We introduce new proof systems for propositional logic, simple deduction Frege systems, general deduction Frege systems, and nested deduction Frege systems, which augment Frege systems with variants of the deduction rule. We give upper bounds on the lengths of proofs in Frege proof systems compared to lengths in these new systems. As applications we give near-linear simulations of the propositional Gentzen sequent calculus and the natural deduction calculus by Frege proofs. The length of a proof is the number of lines (...) in the proof. A general deduction Frege proof system provides at most quadratic speedup over Frege proof systems. A nested deduction Frege proof system provides at most a nearly linear speedup over Frege system where by "nearly linear" is meant the ratio of proof lengths is O) where α is the inverse Ackermann function. A nested deduction Frege system can linearly simulate the propositional sequent calculus, the tree-like general deduction Frege calculus, and the natural deduction calculus. Hence a Frege proof system can simulate all those proof systems with proof lengths bounded by O). Also we show that a Frege proof of n lines can be transformed into a tree-like Frege proof of O lines and of height O. As a corollary of this fact we can prove that natural deduction and sequent calculus tree-like systems simulate Frege systems with proof lengths bounded by O. (shrink)

We extend results of Bonet, Buss and Pitassi on Bondy’s Theorem and of Nozaki, Arai and Arai on Bollobás’ Theorem by proving that Frankl’s Theorem on the trace of sets has quasipolynomial size Frege proofs. For constant values of the parametert, we prove that Frankl’s Theorem has polynomial size AC0-Frege proofs from instances of the pigeonhole principle.

We consider a modification of the pigeonhole principle, M P H P, introduced by Goerdt in [7]. M P H P is defined over n pigeons and log n holes, and more than one pigeon can go into a hole (according to some rules). Using a technique of Razborov [9] and simplified by Impagliazzo, Pudlák and Sgall [8], we prove that any Polynomial Calculus refutation of a set of polynomials encoding the M P H P, requires degree Ω(log n). We (...) also prove a simple Lemma giving a simulation of Resolution by Polynomial Calculus. Using this lemma, and a Resolution upper bound by Goerdt [7], we obtain that the degree lower bound is tight. Our lower bound establishes the optimality of the tree-like Resolution simulation by the Polynomial Calculus given in [6]. (shrink)