT
A Gentle Non-disjoint Combination of Satisfiability Procedures . . . . . . . . 122
Paula Chocron, Pascal Fontaine, and Christophe Ringeissen

Equational Reasoning
A Rewriting Strategy to Generate Prime Implicates in Equational
Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Mnacho Echenim, Nicolas Peltier, and Sophie Tourret
XXVI Table of Contents

Finite Quantification in Hierarchic Theorem Proving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Peter Baumgartner, Joshua Bax, and Uwe Waldmann
Computing All Implied Equalities via SMT-Based Partition
Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Josh Berdine and Nikolaj Bjørner
Proving Termination of Programs Automatically with AProVE . . . . . . . . 184
Jürgen Giesl, Marc Brockschmidt, Fabian Emmes,
Florian Frohn, Carsten Fuhs, Carsten Otto, Martin Plücker,
Peter Schneider-Kamp, Thomas Ströder, Stephanie Swiderski, and
René Thiemann

Verification
Locality Transfer: From Constrained Axiomatizations to Reachability
Predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Matthias Horbach and Viorica Sofronie-Stokkermans
Proving Termination and Memory Safety for Programs with Pointer
Arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Thomas Ströder, Jürgen Giesl, Marc Brockschmidt, Florian Frohn,
Carsten Fuhs, Jera Hensel, and Peter Schneider-Kamp
QBF Encoding of Temporal Properties and QBF-Based Verification . . . . 224
Wenhui Zhang

Proof Theory
Introducing Quantified Cuts in Logic with Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Stefan Hetzl, Alexander Leitsch, Giselle Reis, Janos Tapolczai, and
Daniel Weller
Quati: An Automated Tool for Proving Permutation Lemmas . . . . . . . . . . 255
Vivek Nigam, Giselle Reis, and Leonardo Lima
A History-Based Theorem Prover for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic
Using Global Caching: IntHistGC System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
Rajeev Goré, Jimmy Thomson, and Jesse Wu
MleanCoP: A Connection Prover for First-Order Modal Logic . . . . . . . . . . 269
Jens Otten

Modal and Temporal Reasoning

Optimal Tableaux-Based Decision Procedure for Testing Satisfiability
in the Alternating-Time Temporal Logic ATL+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Serenella Cerrito, Amélie David, and Valentin Goranko
 Table of Contents XXVII

dTL2 : Differential Temporal Dynamic Logic with Nested Temporalities

for Hybrid Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Jean-Baptiste Jeannin and André Platzer

Axioms vs Hypersequent Rules with Context Restrictions: Theory and

Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Björn Lellmann

Clausal Resolution for Modal Logics of Confluence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

Cláudia Nalon, João Marcos, and Clare Dixon

Implementing Tableau Calculi Using BDDs: BDDTab System

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Rajeev Goré, Kerry Olesen, and Jimmy Thomson

SMT and SAT

Approximations for Model Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Aleksandar Zeljić, Christoph M. Wintersteiger, and Philipp Rümmer

A Tool That Incrementally Approximates Finite Satisfiability in Full

Interval Temporal Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
Rüdiger Ehlers and Martin Lange

StarExec: A Cross-Community Infrastructure for Logic Solving . . . . . . . . 367

Aaron Stump, Geoff Sutcliffe, and Cesare Tinelli

Skeptik: A Proof Compression System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374

Joseph Boudou, Andreas Fellner, and Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo

Modal Logic
Terminating Minimal Model Generation Procedures for Propositional
Modal Logics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Fabio Papacchini and Renate A. Schmidt

Cool – A Generic Reasoner for Coalgebraic Hybrid Logics

(System Description) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
Daniel Gorı́n, Dirk Pattinson, Lutz Schröder,
Florian Widmann, and Thorsten Wißmann

Complexity
The Complexity of Theorem Proving in Circumscription and Minimal
Entailment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Olaf Beyersdorff and Leroy Chew
XXVIII Table of Contents

Visibly Linear Temporal Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

Laura Bozzelli and César Sánchez

Description Logics
Count and Forget: Uniform Interpolation of SHQ-Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . 434
Patrick Koopmann and Renate A. Schmidt

Coupling Tableau Algorithms for Expressive Description Logics with

Completion-Based Saturation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
Andreas Steigmiller, Birte Glimm, and Thorsten Liebig

EL-ifying Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464

David Carral, Cristina Feier, Bernardo Cuenca Grau,
Pascal Hitzler, and Ian Horrocks

Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

The Bayesian Description Logic BEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
İsmail İlkan Ceylan and Rafael Peñaloza

OTTER Proofs in Tarskian Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495

Michael Beeson and Larry Wos

NESCOND: An Implementation of Nested Sequent Calculi for

Conditional Logics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
Nicola Olivetti and Gian Luca Pozzato

Knowledge Engineering for Large Ontologies with Sigma KEE 3.0 . . . . . . 519
Adam Pease and Stephan Schulz

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

 From Reachability to Temporal Specifications
in Cost-Sharing Games

Guy Avni1 , Orna Kupferman1, and Tami Tamir2

1
School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
2
School of Computer Science, The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel

Abstract. Multi-agents cost-sharing games are commonly used for modeling

settings in which different entities share resources. For example, the setting in
which entities need to route messages in a network is modeled by a network-
formation game: the network is modeled by a graph, and each agent has to select
a path satisfying his reachability objective. In practice, the objectives of the en-
tities are often more involved than reachability. The need to specify and reason
about rich specifications has been extensively studied in the context of verification
and synthesis of reactive systems. This paper suggests and analyzes a generaliza-
tion of cost-sharing games that captures such rich specifications. In particular,
we study network-formation games with regular objectives. In these games, the
edges of the graph are labeled by alphabet letters and the objective of each player
is a regular language over the alphabet of labels. Thus, beyond reachability, a
player may restrict attention to paths that satisfy certain properties, referring, for
example, to the providers of the traversed edges, the actions associated with them,
their quality of service, or security. Our results show that the transition to regular
objectives makes the game considerably less stable.

1 Introduction
The classical definition of a computation in computer science uses to the model of a
Turing machine that recognizes a decidable language: once an input word is received,
the machine operates on it, and eventually terminates, accepting or rejecting the word.
Such a mode of operation corresponds to the use of computers for the solution of decid-
able problems, and there is no need to elaborate on the extensive research in theoretical
computer science about this model and issues like decidability and complexity. The
specification of a Turing machines is done by means of the language it recognizes.
Indeed, the specification of hardware and software systems that are input-output trans-
formers refers to the transformation they perform, for example “z = x·y” or “the vector
of strings is alphabetically sorted”.
The classical definition of a computation does not capture the mode of operation of
reactive systems [23]. Such systems maintain an on-going interaction with their envi-
ronment. Operating systems, ATMs, elevators, satellites – these are all reactive systems.
The computations of reactive systems need not terminate, and their specifications refer
to the on-going interaction of the system with its environment, for example “every re-
quest is eventually granted” or “two requests are never granted simultaneously”. Formal
methods for specification, verification, and design of reactive systems have been a very
active research area since the 80s.

S. Demri, D. Kapur, and C. Weidenbach (Eds.): IJCAR 2014, LNAI 8562, pp. 1–15, 2014.
c Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
2 G. Avni, O. Kupferman, and T. Tamir

The classical definition of a computation is prevalent in many areas in computer

science, where users need to calculate a function or reach a certain desired goal. In par-
ticular, the classical setting in game theory is such that payoffs are being determined
and paid after some finitely (often one) many rounds [32]. In recent years, we see ex-
change of ideas between formal methods and game theory. In one direction, the setting
of a system interacting with its environment is naturally modeled by a game, where a
correct system corresponds to a winning strategy for the system [35]. Beyond the rel-
evancy of fundamental concepts from game theory, like partial observability [38] or
different types of strategies [33], this gives rise also to the adoption of ideas like stabil-
ity and anarchy in the context of reasoning about reactive systems. For example, [17]
studies synthesis in the presence of rational environments, [7,11] study non-zero-sum
games in formal methods. In the second direction, rich specification formalisms, espe-
cially quantitative ones, enables the extension of classical games to ones that consider
on-going behavior. For example, [9] studies Nash Equilibria in games with ω-regular
objectives, [3,10] introduce logics for specifying multi-agent systems, and [26] consid-
ers selfish on-going behaviors. Our work here belongs to this second direction, of lifting
ideas from formal methods to game theory, and we focus on games corresponding to
network design and formation.
Network design and formation is a fundamental well-studied problem that involves
many interesting combinatorial optimization problems. In practice, network design is
often conducted by multiple strategic users whose individual costs are affected by the
decisions made by others. Early works on network design focus on analyzing the effi-
ciency and fairness properties associated with different sharing rules (e.g., [24,31]). Fol-
lowing the emergence of the Internet, there has been an explosion of studies employing
game-theoretic analysis to explore Internet applications, such as routing in computer
networks and network formation [1,2,13,18]. In network-formation games (for a sur-
vey, see [40]), the network is modeled by a weighted graph. The weight of an edge
indicates the cost of activating the transition it models, which is independent of the
number of times the edge is used. Players have reachability objectives, each given by
sets of possible source and target nodes. Players share the cost of edges used in order
to fulfill their objectives. Since the costs are positive, the runs traversed by the players
are simple. Under the common Shapley cost-sharing mechanism, the cost of an edge is
shared evenly by the players that use it.
The players are selfish agents who attempt to minimize their own costs, rather than
to optimize some global objective. In network-design settings, this would mean that the
players selfishly select a path instead of being assigned one by a central authority. The
focus in game theory is on the stable outcomes of a given setting, or the equilibrium
points. A Nash equilibrium (NE) is a profile of the players’ strategies such that no
player can decrease his cost by an unilateral deviation from his current strategy, that is,
assuming that the strategies of the other players do not change.1
Reachability objectives enable the players to specify possible sources and targets.
Often, however, it is desirable to refer also to other properties of the selected paths.
For example, in a communication setting, edges may belong to different providers,

1
Throughout this paper, we focus on pure strategies and pure deviations, as is the case for the
vast literature on cost-sharing games.
 From Reachability to Temporal Specifications in Cost-Sharing Games 3

and a user may like to specify requirements like “all edges are operated by the same
provider” or “no edge operated by AT&T is followed by an edge operated by Verizon”.
Edges may also have different quality or security levels (e.g., “noisy channel”, “high-
bandwidth channel”, or “encrypted channel”), and again, users may like to specify their
preferences with respect to these properties. In planning or in production systems, nodes
of the network correspond to configurations, and edges correspond to the application of
actions. The objectives of the players are sequences of actions that fulfill a certain plan,
which is often more involved than just reachability [14]; for example “once the arm is
up, do not put it down until the block is placed”.
We extend network-formation games to a setting in which the players can specify
regular objectives. This involves two changes of the underlying setting: First, the edges
in the network are labeled by letters from a designated alphabet. Second, the objective
of each player is specified by a language over this alphabet. Each player should se-
lect a path labeled by a word in his objective language. Thus, if we view the network
as a nondeterministic weighted finite automaton (WFA) A, then the set of strategies
for a player with objective L is the set of accepting runs of A on some word in L.
Accordingly, we refer to our extension as automaton-formation games. As in classical
network-formation games, players share the cost of edges they use. Unlike the classical
game, the runs selected by the players need not be simple, thus a player may traverse
some edges several times. Edge costs are shared by the players, with the share being
proportional to the number of times the edge is traversed. This latter issue is the main
technical difference between automaton-formation and network-formation games, and
as we shall see, it is very significant.
Many variants of cost-sharing games and congestion games have been studied. A
generalization of the network-formation game of [2] in which players are weighted
and a player’s share in an edge cost is proportional to its weight is considered in [12],
where it is shown that the weighted game does not necessarily have a pure NE. In
a different type of congestion games, players’ payments depend on the resource they
choose to use, the set of players using this resource, or both [19,27,28,30]. In some of
these variants a NE is guaranteed to exist while in others it is not. All these variants are
different from automaton-formation games, where a player needs to select a multiset of
resources (namely, the edges he is going to traverse) rather than a single one.
We study the theoretical and practical aspects of automaton-formation games. In
addition to the general game, we consider classes of instances that have to do with the
network, the specifications, or their combination. Recall that the network can be viewed
as a WFA A. We consider the following classes of WFAs: (1) all-accepting, in which
all the states of A are accepting, thus its language is prefix closed (2) uniform costs, in
which all edges have the same cost, and (3) single letter, in which A is over a single-
letter alphabet. We consider the following classes of specifications: (1) single word,
where the language of each player is a single word, (2) symmetric, where all players
have the same objective. We also consider classes of instances that are intersections of
the above classes.
Each of the restricted classes we consider corresponds to a real-life variant of the
general setting. Let us elaborate below on single-letter instances. The language of an
automaton over a single letter {a} induces a subset of IN, namely the numbers k ∈ IN
4 G. Avni, O. Kupferman, and T. Tamir

such that the automaton accepts ak . Accordingly, single-letter instances correspond to

settings in which a player specifies possible lengths of paths. Several communication
protocols are based on the fact that a message must pass a pre-defined length before
reaching its destination. This includes onion routing, where the message is encrypted
in layers [37], or proof-of-work protocols that are used to deter denial of service attacks
and other service abuses such as spam (e.g., [16]).
We provide a complete picture of the following questions for various classes of the
game (for formal definitions, see Section 2): (i) Existence of a pure Nash equilibrium.
That is, whether each instance of the game has a profile of pure strategies that constitutes
a NE. As we show, unlike the case of classical network design games, a pure NE might
not exist in general automaton-formation games and even in very restricted instances
of it. (ii) The complexity of finding the social optimum (SO). The SO is a profile that
minimizes the total cost of the edges used by all players; thus the one obtained when
the players obey some centralized authority. We show that for some restricted instances
finding the SO can be done efficiently, while for other restricted instances, the com-
plexity agrees with the NP-completeness of classical network-formation games. (iii)
An analysis of equilibrium inefficiency. It is well known that decentralized decision-
making may lead to solutions that are sub-optimal from the point of view of society
as a whole. We quantify the inefficiency incurred due to selfish behavior according
to the price of anarchy (PoA) [25,34] and price of stability (PoS) [2] measures. The
PoA is the worst-case inefficiency of a Nash equilibrium (that is, the ratio between the
worst NE and the SO). The PoS is the best-case inefficiency of a Nash equilibrium
(that is, the ratio between the best NE and the SO). We show that while the PoA in
automaton-formation games agrees with the one in classical network-formation games
and is equal to the number of players, the PoS also equals the number of players, again
already in very restricted instances. This is in contrast with classical network-formation
games, where the PoS tends to log the number of players. Thus, the fact that players
may choose to use edges several times significantly increases the challenge of finding a
stable solution as well as the inefficiency incurred due to selfish behavior. We find this
as the most technically challenging result of this work. We do manage to find structural
restrictions on the network with which the social optimum is a NE.
The technical challenge of our setting is demonstrated in the seemingly easy instance
in which all players have the same objective. Such symmetric instances are known to be
the simplest to handle in all cost-sharing and congestion games studied so far. Specifi-
cally, in network-formation games, the social optimum in symmetric instances is also a
NE and the PoS is 1. Moreover, in some games [21], computing a NE is PLS-complete
in general, but solvable in polynomial time for symmetric instances. Indeed, once all
players have the same objective, it is not conceivable that a player would want to deviate
from the social-optimum solution, where each of the k players pays k1 of the cost of the
optimal solution. We show that, surprisingly, symmetric instances in AF-games are not
simple at all. First, we answer negatively a question we left open in [5] and show that
not only the social optimum might not be a NE, a symmetric instance need not have a
k
NE at all. Also, the PoS is at least k−1 , and for symmetric two-player AF games, we
have that P oS = P oA = 2. We also show that the P oA equals the number of players
already for very restricted instances.
 From Reachability to Temporal Specifications in Cost-Sharing Games 5

The paper is based on our paper “Network-Formation Games with Regular Objec-
tives” [5]. Due to the lack of space, some proofs and examples are missing and can be
found in the full version.

2 Preliminaries
2.1 Automaton-Formation Games
A nondeterministic finite weighted automaton on finite words (WFA, for short) is a tuple
A = Σ, Q, Δ, q0 , F, c, where Σ is an alphabet, Q is a set of states, Δ ⊆ Q × Σ × Q
is a transition relation, q0 ∈ Q is an initial state, F ⊆ Q is a set of accepting states, and
c : Δ → IR is a function that maps each transition to the cost of its formation [29]. A
run of A on a word w = w1 , . . . , wn ∈ Σ ∗ is a sequence of states π = π 0 , π 1 , . . . , π n
such that π 0 = q0 and for every 0 ≤ i < n we have Δ(π i , wi+1 , π i+1 ). The run π is
accepting iff π n ∈ F . The length of π is n, whereas its size, denoted |π|, is the number
of different transitions in it. Note that |π| ≤ n.
An automaton-formation game (AF game, for short) between k selfish players is a
pair A, O, where A is a WFA over some alphabet Σ and O is a k-tuple of regular
languages over Σ. Thus, the objective of Player i is a regular language Li , and he needs
to choose a word wi ∈ Li and an accepting run of A on wi in a way that minimizes
his payments. The cost of each transition is shared by the players that use it in their
selected runs, where the share of a player in the cost of a transition e is proportional to
the number of times e is used by the player. Formally, The set of strategies for Player i
is Si = {π : π is an accepting run of A on some word in Li }. We assume that Si is not
empty. We refer to the set S = S1 × . . . × Sk as the set of profiles of the game.
Consider a profile P = π1 , π2 , . . . , πk . We refer to πi as a sequence of transitions.
Let πi = e1i , . . . , ei i , and let ηP : Δ → IN be a function that maps each transition in Δ
to the number of times it is traversed by all the strategies in P , taking into an account
several traversals in a single strategy. Denote by ηi (e) the number  of times e is traversed
in πi , that is, ηi (e) = |{1 ≤ j ≤ i : eji = e}|. Then, ηP (e) = i=1...k ηi (e). The cost
of player i in the profile P is
 ηi (e)
costi (P ) = c(e). (1)
e∈π
ηP (e)
i

For example, consider the WFA A depicted in Fig. 1. The label e1 : a, 1 on the
transition from q0 to q1 indicates that this transition, which we refer to as e1 , traverses
the letter a and its cost is 1. We consider a game between two players. Player 1’s ob-
jective is the language is L1 = {abi : i ≥ 2} and Player 2’s language is {ab, ba}.
Thus, S1 = {{e1 , e2 , e2 }, {e1, e2 , e2 , e2 }, . . .} and S2 = {{e3 , e4 }, {e1 , e2 }}. Con-
sider the profile P = {e1 , e2 , e2 }, {e3, e4 }, the strategies in P are disjoint, and
we have cost1 (P ) = 2 + 2 = 4, cost2 (P ) = 1 + 3 = 4. For the profile P  =
{e1 , e2 , e2 }, {e1 , e2 }, it holds that η1 (e1 ) = η2 (e1 ) and η1 (e2 ) = 2 · η2 (e2 ). There-
fore, cost1 (P  ) = 12 + 2 = 2 12 and cost2 (P  ) = 12 + 1 = 1 21 .
We consider the following instances of AF games. Let G = A, O. We start with
instances obtained by imposing restrictions on the WFA A. In one-letter instances,
6 G. Avni, O. Kupferman, and T. Tamir

e2 : b, 3
e4 : b, 2 e3 : a, 2 e1 : a, 1
q3 q2 q0 q1

Fig. 1. An example of a WFA

A is over a singleton alphabet, i.e., |Σ| = 1. When depicting such WFAs, we omit the
letters on the transitions. In all-accepting instances, all the states in A are accepting; i.e.,
F = Q. In uniform-costs instances, all the transitions in the WFA have the same cost,
which we normalize to 1. Formally, for every e ∈ Δ, we have c(e) = 1. We continue to
restrictions on the objectives in O. In single-word instances, each of the languages in O
consists of a single word. In symmetric instances, the languages in O coicide, thus the
players all have the same objective. We also consider combinations on the restrictions.
In particular, we say that A, O is weak if it is one-letter, all states are accepting, costs
are uniform, and objectives are single words. Weak instances are simple indeed – each
player only specifies a length of a path he should patrol, ending anywhere in the WFA,
where the cost of all transitions is the same. As we shall see, many of our hardness
results and lower bounds hold already for the class of weak instances.

2.2 Nash Equilibrium, Social Optimum, and Equilibrium Inefficiency

For a profile P , a strategy πi for Player i, and a strategy π, let P [πi ← π] denote the
profile obtained from P by replacing the strategy for Player i by π. A profile P ∈ S
is a pure Nash equilibrium (NE) if no player i can benefit from unilaterally deviating
from his run in P to another run; i.e., for every player i and every run π ∈ Si it holds
that cost i (P [πi ← π]) ≥ cost i (P ). In our example, the profile P is not a NE, since
Player 2 can reduce his payments by deviating to profile P  .
The (social) cost of aprofile P , denoted cost(P ), is the sum of costs of the players
in P . Thus, cost(P ) = 1≤i≤k costi (P ). Equivalently, if we view P as a set of tran-
sitions, with e ∈ P iff there is π ∈ P for which e ∈ π, then cost(P ) = e∈P c(e).
We denote by OP T the cost of an optimal solution; i.e., OP T = minP ∈S cost(P ).
It is well known that decentralized decision-making may lead to sub-optimal solutions
from the point of view of society as a whole. We quantify the inefficiency incurred
due to self-interested behavior according to the price of anarchy (PoA) [25,34] and
price of stability (PoS) [2] measures. The PoA is the worst-case inefficiency of a Nash
equilibrium, while the PoS measures the best-case inefficiency of a Nash equilibrium.
Formally,
Definition 1. Let G be a family of games, and let G ∈ G be a game in G. Let Υ (G) be
the set of Nash equilibria of the game G. Assume that Υ (G) = ∅.
– The price of anarchy of G is the ratio between the maximal cost of a NE and the
social optimum of G. That is, P oA(G) = maxP ∈Υ (G) cost(P )/OP T (G). The
price of anarchy of the family of games G is P oA(G) = supG∈G P oA(G).
– The price of stability of G is the ratio between the minimal cost of a NE and the so-
cial optimum of G. That is, P oS(G) = minP ∈Υ (G) cost(P )/OP T (G). The price
of stability of the family of games G is P oS(G) = supG∈G P oS(G).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 9. Tou] In 2 Samuel viii. 9 “Toi” (so Hebrew, but LXX. “Tou”).

Hamath] see above verse 3. Hamath is sometimes referred to as

the northern boundary of Israel, compare 1 Kings viii. 65; 2 Kings xiv.
25, 28.

¹⁰he sent Hadoram his son to king David, to

salute him, and to bless him, because he had
fought against Hadarezer and smitten him; for
Hadarezer had wars with Tou; and he had with
him all manner of vessels of gold and silver
and brass.
10. Hadoram] In 2 Samuel viii. 10, “Joram.” Both these forms are
probably Hebrew adaptations of the real name.

he had with him all manner of vessels] Such informal tribute was
an acknowledgment of David’s suzerainty made in order to claim
David’s protection in war. Compare the action of Asa (1 Kings xv. 18,
19) and of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 7, 8). In all three cases the policy was
the same, i.e. to acknowledge a distant suzerain and so gain the
benefit of a valuable alliance while losing the minimum of
independence.

¹¹These also did king David dedicate unto the

Lord, with the silver and the gold that he
carried away from all the nations; from Edom,
and from Moab, and from the children of
Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from
Amalek.
11. from Amalek] So 2 Samuel viii. 12, but we have no record of
any war of David with Amalek except the account in 1 Samuel xxx.
 ¹²Moreover Abishai ¹ the son of Zeruiah smote
of the Edomites in the Valley of Salt eighteen
thousand. ¹³And he put garrisons in Edom;
and all the Edomites became servants to
David. And the Lord gave victory ² to David
whithersoever he went.
¹ Hebrew Abshai. ² Or, saved David.

12. Abishai the son of Zeruiah] In 2 Samuel viii. 13 David, and in

Psalms lx. (title) Joab, receives the credit of this victory. Abishai
might have commanded in the battle, while Joab (compare 1 Kings
xi. 16) completed the conquest of the country; but it is highly
probable that the reading Abishai the son of Zeruiah has arisen here
through a copyist’s mistake and that the true reading is And when
he (David) returned he smote Edom, etc.

of the Edomites] Literally “of Edom,” so Psalms lx. (title), but in 2

Samuel “of the Syrians,” literally “Aram.” The two words “Edom” and
“Aram” when written in Hebrew are very much alike and are easily
confused. The reading “Edom” is right here.

the Valley of Salt] Probably the marshy flat (Bädeker, Palestine⁵,

p. 174) at the south end of the Dead Sea. This valley is dominated
by the Jebel Usdum, a hill consisting “almost entirely of pure
crystallised salt” (Bädeker, Palestine⁵, p. 174).

eighteen thousand] Psalms lx. (title), “twelve thousand,” not an

important variation.

14‒17 (= 2 Samuel viii. 15‒18; compare 2 Samuel xx. 23‒26).

David’s Officials.
 ¹⁴And David reigned over all Israel; and he
executed judgement and justice unto all his
people.
14. unto all his people] David was his own chief justice, but
probably the work was too much for one man; compare 2 Samuel xv.
2‒4.

¹⁵And Joab the son of Zeruiah was over the

host; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was
recorder ¹.
¹ Or, chronicler.

15. recorder] margin, chronicler; LXX., ὑπομνηματογράφος. His

business was probably to remind the king of his various duties of
state.

¹⁶And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech

the son of Abiathar, were priests; and
Shavsha was scribe ¹;
¹ Or, secretary.

16. Abimelech the son of Abiathar] In 2 Samuel viii. 17,

Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, but read Abiathar son of Ahimelech
in both passages. Compare xv. 11, xxiv. 3, notes; and Kirkpatrick on
2 Samuel viii. 17.

Shavsha] 2 Samuel viii. 17, Seraiah; 2 Samuel xx. 25, Sheva;

and 1 Kings iv. 3 (perhaps), Shisha. Shisha and Shavsha probably
represent two different attempts to pronounce a foreign name,
perhaps Shamsha; Seraiah and Sheva are mere errors of
transcription. Foreigners were admitted to posts of authority in the
empire of David and Solomon; Ittai the Gittite and Uriah the Hittite
are instances.

scribe] margin, secretary. See 2 Kings xii. 10, xviii. 18, xxii. 3;
compare 2 Kings xxv. 19, a passage which suggests that there was
a second scribe with military duties. The first, the king’s scribe, would
formulate the king’s orders and conduct his correspondence with
foreign powers. Shavsha’s sons held the office in the reign of
Solomon, 1 Kings iv. 3.

¹⁷and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over

the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and the
sons of David were chief about the king.
17. Benaiah] Compare xi. 22‒25.

the Cherethites and the Pelethites] David’s bodyguard. The

Cherethites were almost certainly Philistines (1 Samuel xxx. 14;
Ezekiel xxv. 16; Zephaniah ii. 5), the Pelethites were probably also
Philistines (2 Samuel xv. 18). Foreign bodyguards are well-known in
history.

chief about the king] Literally, the chief at the kings hand, i.e.
formed the executive to carry out his commands; compare
Nehemiah xi. 24. In 2 Samuel viii. 18 (Revised Version) David’s sons
are described as priests, a statement which is in all probability
correct, but which the Chronicler, following the later theory of the
priesthood, could not accept (see Introduction, pp. xli. f.).

Chapter XIX.
1‒19 (= 2 Samuel x. 1‒19).
War with the Ammonites and their Aramean Allies.
 Chronicles here omits the story of David’s kindness in seeking
out and befriending Mephibosheth (Merib-baal) the son of Jonathan
(2 Samuel ix.), because he has ignored the story of David’s relations
with Saul. Further the Court History of David which occupies an
important place in 2 Samuel is passed over altogether in Chronicles
Consequently the shameful episode of Bath-sheba, and the rebellion
of Absalom vanish from the account of David. It is obvious how
greatly the presentation of David’s life and character is affected by
these omissions. Yet from his point of view the Chronicler is right in
passing these matters by in silence. He was concerned to present
David essentially as the founder of the religious life of Israel as a
kingdom and of the Temple as an institution of religion.

There are several variations in text between 2 Samuel x. and 1

Chronicles xix., e.g. verses 6, 7 (addition in Chronicles), 16
(omission from Chronicles), 18 (variation in reckoning).

¹And it came to pass after this, that Nahash

the king of the children of Ammon died, and
his son reigned in his stead.
1. after this] The war with Ammon has already been referred to
by anticipation in xviii. 11.

Nahash] Probably the Nahash mentioned in 1 Samuel xi. 1.

Ammon] The Ammonites were a kindred race to the Hebrews,

being descended according to tradition from Lot, the nephew of
Abraham; compare Deuteronomy ii. 19. The two Ammonite names
here given are pure Hebrew, Nahash (= “Serpent”) and Hanun (=
“Favoured, Fortunatus”); the Ammonite language, like the Moabite,
was doubtless very similar to Hebrew.

²And David said, I will shew kindness unto

Hanun the son of Nahash, because his father
shewed kindness to me. So David sent
 messengers to comfort him concerning his
father. And David’s servants came into the
land of the children of Ammon to Hanun, to
comfort him.
2. sent messengers to comfort him] A customary act of
international courtesy; compare 2 Kings xx. 12. Its breach was
resented. Thus in the Tell el-Amarna letters (x. 16) the king of
Kardunias writes, “Should not my brother (i.e. the king of Egypt)
have heard that I am sick? Why has he not comforted me? Why has
he not sent his messenger, not looked into it?” (editor H. Winckler, p.
23).

³But the princes of the children of Ammon said

to Hanun, Thinkest thou that David doth
honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters
unto thee? are not his servants come unto
thee for to search, and to overthrow, and to
spy out the land?
3. the land] 2 Samuel x. 3, the city, i.e. Rabbah (see xx. 1).

⁴So Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved

them, and cut off their garments in the middle,
even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
4. shaved them] 2 Samuel x. 4, shaved off the one half of their
beards. Of course a great insult; compare Isaiah l. 6.

cut off their garments] Jewish ambassadors are represented on

the Black Obelisk (a monument of Shalmaneser II, king of Assyria,
now preserved in the British Museum) as wearing robes reaching to
the feet; Hanun reduced ambassadors to the level of captives;
compare Isaiah xx. 4.

⁵Then there went certain, and told David how

the men were served. And he sent to meet
them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And
the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your
beards be grown, and then return.
5. Tarry at Jericho] Thus (1) the feelings of the ambassadors
would be spared, (2) the insult would be less widely known until it
had been avenged.

⁶And when the children of Ammon saw that

they had made themselves odious to David,
Hanun and the children of Ammon sent a
thousand talents of silver to hire them chariots
and horsemen out of Mesopotamia, and out of
Aram-maacah, and out of Zobah.
6. a thousand talents of silver] A very large sum; for a hundred
talents Amaziah hired a hundred thousand men (2 Chronicles xxv.
6).

chariots and horsemen] The Israelite armies on the contrary

consisted chiefly of infantry, the country being for the most part
unsuitable for horses.

Mesopotamia] Hebrew “Aram (Syria) of the two rivers” (compare

Genesis xxiv. 10, Revised Version margin), i.e. probably the land
between the Euphrates and the Chaboras. The Greeks used the
term Mesopotamia of a wider district, i.e. of the country between the
Euphrates and the Tigris. This mention of Mesopotamia is probably
premature, for in verse 16 the summons of Syrians from beyond the
Euphrates is spoken of as a new thing. The corresponding
expression in 2 Samuel x. 6 is Beth-rehob, a district which has not
yet been identified.

Aram-maacah] compare vii. 15, note; Deuteronomy iii. 14;

Joshua xii. 5, xiii. 11.

Zobah]. compare xviii. 3, note.

⁷So they hired them thirty and two thousand

chariots, and the king of Maacah and his
people; who came and pitched before
Medeba. And the children of Ammon gathered
themselves together from their cities, and
came to battle.
7. thirty and two thousand chariots] Compare 2 Samuel x. 6,
which reckons the army (including Maacah) at 33,000, of whom
20,000 are expressly described as footmen. The word “chariots” may
have slipped in from verse 6 instead of “men” or may be an
intentional alteration, magnifying the war.

Medeba] In the territory of Reuben; Joshua xiii. 26. The country

round is a table-land suited for the manœuvres of chariots. The
place of the rendezvous of the allies is not mentioned in 2 Samuel x.,
some words having probably fallen out of the text.

⁸And when David heard of it, he sent Joab,

and all the host of the mighty men. ⁹And the
children of Ammon came out, and put the
battle in array at the gate of the city: and the
kings that were come were by themselves in
the field.
 8. David ... sent Joab] Why in such a crisis did he not go himself?
Perhaps because he could watch the gathering of the more serious
storm described in verses 16‒19 better from Jerusalem.

¹⁰Now when Joab saw that the battle ¹ was set

against him before and behind, he chose of all
the choice men of Israel, and put ¹¹them in
array against the Syrians. And the rest of the
people he committed into the hand of Abishai ²
his brother, and they put themselves in array
against the children of Ammon. ¹²And he said,
If the Syrians be too strong for me, then thou
shalt help me: but if the children of Ammon be
too strong for thee, then I will help thee.
¹ Hebrew the face of the battle was against.

² Hebrew Abshai.

10. he chose of all the choice men] The Syrians were the more
formidable because of the chariots they had; Joab therefore opposed
to them the flower of his army.

¹³Be of good courage, and let us play the men

for our people, and for the cities of our God:
and the Lord do that which seemeth him
good.
13. the cities of our God] The cities which our God has given us
and in which He is worshipped. If these were captured by the enemy,
false gods would be worshipped in them. Religious feeling often
supplies the place of patriotism in the East.
 ¹⁴So Joab and the people that were with him
drew nigh before the Syrians unto the battle;
and they fled before him.
14. drew nigh before the Syrians] Without fear for their own rear
advanced against the Syrian front.

¹⁵And when the children of Ammon saw that

the Syrians were fled, they likewise fled before
Abishai his brother, and entered into the city.
Then Joab came to Jerusalem.
15. Joab came to Jerusalem] Probably because he was wanted
for the new danger gathering in the North.

16‒19.
The End of the Aramean War.

Three stages are apparent in the war with Zobah as related in

Chronicles, (a) that in which David secured a position on the
Euphrates, xviii. 3‒8, (b) the stage during which troops from Zobah
acted as auxiliaries to the Ammonites, xix. 6‒15, (c) the final stage
which ended in the conclusion of a formal peace, xix. 16‒19. The
actual facts of David’s activities against the Arameans are by no
means easy to ascertain, as may be seen in the commentaries on
the more complex account which is given in Samuel.

¹⁶And when the Syrians saw that they were

put to the worse before Israel, they sent
messengers, and drew forth the Syrians that
were beyond the River, with Shophach the
captain of the host of Hadarezer at their head.
 16. the Syrians that were beyond the River] i.e. the Syrians of
“Mesopotamia”; compare verse 6, note. 2 Samuel x. 16 adds, and
they came to Helam; the position of Helam however is unknown.

Shophach] In 2 Samuel x. 16 called “Shobach.” The whole allied

army was united under one general.

¹⁷And it was told David; and he gathered all

Israel together, and passed over Jordan, and
came upon them, and set the battle in array
against them. So when David had put the
battle in array against the Syrians, they fought
with him.
17. came upon them] or possibly read, as 2 Samuel x. 17, came
to Helam. According to 2 Samuel x. the Syrian army assembled at
Helam, and was there attacked by David.

¹⁸And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David

slew of the Syrians the men of seven
thousand chariots, and forty thousand
footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of
the host.
18. seven thousand] 2 Samuel x. 18, seven hundred: an
intentional change made by the Chronicler to enhance the
achievement of David.

forty thousand footmen] 2 Samuel x. 18, forty thousand

horsemen. Swarms of horsemen have usually formed the strength of
armies raised on the eastern bank of the Euphrates; but the reading
in Chronicles may well be correct.
 ¹⁹And when the servants of Hadarezer saw
that they were put to the worse before Israel,
they made peace with David, and served him:
neither would the Syrians help the children of
Ammon any more.
19. the servants] i.e. his vassals and tributaries; in 2 Samuel “all
the kings that were servants to Hadarezer.” We are not told what
course Hadarezer himself took; possibly, being deserted by his
allies, he ceased from hostilities without making any treaty with
David.

Chapter XX.
1‒3 (= 2 Samuel xi. 1, xii. 26‒31).
The Subjugation of Ammon.

The account of the siege of Rabbah is given more shortly in

Chronicles than in 2 Samuel From the latter we learn that the Ark
was in the besiegers’ camp (xi. 11), that the city was defended with
spirit (xi. 17), and finally taken piecemeal (xii. 26‒29).

¹And it came to pass, at the time of the

return of the year, at the time when kings go
out to battle, that Joab led forth the power of
the army, and wasted the country of the
children of Ammon, and came and besieged
Rabbah. But David tarried at Jerusalem. And
Joab smote Rabbah, and overthrew it.
 1. at the time of the return of the year] i.e. in the spring, 2 Samuel
xi. 1; 1 Kings xx. 22.

the power of the army] The Hebrew phrase is quite general in

meaning: the host of war, the military forces.

Rabbah] the capital of the Ammonites; Jeremiah xlix. 2; Ezekiel

xxi. 20 (25, Hebrew). Its site, now called ‘Ammān, is covered with
important ruins of the Roman and Byzantine periods. The town lies
in a fertile basin, its citadel on a hill on the north side.

David tarried at Jerusalem] In 2 Samuel these words introduce

the story of David’s adultery with Bath-sheba, which is omitted from
Chronicles.

Joab smote Rabbah] In 2 Samuel xii. 27 Joab reports to David

the capture of the city of waters (i.e. the lower city), and invites him
to come and complete the conquest (presumably by capturing the
citadel) in person. Probably the citadel was dependent for water on
the river which flows through the town.

²And David took the crown of their king ¹ from

off his head, and found it to weigh a talent of
gold, and there were precious stones in it; and
it was set upon David’s head: and he brought
forth the spoil of the city, exceeding much.
¹ Or, Malcam See Zephaniah i. 5.

2. of their king] So also Authorized Version, perhaps rightly, but

many scholars prefer to treat the word as a proper name, rendering,
as margin, of Malcam (compare Zephaniah i. 5), i.e. Milcom, the
national god of the Ammonites (1 Kings xi. 5). LXX. has a double
translation of the one Hebrew word: Molchol (Molchom) their king.
The name of the god, whether the right form be Molech (1 Kings xi.
7) or more probably Milcom or Malcam, means either “king” or, less
probably, “counsellor.” In the former case his image would in all
probability wear a crown.

it was set upon David’s head] A symbolic action implying that

David completely annexed the Ammonite territory; other conquered
nations retained a partial independence on condition of the payment
of tribute.

he brought forth the spoil of the city, exceeding much] doubtless

a triumphal procession of captives and spoil, such as an Assyrian
relief in the British Museum represents passing before Sennacherib
at the capture of Lachish.

³And he brought forth the people that were

therein, and cut them with saws, and with
harrows of iron, and with axes. And thus did
David unto all the cities of the children of
Ammon. And David and all the people
returned to Jerusalem.
3. and cut them with saws] Read probably (compare 2 Samuel
xii. 31, Revised Version margin) and put them with saws, i.e. put
them to work with saws, etc. Compare 2 Chronicles ii. 17, 18;
Joshua ix. 21‒23. The implements mentioned here and in the
parallel passage of 2 Samuel suggest task-work, not massacre. The
Ammonites were reduced to bondage like that of Israel in Egypt. The
exceptionally harsh treatment of the Ammonites was doubtless due
to the exceptional insults which David’s ambassadors had received
from them. A very different spirit towards Ammon is shown in
Deuteronomy ii. 19.

4‒8 (= 2 Samuel xxi. 18‒22).

Philistine champions slain.

This section is the last in which the Chronicler notices David’s

wars. It is taken from 2 Samuel xxi., where, however, it is preceded
by an account (verses 15‒17) of David’s narrow escape in an
encounter with a Philistine.

Between the two sections of this chapter the Chronicler omits the
account of the rebellions of Absalom and of Sheba, and the story of
the Gibeonite vengeance on the house of Saul (2 Samuel xiii. i‒xxi.
14).

⁴And it came to pass after this, that there

arose war at Gezer ¹ with the Philistines: then
Sibbecai the Hushathite slew Sippai, of the
sons of the giant ²: and they were subdued.
¹ In 2 Samuel xxi. 18, Gob.

² Hebrew Rapha. According to another reading, giants; Hebrew

Rephaim.

4. at Gezer] See vi. 67, note. In 2 Samuel at Gob, but no place

called Gob is known. In 2 Samuel v. 25 it is said that David smote
the Philistines “from Geba until thou come to Gezer.”

Sippai] In 2 Samuel “Saph.”

giant] Hebrew “Rapha”; the same Hebrew word in the plural

“Rephaim” is translated “giants” in Deuteronomy ii. 11, Authorized
Version These “Rephaim” dwelt east of Jordan.

⁵And there was again war with the Philistines;

and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the
brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of
whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
5. Elhanan ... slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath] In 2 Samuel xxi.
19, Elhanan ... the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath (Revised Version).
The difference between the two sentences in Hebrew is very small,
and is due, no doubt, to the Chronicler, or a copyist, who felt that he
was making a certain emendation in substituting the brother of
Goliath for Goliath himself, since, according to 1 Samuel xvii.,
Goliath was slain by David before he became king.

slew Lahmi] read the Beth-lehemite slew, etc.

⁶And there was again war at Gath, where was

a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes
were four and twenty, six on each hand, and
six on each foot; and he also was born unto
the giant ¹.
¹ Hebrew Rapha.

6. a man of great stature] In 2 Samuel xxi. 20 (Hebrew) a man of

contention, i.e. a challenger or champion.

⁷And when he defied ⁴ Israel, Jonathan the son

of Shimea David’s brother slew him.
⁴ Or, reproached.

7. Shimea] See iii. 5, note.

⁸These were born unto the giant ¹ in Gath; and

they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand
of his servants.
¹ Hebrew Rapha.
 8. These were born unto the giant in Gath] Again “giant” is the
Hebrew “Rapha” as in verses 4, 6. The meaning is that these
belonged to a branch of the Rephaim which was settled in Gath.
 Chapter XXI.
1‒27 (= 2 Samuel xxiv. 1‒25).
The Numbering and the Plague.

Comparison of these verses with the account given in Samuel

discloses not a few interesting divergences, the more important of
which are pointed out in the notes below (see especially the notes on
verses 1, 6, 25). In general it may be said that the account in
Chronicles curtails any features reflecting discredit on David and
expands such as do him honour. Some scholars consider that the
changes are of such a character that they may all be due directly to
the Chronicler, but others see in them motives so various as to
suggest the opinion that the Chronicler’s source is not Samuel but
an intermediate source. There may be a measure of truth in both
contentions. So famous a tale may well have been recounted with
modifications in the telling to suit the later idealisation of David. The
Chronicler may therefore have been working from the text of
Samuel, but some of the changes he introduced may have been
generally current, and for these he is in a sense not immediately
responsible, although of course all were more or less in accordance
with his taste.

The subject of the present section (David’s numbering of the

people and the plague which followed) is interesting in itself, quite
apart from the comparison with Samuel Why was the census
considered a sin? Various replies may be made. (1) Because the
pride of David and the ambitions which the census might promote
revealed a transference of trust from God to self, from spirit to
numbers, from justice to power. This view accords with our modern
moralistic standpoint, but other considerations call for mention.
(2) Because, unlike the two numberings in the wilderness (Numbers
i. 1‒16, iii. 39, xxvi. 1‒65), it was not made by Divine command
(compare verse 1, note). This thought may well have been present in
the mind of the Chronicler. To it we may add (3) the popular dread of
the census as a sinister and unlucky act. The ground of this dread
was no doubt mainly practical, being due to the fear that the records
might be used for purposes of fresh taxation or more stringent war-
levies, but it may have its roots in an instinct, handed down from the
thoughts of primitive ages, when written records were an uncanny
mystery. Thus S. I. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion To-day, p. 69,
remarks that the persistence of this fear among modern Semites is
partially chargeable for the lack of correct statistics as to the
population of Oriental towns. Frazer (in Anthropological Essays to
E. B. Tylor, p. 174) refers to the dread of enumeration felt by the
Lapps and by a West African tribe.

¹And Satan ¹ stood up against Israel, and

moved David to number Israel.
¹ Or, an adversary.

1. And Satan stood up against Israel] In 2 Samuel “And again (a

former occasion being at the time of the famine, 2 Samuel xxi. 1) the
anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David
against them.” The change is significant of the late date of
Chronicles In an earlier stage of Hebrew thought human sin and folly
are at times naïvely ascribed to the agency of God, e.g. “He hardens
Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus x. 1, etc.): “quem Deus vult perdere prius
dementat.” At a later date the instigation of some subordinate “evil”
spirit was adduced, e.g. 1 Kings xxii. 20‒24; and eventually this spirit
of temptation was expressly termed “The Satan” or “Satan,” i.e. “The
Adversary.” He was then regarded as a hostile spiritual being, the
opposite of a guardian angel such as the Michael of Daniel x. 13, 21,
xii. 1. In the book of Job the Satan is very definitely said to act under
the guidance and will of God. Here nothing is said of the Satan
having been directed by Jehovah.
 to number] Only those of military age (verse 5), over twenty years
of age (xxvii. 23, 24), were included in the census.

²And David said to Joab and to the princes of

the people, Go, number Israel from Beer-
sheba even to Dan; and bring me word, that I
may know the sum of them.
2. to Joab] The object being to number “those who drew sword,”
the captain of the host was the most suitable person to entrust with
the business.

from Beer-sheba even to Dan] From the extreme south to the

extreme north of the land.

Dan] The modern Tell el-Kādī, about forty minutes distance from
Bāniās (Paneas), north of Lake Huleh (Waters of Merom). For its
original name Laish, see Judges xviii. 28.

that I may know] Either with a view to imposing a tax or to

undertaking some fresh great military expedition.

³And Joab said, The Lord make his people an

hundred times so many more as they be: but,
my lord the king, are they not all my lord’s
servants? why doth my lord require this thing?
why will he be a cause of guilt unto Israel?
3. The Lord make ... are they not all my lord’s servants?]
Counting will not increase their numbers, only Jehovah’s gracious
favour can secure that. What more then can David desire than to
know, as Joab now assures him, that one and all his subjects are
loyal?