Cook and Reckhow defined a propositional formulation of the pigeonhole principle. This paper shows that there are Frege proofs of this propositional pigeonhole principle of polynomial size. This together with a result of Haken gives another proof of Urquhart's theorem that Frege systems have an exponential speedup over resolution. We also discuss connections to provability in theories of bounded arithmetic.

A new proof style adequate for modal logics is defined from the polynomial ring calculus. The new semantics not only expresses truth conditions of modal formulas by means of polynomials, but also permits to perform deductions through polynomial handling. This paper also investigates relationships among the PRC here defined, the algebraic semantics for modal logics, equational logics, the Dijkstra???Scholten equational-proof style, and rewriting systems. The method proposed is throughly exemplified for S 5, and can be easily extended to (...) other modal logics. (shrink)

A previously unexplored method, combining logical and mathematical elements, is shown to yield substantial numerical improvements in the area of Diophantine approximations. Kreisel illustrated the method abstractly by noting that effective bounds on the number of elements are ensured if Herbrand terms from ineffective proofs ofΣ2-finiteness theorems satisfy certain simple growth conditions. Here several efficient growth conditions for the same purpose are presented that are actually satisfied in practice, in particular, by the proofs of Roth's theorem due to (...) Roth himself and to Esnault and Viehweg. The analysis of the former yields an exponential bound of order exp in place of exp given by Davenport and Roth in 1955, whereαis algebraic of degreed≥ 2 and ∣α−pq−1∣ shrink)

Let Con↾x denote the finite consistency statement “there are no proofs of contradiction in T with ≤x symbols.” For a large class of natural theories T, Pudlák has shown that the lengths of the shortest proofs of Con↾n in the theory T itself are bounded by a polynomial in n. At the same time he conjectures that T does not have polynomial proofs of the finite consistency statements Con)↾n. In contrast, we show that Peano arithmetic (...) has polynomial proofs of Con)↾n, where Con∗ is the slow consistency statement for Peano arithmetic, introduced by S.-D. Friedman, Rathjen, and Weiermann. We also obtain a new proof of the result that the usual consistency statement Con is equivalent to ε0 iterations of slow consistency. Our argument is proof-theoretic, whereas previous investigations of slow consistency relied on nonstandard models of arithmetic. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In 1933 Gödel introduced an axiomatic system, currently known as S4, for a logic of an absolute provability, i.e. not depending on the formalism chosen ([God 33]). The problem of finding a fair provability model for S4 was left open. The famous formal provability predicate which first appeared in the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem does not do this job: the logic of formal provability is not compatible with S4. As was discovered in [Art 95], this defect of the formal provability (...) predicate can be bypassed by replacing hidden quantifiers over proofs by proof polynomials in a certain finite basis. The resulting Logic of Proofs enjoys a natural arithmetical semantics and provides an intended provability model for S4, thus answering a question left open by Gödel in 1933. Proof polynomials give an intended semantics for some other constructions based on the concept of provability, including intuitionistic logic with its Brouwer- Heyting- Kolmogorov interpretation, ?-calculus and modal ?-calculus. In the current paper we demonstrate how the intuitionistic propositional logic Int can be directly realized by proof polynomials. It is shown, that Int is complete with respect to this proof realizability. (shrink)

We show, under the assumption that factoring is hard, that a model of PV exists in which the polynomial hierarchy does not collapse to the linear hierarchy; that a model of S21 exists in which NP is not in the second level of the linear hierarchy; and that a model of S21 exists in which the polynomial hierarchy collapses to the linear hierarchy. Our methods are model-theoretic. We use the assumption about factoring to get a model in which (...) the weak pigeonhole principle fails in a certain way, and then work with this failure to obtain our results. As a corollary of one of the proofs, we also show that in S21 the failure of WPHP (for Σb1 definable relations) implies that the strict version of PH does not collapse to a finite level. (shrink)

In this paper we study (self)-applicative theories of operations and binary words in the context of polynomial time computability. We propose a first order theory PTO which allows full self-application and whose provably total functions on W = {0, 1} * are exactly the polynomial time computable functions. Our treatment of PTO is proof-theoretic and very much in the spirit of reductive proof theory.

In this paper we study -applicative theories of operations and binary words in the context of polynomial time computability. We propose a first order theory PTO which allows full self-application and whose provably total functions on $\mathbb{W} = \{0, 1\}^\ast$ are exactly the polynomial time computable functions. Our treatment of PTO is proof-theoretic and very much in the spirit of reductive proof theory.

Polynomizing is a term that intends to describe the uses of polynomial-like representations as a reasoning strategy and as a tool for scientific heuristics. I show how proof-theory and semantics for classical and several non-classical logics can be approached from this perspective, and discuss the assessment of this prospect, in particular to recover certain ideas of George Boole in unifying logic, algebra and the differential calculus.

We present an alternative, purely semantical and relatively simple, proof of the Statman's result that both intuitionistic propositional logic and its implicational fragment are PSPACE-complete.

Motivated by results on interactive proof systems we investigate an ∃-∀hierarchy over P using word quantifiers as well as two types of set quantifiers. This hierarchy, which extends the polynomial-time hierarchy, is called the analytic polynomial-time hierarchy. It is shown that every class of this hierarchy coincides with one of the following Classes: ∑math image, Πmath image , PSPACE, ∑math image or Πmath image . This improves previous results by Orponen [6] and allows interesting comparisons with the above (...) mentioned results on inter-active proof systems. (shrink)

We show that arbitrary tautologies of Johansson’s minimal propositional logic are provable by “small” polynomial-size dag-like natural deductions in Prawitz’s system for minimal propositional logic. These “small” deductions arise from standard “large” tree-like inputs by horizontal dag-like compression that is obtained by merging distinct nodes labeled with identical formulas occurring in horizontal sections of deductions involved. The underlying geometric idea: if the height, h(∂), and the total number of distinct formulas, ϕ(∂), of a given tree-like deduction ∂ of a (...) minimal tautology ρ are both polynomial in the length of ρ, |ρ|, then the size of the horizontal dag-like compression ∂ᶜ is at most h(∂)×ϕ(∂), and hence polynomial in |ρ|. That minimal tautologies ρ are provable by tree-like natural deductions ∂ with |ρ|-polynomial h(∂) and ϕ(∂) follows via embedding from Hudelmaier’s result that there are analogous sequent calculus deductions of sequent ⇒ρ. The notion of dag-like provability involved is more sophisticated than Prawitz’s tree-like one and its complexity is not clear yet. Our approach nevertheless provides a convergent sequence of NP lower approximations of PSPACE-complete validity of minimal logic. (shrink)

Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, it should be possible to check (...) the correctness of a net in polynomial time, every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness.Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In Richard McKinley [22], the author presented a calculus of proof nets satisfying and ; the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of . That sequent calculus, called LK⁎LK⁎ in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper [22]), we give a full proof of for expansion nets with respect to LK⁎LK⁎, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets – this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria. (shrink)

We upgrade [3] to a complete proof of the conjecture NP = PSPACE that is known as one of the fundamental open problems in the mathematical theory of computational complexity; this proof is based on [2]. Since minimal propositional logic is known to be PSPACE complete, while PSPACE to include NP, it suffices to show that every valid purely implicational formula ρ has a proof whose weight and time complexity of the provability involved are both polynomial in the weight (...) of ρ. As is [3], we use proof theoretic approach. Recall that in [3] we considered any valid ρ in question that had a “short” tree-like proof π in the Hudelmaier-style cutfree sequent calculus for minimal logic. The “shortness” means that the height of π and the total weight of different formulas occurring in it are both polynomial in the weight of ρ. However, the size, and hence also the weight, of π could be exponential in that of ρ. To overcome this trouble we embedded π into Prawitz’s proof system of natural deductions containing single formulas, instead of sequents. As in π, the height and the total weight of different formulas of the resulting tree-like natural deduction ∂1 were polynomial, although the size of ∂1 still could be exponential, in the weight of ρ. In our next, crucial move, ∂1 was deterministically compressed into a “small”, although multipremise, dag-like deduction ∂ whose horizontal levels contained only mutually different formulas, which made the whole weight polynomial in that of ρ. However, ∂ required a more complicated verification of the underlying provability of ρ. In this paper we present a nondeterministic compression of ∂ into a desired standard dag-like deduction ∂0 that deterministically proves ρ in time and space polynomial in the weight of ρ.2 Together with [3] this completes the proof of NP = PSPACE.Natural deductions are essential for our proof. Tree-to-dag horizontal compression of π merging equal sequents, instead of formulas, is not sufficient, since the total number of different sequents in π might be exponential in the weight of ρ – even assuming that all formulas occurring in sequents are subformulas of ρ. On the other hand, we need Hudelmaier’s cutfree sequent calculus in order to control both the height and total weight of different formulas of the initial tree-like proof π, since standard Prawitz’s normalization although providing natural deductions with the subformula property does not preserve polynomial heights. It is not clear yet if we can omit references to π even in the proof of the weaker result NP = coNP. (shrink)

A fast consistency prover is a consistent polytime axiomatized theory that has short proofs of the finite consistency statements of any other polytime axiomatized theory. Krajíček and Pudlák have proved that the existence of an optimal propositional proof system is equivalent to the existence of a fast consistency prover. It is an easy observation that NP = coNP implies the existence of a fast consistency prover. The reverse implication is an open question. In this paper we define the notion (...) of an unlikely fast consistency prover and prove that its existence is equivalent to NP = coNP. Next it is proved that fast consistency provers do not exist if one considers RE axiomatized theories rather than theories with an axiom set that is recognizable in polynomial time. (shrink)

We study the complexity of proving the Pigeon Hole Principle in a monotone variant of the Gentzen Calculus, also known as Geometric Logic. We prove a size-depth trade-off upper bound for monotone proofs of the standard encoding of the PHP as a monotone sequent. At one extreme of the trade-off we get quasipolynomia -size monotone proofs, and at the other extreme we get subexponential-size bounded-depth monotone proofs. This result is a consequence of deriving the basic properties of (...) certain monotone formulas computing the Boolean threshold functions. We also consider the monotone sequent expressing the Clique-Coclique Principle defined by Bonet, Pitassi and Raz [9]. We show that monotone proofs for this sequent can be easily reduced to monotone proofs of the one-to-one and onto PHP, and so CLIQUE also has quasipolynomia -size monotone proofs. As a consequence of our results, Resolution, Cutting Planes with polynomially bounded coefficients, and Bounded-Depth Frege are exponentially separated from the monotone Gentzen Calculus. Finally, a simple simulation argument implies that these results extend to the Intuitionistic Gentzen Calculus. Our results partially answer some questions left open by P. Pudlák. (shrink)

A Frege proof systemFis any standard system of prepositional calculus, e.g., a Hilbert style system based on finitely many axiom schemes and inference rules. An Extended Frege systemEFis obtained fromFas follows. AnEF-sequence is a sequence of formulas ψ1, …, ψκsuch that eachψiis either an axiom ofF, inferred from previous ψuand ψv by modus ponens or of the formq↔ φ, whereqis an atom occurring neither in φ nor in any of ψ1,…,ψi−1. Suchq↔ φ, is called an extension axiom andqa new extension (...) atom. AnEF-proof is anyEF-sequence whose last formula does not contain any extension atom. In [12], S. A. Cook and R. Reckhow proved that the pigeonhole principlePHPhas a simple polynomial sizeEF-proof and conjectured thatPHPdoes not admit polynomial sizeF-proof. In [5], S. R. Buss refuted this conjecture by furnishing polynomial sizeF-proof forPHP. Since then the important separation problem of polynomial sizeFand polynomial sizeEFhas not shown any progress.In [11], S. A. Cook introduced the systemPV, a free variable equational logic whose provable functional equalities are ‘polynomial time verifiable’ and showed that the metamathematics ofFandEFcan be developed inPVand the soundness ofEFproved inPV. In [3], S. R. Buss introduced the first order systemand showed thatis essentially a conservative extension ofPV. There he also introduced a second order system. (shrink)

In this paper, we present another case study in the general project of proof mining which means the logical analysis of prima facie non-effective proofs with the aim of extracting new computationally relevant data. We use techniques based on monotone functional interpretation developed in Kohlenbach , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 225–260) to analyze Cheney's simplification 189) of Jackson's original proof 320) of the uniqueness of the best L1-approximation of continuous functions fC[0,1] by polynomials pPn of degree n. (...) Cheney's proof is non-effective in the sense that it is based on classical logic and on the non-computational principle WKL . The result of our analysis provides the first effective uniform modulus of uniqueness . Moreover, the extracted modulus has the optimal ε-dependency as follows from Kroó 331). The paper also describes how the uniform modulus of uniqueness can be used to compute the best L1-approximations of a fixed fC[0,1] with arbitrary precision. The second author uses this result to give a complexity upper bound on the computation of the best L1-approximation in Oliva 66–77). (shrink)

This is an abstract of the paper to be submitted to Houston Journal of Mathematics. Our nomenclature and notation will be basically those of [3]. We shall consider algebras of type : T ! N, where T is a nonempty set, and N the set of all positive integers. By V we denote the set of all variables occurring in a polynomial symbol p. An identity p = q is called strongly non-regular if it is of the form p (...) = x for some binary polynomial symbol p, such that x; y 2 V and x =6 y. Let R denote the set of all regular identities of type . If K is a class of algebras of type , then E denotes the set of all identities satised by all algebras in K. We put R = E \ R. A variety K is called strongly non-regular if E contains some strongly non-regular identity. If is a set of identities of type , then K denotes the variety of algebras of type generated by ; E() will be the set of all identities which are consequences of . We put R() = E() \ R. We write ` e if there exists a nite proof of e starting from. (shrink)

A Frege proof systemFis any standard system of prepositional calculus, e.g., a Hilbert style system based on finitely many axiom schemes and inference rules. An Extended Frege systemEFis obtained fromFas follows. AnEF-sequence is a sequence of formulas ψ1, …, ψκsuch that eachψiis either an axiom ofF, inferred from previous ψuand ψv by modus ponens or of the formq↔ φ, whereqis an atom occurring neither in φ nor in any of ψ1,…,ψi−1. Suchq↔ φ, is called an extension axiom andqa new extension (...) atom. AnEF-proof is anyEF-sequence whose last formula does not contain any extension atom. In [12], S. A. Cook and R. Reckhow proved that the pigeonhole principlePHPhas a simple polynomial sizeEF-proof and conjectured thatPHPdoes not admit polynomial sizeF-proof. In [5], S. R. Buss refuted this conjecture by furnishing polynomial sizeF-proof forPHP. Since then the important separation problem of polynomial sizeFand polynomial sizeEFhas not shown any progress.In [11], S. A. Cook introduced the systemPV, a free variable equational logic whose provable functional equalities are ‘polynomial time verifiable’ and showed that the metamathematics ofFandEFcan be developed inPVand the soundness ofEFproved inPV. In [3], S. R. Buss introduced the first order systemand showed thatis essentially a conservative extension ofPV. There he also introduced a second order system. (shrink)

We describe a general method how to construct from a propositional proof system P a possibly much stronger proof system iP. The system iP operates with exponentially long P-proofs described "implicitly" by polynomial size circuits. As an example we prove that proof system iEF, implicit EF, corresponds to bounded arithmetic theory $V_{2}^{1}$ and hence, in particular, polynomially simulates the quantified propositional calculus G and the $\pi_{1}^{b}-consequences$ of $S_{2}^{1}$ proved with one use of exponentiation. Furthermore, the soundness of iEF (...) is not provable in $S_{2}^{1}$ . An iteration of the construction yields a proof system corresponding to $T_{2} + Exp$ and, in principle, to much stronger theories. (shrink)

Much recent work on mathematical explanation has presupposed that the phenomenon involves explanatory proofs in an essential way. I argue that this view, ‘proof chauvinism’, is false. I then look in some detail at the explanation of the solvability of polynomial equations provided by Galois theory, which has often been thought to revolve around an explanatory proof. The article concludes with some general worries about the effects of chauvinism on the theory of mathematical explanation. 1Introduction 2Why I Am (...) Not a Proof Chauvinist 2.1Proof chauvinism and mathematical practice 2.2Proof chauvinism and philosophy 3An Example: Galois Theory and Explanatory Proof 4Conclusion. (shrink)

Light Linear Logic (LLL) and Intuitionistic Light Affine Logic (ILAL) are logics that capture polynomial time computation. It is known that every polynomial time function can be represented by a proof of these logics via the proofs-as-programs correspondence. Furthermore, there is a reduction strategy which normalizes a given proof in polynomial time. Given the latter polynomial time “weak” normalization theorem, it is natural to ask whether a “strong” form of polynomial time normalization theorem holds (...) or not. In this paper, we introduce an untyped term calculus, called Light Affine Lambda Calculus (λLA), which corresponds to ILAL. λLA is a bi-modal λ-calculus with certain constraints, endowed with very simple reduction rules. The main property of LALC is the polynomial time strong normalization: any reduction strategy normalizes a given λLA term in a polynomial number of reduction steps, and indeed in polynomial time. Since proofs of ILAL are structurally representable by terms of λLA, we conclude that the same holds for ILAL. (shrink)

Cook and Reckhow [5] pointed out that $\mathcal {N}\mathcal {P} \neq co\mathcal {N}\mathcal {P}$ iff there is no propositional proof system that admits polynomial size proofs of all tautologies. The theory of proof complexity generators aims at constructing sets of tautologies hard for strong and possibly for all proof systems. We focus on a conjecture from [16] in foundations of the theory that there is a proof complexity generator hard for all proof systems. This can be equivalently formulated (...) (for p-time generators) without a reference to proof complexity notions as follows:•There exists a p-time function g stretching each input by one bit such that its range $rng(g)$ intersects all infinite $\mathcal {N}\mathcal {P}$ sets.We consider several facets of this conjecture, including its links to bounded arithmetic (witnessing and independence results), to time-bounded Kolmogorov complexity, to feasible disjunction property of propositional proof systems and to complexity of proof search. We argue that a specific gadget generator from [18] is a good candidate for g. We define a new hardness property of generators, the $\bigvee $ -hardness, and show that one specific gadget generator is the $\bigvee $ -hardest (w.r.t. any sufficiently strong proof system). We define the class of feasibly infinite $\mathcal {N}\mathcal {P}$ sets and show, assuming a hypothesis from circuit complexity, that the conjecture holds for all feasibly infinite $\mathcal {N}\mathcal {P}$ sets. (shrink)

Partial consistency statements can be expressed as polynomial-size propositional formulas. Frege proof systems have polynomial-size partial self-consistency proofs. Frege proof systems have polynomial-size proofs of partial consistency of extended Frege proof systems if and only if Frege proof systems polynomially simulate extended Frege proof systems. We give a new proof of Reckhow's theorem that any two Frege proof systems p-simulate each other. The proofs depend on polynomial size propositional formulas defining the truth of (...) propositional formulas. These are already known to exist since the Boolean formula value problem is in alternating logarithmic time; this paper presents a proof of this fact based on a construction which is somewhat simpler than the prior proofs of Buss and of Buss-Cook- Gupta-Ramachandran. (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 link two concepts from the literature, namely hard sequences for the satisfiability problem sat and so‐called pseudo proof systems proposed for study by Krajíček. Pseudo proof systems are elements of a particular nonstandard model constructed by forcing with random variables. We show that the existence of mad pseudo proof systems is equivalent to the existence of a randomized polynomial time procedure with a highly restrictive use of randomness which produces satisfiable formulas whose satisfying assignments are probably hard to (...) find. (shrink)

In the Lambek calculus of order 2 we allow only sequents in which the depth of nesting of implications is limited to 2. We prove that the decision problem of provability in the calculus can be solved in time polynomial in the length of the sequent. A normal form for proofs of second order sequents is defined. It is shown that for every proof there is a normal form proof with the same axioms. With this normal form we (...) can give an algorithm that decides provability of sequents in polynomial time. (shrink)

In this paper, we consider three different search strategies for a cut-free sequent system formalizing orthologic, and estimate the respective search spaces. Applying backward search, there are classes of formulae for which both the minimal proof length and the search space are exponential. In a combined forward and backward approach, all proofs are polynomial, but the potential search space remains exponential. Using a forward strategy, the potential search space becomes polynomial yielding a polynomial decision procedure for (...) orthologic and the word problem for free ortholattices. (shrink)

In this paper, we consider three different search strategies for a cut-free sequent system formalizing orthologic, and estimate the respective search spaces. Applying backward search, there are classes of formulae for which both the minimal proof length and the search space are exponential. In a combined forward and backward approach, all proofs are polynomial, but the potential search space remains exponential. Using a forward strategy, the potential search space becomes polynomial yielding a polynomial decision procedure for (...) orthologic and the word problem for free ortholattices. (shrink)

A Ramsey statement denoted \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${n \longrightarrow (k)^2_2}$$\end{document} says that every undirected graph on n vertices contains either a clique or an independent set of size k. Any such valid statement can be encoded into a valid DNF formula RAM(n, k) of size O(nk) and with terms of size \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}k\\2\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$$\end{document}. Let rk be the minimal n for which the statement holds. We prove that (...) RAM(rk, k) requires exponential size constant depth Frege systems, answering a problem of Krishnamurthy and Moll [15]. As a consequence of Pudlák’s work in bounded arithmetic [19] it is known that there are quasi-polynomial size constant depth Frege proofs of RAM(4k, k), but the proof complexity of these formulas in resolution R or in its extension R(log) is unknown. We define two relativizations of the Ramsey statement that still have quasi-polynomial size constant depth Frege proofs but for which we establish exponential lower bound for R. (shrink)

This work defines homology groups for proof-structures in multiplicative linear logic (see [Gir1], [Gir2], [Dan]). We will show that these groups characterize proof-nets among arbitrary proof-structures, thus obtaining a new correctness criterion and of course a new polynomial algorithm for testing correctness. This homology also bears information on sequentialization. An unexpected geometrical interpretation of the linear connectives is given in the last section. This paper exclusively focuses onabstract proof-structures, i.e. paired-graphs. The relation with actual proofs is investigated in (...) [Gir1], [Gir2], [Dan], [Ret] and [Tro]. (shrink)

Sam Buss produced the first polynomial size Frege proof of thepigeonhole principle. We introduce a variation of that problem and producea simpler proof based on parity. The proof appearing here has an upperbound that is quadratic in the size of the input formula.

§ 1. Introduction. Perhaps the most surprising recent development in complexity theory is the discovery that the class NP can be characterized using a form of randomized proof checker that only examines a constant number of bits of the “proof” that a string is in a language [6, 5, 31, 3, 4]. More specifically, writing ∣x∣ for the length of a string x, a language L in the class NP of languages recognizable in Nondeterministic polynomial time is traditionally given (...) by a polynomial p and a polynomial-time predicate P such that a string x is in L iff there is some string y satisfying P, where ∣y∣ ≤ p. Intuitively, we can think of a string y as a possible proof that x ϵ L, with the predicate P some kind of proof checker that distinguishes good proofs from bad ones. A string x is therefore in a language L ϵ NP if there is a short proof that x ϵ L, and not in L otherwise. The surprising discovery is that the deterministic proof checker that reads the entire input and proof can be replaced by a probabilistic verifier that on input x and possible proof y, where y is presented in a certain way, flips at most O coins and reads at most a constant number of bits of x and y. Obviously, a probabilistic verifier that does not read the whole proof will sometimes make mistakes. However, the surprising and essentially non-intuitive mathematical fact is that for each language L in NP, it is possible to find a polynomial q and verifier V flipping a logarithmic number of coins and reading a constant number of bits such that, for any x ϵ L, there exists y with ∣y∣ ≤ q and with V accepting with probability 1 and, for x ∉ L, there is no y with ∣y∣ ≤ q and with V accepting with probability ≥ 1/4. This idea canalsobeextended to PSPACE [10, 9], using a game that alternates between two players instead of a proof presented by a “single player.”. (shrink)

We study from the proof complexity perspective the proof search problem : •Is there an optimal way to search for propositional proofs?We note that, as a consequence of Levin’s universal search, for any fixed proof system there exists a time-optimal proof search algorithm. Using classical proof complexity results about reflection principles we prove that a time-optimal proof search algorithm exists without restricting proof systems iff a p-optimal proof system exists.To characterize precisely the time proof search algorithms need for individual (...) formulas we introduce a new proof complexity measure based on algorithmic information concepts. In particular, to a proof system P we attach information-efficiency function $i_P$ assigning to a tautology a natural number, and we show that: • $i_P$ characterizes time any P-proof search algorithm has to use on $\tau $,•for a fixed P there is such an information-optimal algorithm,•a proof system is information-efficiency optimal iff it is p-optimal,•for non-automatizable systems P there are formulas $\tau $ with short proofs but having large information measure $i_P$.We isolate and motivate the problem to establish unconditional super-logarithmic lower bounds for $i_P$ where no super-polynomial size lower bounds are known. We also point out connections of the new measure with some topics in proof complexity other than proof search. (shrink)

We prove that the problem of determining the minimum propositional proof length is NP- hard to approximate within a factor of 2 log 1 - o(1) n . These results are very robust in that they hold for almost all natural proof systems, including: Frege systems, extended Frege systems, resolution, Horn resolution, the polynomial calculus, the sequent calculus, the cut-free sequent calculus, as well as the polynomial calculus. Our hardness of approximation results usually apply to proof length measured (...) either by number of symbols or by number of inferences, for tree-like or dag-like proofs. We introduce the Monotone Minimum (Circuit) Satisfying Assignment problem and reduce it to the problems of approximation of the length of proofs. (shrink)

Let g be a map defined as the Nisan–Wigderson generator but based on an NP ∩ coNP -function f. Any string b outside the range of g determines a propositional tautology τb expressing this fact. Razborov [27] has conjectured that if f is hard on average for P/poly then these tautologies have no polynomial size proofs in the Extended Frege system EF. We consider a more general Statement that the tautologies have no polynomial size proofs in (...) any propositional proof system. This is equivalent to the statement that the complement of the range of g contains no infinite NP set. We prove that Statement is consistent with Cook' s theory PV and, in fact, with the true universal theory T PV in the language of PV. If PV in this consistency statement could be extended to "a bit" stronger theory then Razborov's conjecture would follow, and if TPV could be added too then Statement would follow. We discuss this problem in some detail, pointing out a certain form of reflection principle for propositional logic, and we introduce a related feasible disjunction property of proof systems. (shrink)

In this paper we prove that $\forall \textrm{FO}$, the universal fragment of first-order logic, is superfluous in $\varSigma _2^p$ and $\varPi _2^p$. As an example, we show that this yields a syntactic proof of the $\varSigma _2^p$-completeness of value-cost satisfiability. The superfluity method is interesting since it gives a way to prove completeness of problems involving numerical data such as lengths, weights and costs and it also adds to the programme started by Immerman and Medina about the syntactic approach in (...) the study of completeness. (shrink)

After sketching an argument for radical anti-realism that does not appeal to human limitations but polynomial-time computability in its definition of feasibility, I revisit an argument by Wittgenstein on the surveyability of proofs, and then examine the consequences of its application to the notion of canonical proof in contemporary proof-theoretical-semantics.

In this paper we see that the answer of this question is affirmative. We prove this for Dco-algebras and as special case we obtain the result for Positive Implication algebras. First we give, without proof, the properties of Dco-algebras and S-algebras and their connection with Positive Implication algebras and Implication algebras. These results can be found in [T] and [IT].

This book introduces readers to the art of doing mathematical proofs. Proofs are the glue that holds mathematics together. They make connections between math concepts and show why things work the way they do. This book teaches the art of proofs using familiar high school concepts, such as numbers, polynomials, functions, and trigonometry. It retells math as a story, where the next chapter follows from the previous one. Readers will see how various mathematical concepts are tied, will (...) see mathematics is not a pile of formulas and facts, but has an orderly and beautiful edifice. The author begins with basic rules of logic, and then progresses through the topics already familiar to the students: numbers, inequalities, functions, polynomials, exponents, and trigonometric functions. There are also beautiful proofs for conic sections, sequences, and Fibonacci numbers. Each chapter has exercises for the reader. (shrink)

This paper developed from Shelah’s proof of a zero-one law for the complexity class “choiceless polynomial time,” defined by Shelah and the authors. We present a detailed proof of Shelah's result for graphs, and describe the extent of its generalizability to other sorts of structures. The extension axioms, which form the basis for earlier zero-one laws are inadequate in the case of choiceless polynomial time; they must be replaced by what we call the strong extension axioms. We present (...) an extensive discussion of these axioms and their role both in the zero-one law and in general. (shrink)

The Logic of Proofs realizes the modalities from traditional modal logics with proof polynomials, so an expression □F becomes t:F where t is a proof polynomial representing a proof of or evidence for F. The pioneering work on explicating the modal logic is due to S. Artemov and was extended to several subsystems by V. Brezhnev. In 2000, R. Kuznets presented a algorithm for deducibility in these logics; in the present paper we will show that the deducibility problem (...) is -complete. Both Kuznets’s work and the present results make assumptions on the values of proof constants. (shrink)

Resolution and cut-free LK are the most popular propositional systems used for logical automated reasoning. The question whether or not resolution and cut-free LK have the same efficiency on the system of CNF formulas has been asked and studied since 1960 425–467). It was shown in Cook and Reckhow, J. Symbolic Logic 44 36–50 that tree resolution has super-polynomial speed-up over cut-free LK. Naturally, the current issue is whether or not resolution and cut-free LK expressed as directed acyclic graphs (...) have the same efficiency. In this paper, we introduce a new algorithm to eliminate atomic cuts and show that cut-free LK polynomially simulates resolution when the input formula is expressed as a k-CNF formula. As a corollary, we show that regular resolution does not polynomially simulate cut-free LK . We also show that cut-free LK polynomially simulates regular resolution. (shrink)

We prove that any proof of a [Formula: see text] sentence in the theory [Formula: see text] can be translated into a proof in [Formula: see text] at the cost of a polynomial increase in size. In fact, the proof in [Formula: see text] can be obtained by a polynomial-time algorithm. On the other hand, [Formula: see text] has nonelementary speedup over the weaker base theory [Formula: see text] for proofs of [Formula: see text] sentences. We also (...) show that for [Formula: see text], proofs of [Formula: see text] sentences in [Formula: see text] can be translated into proofs in [Formula: see text] at a polynomial cost in size. Moreover, the [Formula: see text]-conservativity of [Formula: see text] over [Formula: see text] can be proved in [Formula: see text], a fragment of bounded arithmetic corresponding to polynomial-time computation. For [Formula: see text], this answers a question of Clote, Hájek and Paris. (shrink)

The paper proves refined feasibility properties for the disjunction property of intuitionistic propositional logic. We prove that it is possible to eliminate all cuts from an intuitionistic proof, propositional or first-order, without increasing the Horn closure of the proof. We obtain a polynomial time, interactive, realizability algorithm for propositional intuitionistic proofs. The feasibility of the disjunction property is proved for sequents containing Harrop formulas. Under hardness assumptions for NP and for factoring, it is shown that the intuitionistic propositional (...) calculus does not always have polynomial size proofs and that the classical propositional calculus provides a superpolynomial speedup over the intuitionistic propositional calculus. The disjunction property for intuitionistic propositional logic is proved to be P-hard by a reduction to the circuit value problem. (shrink)

We consider small-weight Cutting Planes (CP * ) proofs; that is, Cutting Planes (CP) proofs with coefficients up to $\operatorname{Poly}(n)$ . We use the well known lower bounds for monotone complexity to prove an exponential lower bound for the length of CP * proofs, for a family of tautologies based on the clique function. Because Resolution is a special case of small-weight CP, our method also gives a new and simpler exponential lower bound for Resolution. We also (...) prove the following two theorems: (1) Tree-like CP * proofs cannot polynomially simulate non-tree-like CP * proofs. (2) Tree-like (CP * proofs and Bounded-depth-Frege proofs cannot polynomially simulate each other. Our proofs also work for some generalizations of the CP * proof system. In particular, they work for CP * with a deduction rule, and also for any proof system that allows any formula with small communication complexity, and any set of sound rules of inference. (shrink)