Results 1  10
of
87
Lower Bounds for Resolution and Cutting Plane Proofs and Monotone Computations
, 1997
"... We prove an exponential lower bound on the length of cutting plane proofs. The proof uses an extension of a lower bound for monotone circuits to circuits which compute with real numbers and use nondecreasing functions as gates. The latter result is of independent interest, since, in particular, i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 135 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove an exponential lower bound on the length of cutting plane proofs. The proof uses an extension of a lower bound for monotone circuits to circuits which compute with real numbers and use nondecreasing functions as gates. The latter result is of independent interest, since, in particular, it implies an exponential lower bound for some arithmetic circuits.
The Complexity Of Propositional Proofs
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 1995
"... This paper of Tseitin is a landmark as the first to give nontrivial lower bounds for propositional proofs; although it predates the first papers on ..."
Abstract

Cited by 105 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper of Tseitin is a landmark as the first to give nontrivial lower bounds for propositional proofs; although it predates the first papers on
Lower Bounds for Cutting Planes Proofs with Small Coefficients
, 1995
"... We consider smallweight Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs; that is, Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs with coefficients up to P oly(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 cl ..."
Abstract

Cited by 77 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider smallweight Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs; that is, Cutting Planes (CP ) proofs with coefficients up to P oly(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 smallweight CP , our method also gives a new and simpler exponential lower bound for Resolution. We also prove the following two theorems : (1) Treelike CP proofs cannot polynomially simulate nontreelike CP proofs. (2) Treelike CP proofs and BoundeddepthFrege 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 proof systems that allow any formula with small communication complexity, and any set of sound rules of inference. 1 Introduction One of the most fundamental questions in pro...
An Exponential Lower Bound to the Size of Bounded Depth Frege . . .
, 1994
"... We prove lower bounds of the form exp (n ffl d ) ; ffl d ? 0; on the length of proofs of an explicit sequence of tautologies, based on the Pigeonhole Principle, in proof systems using formulas of depth d; for any constant d: This is the largest lower bound for the strongest proof system, for whic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 67 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove lower bounds of the form exp (n ffl d ) ; ffl d ? 0; on the length of proofs of an explicit sequence of tautologies, based on the Pigeonhole Principle, in proof systems using formulas of depth d; for any constant d: This is the largest lower bound for the strongest proof system, for which any superpolynomial lower bounds are known.
Lower bounds on Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and propositional proofs
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY
, 1996
"... The socalled weak form of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz says that a system of algebraic equations over a field, Qj(x) = 0, does not have a solution in the algebraic closure if and only if 1 is in the ideal generated by the polynomials (?,(*) • We shall prove a lower bound on the degrees of polynomials ..."
Abstract

Cited by 61 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The socalled weak form of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz says that a system of algebraic equations over a field, Qj(x) = 0, does not have a solution in the algebraic closure if and only if 1 is in the ideal generated by the polynomials (?,(*) • We shall prove a lower bound on the degrees of polynomials P,(x) such that £, P,(x)Qt(x) = 1. This result has the following application. The modular counting principle states that no finite set whose cardinality is not divisible by q can be partitioned into ^element classes. For each fixed cardinality N, this principle can be expressed as a propositional formula Count^fo,...) with underlying variables xe, where e ranges over <7element subsets of N. Ajtai [4] proved recently that, whenever p,q are two different primes, the propositional formulas Count $ n+I do not have polynomial size, constantdepth Frege proofs from substitution instances of Count/?, where m^O (modp). We give a new proof of this theorem based on the lower bound for Hilbert's Nullstellensatz. Furthermore our technique enables us to extend the independence results for counting principles to composite numbers p and q. This improved lower bound together with new upper bounds yield an exact characterization of when Count, can be proved efficiently from Countp, for all values of p and q.
An application of boolean complexity to separation problems in bounded arithmetic
 Proc. London Math. Society
, 1994
"... We develop a method for establishing the independence of some Zf(a)formulas from S'2(a). In particular, we show that T'2(a) is not VZ*(a)conservative over S'2(a). We characterize the Z^definable functions of T2 as being precisely the functions definable as projections of polynomial local search ( ..."
Abstract

Cited by 54 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We develop a method for establishing the independence of some Zf(a)formulas from S'2(a). In particular, we show that T'2(a) is not VZ*(a)conservative over S'2(a). We characterize the Z^definable functions of T2 as being precisely the functions definable as projections of polynomial local search (PLS) problems. Although it is still an open problem whether bounded arithmetic S2 is finitely axiomatizable, considerable progress on this question has been made: S2 +1 is V2f+1conservative over T'2 [3], but it is not V2!f+2conservative unless £f+2 = Ylf+2 [10], and in addition, T2 is not VZf+1conservative over S'2 unless LogSpace s? = Af+1 [8]. In particular, S2 is not finitely axiomatizable provided that the polynomialtime hierarchy does not collapse [10]. For the theory S2(a) these results imply (with some additional arguments) absolute results: S'2 + (a) is V2f+,(a)conservative but not VZf+2(a)conservative over T'2(a), and T'2(a) is not VZf+i(c*)conservative over S'2(a). Here a represents a new uninterpreted predicate symbol adjoined to the language of arithmetic which may be used in induction formulas; from a computer science perspective, a represents an oracle. In this paper we pursue this line of investigation further by showing that T'2(a) is also not V2f(a)conservative over S'2(a). This was known for / = 1, 2 by [9,17] (see also [2]), and our present proof uses a version of the pigeonhole principle similar to the arguments in [2,9]. Perhaps more importantly, we formulate a general method (Theorem 2.6) which can be used to show the unprovability of other 2f(a)formulas from S'2(a). Our methods are analogous in spirit to the proof strategy of [8]: prove a witnessing theorem to show that provability of a Zf+1(a)formula A in S'2(a) implies that it is witnessed by a function of certain complexity and then employ techniques of boolean complexity to construct an oracle a such that the formula A cannot be witnessed by a function of the prescribed complexity. Our formula A shall be 2f(a) and thus we can use the original witnessing theorem of [2]. The boolean complexity used is the same as in [8], namely Hastad's switching lemmas [6].
Lower Bounds to the Size of ConstantDepth Propositional Proofs
, 1994
"... 1 LK is a natural modification of Gentzen sequent calculus for propositional logic with connectives : and V ; W (both of unbounded arity). Then for every d 0 and n 2, there is a set T d n of depth d sequents of total size O(n 3+d ) which are refutable in LK by depth d + 1 proof of size exp ..."
Abstract

Cited by 53 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
1 LK is a natural modification of Gentzen sequent calculus for propositional logic with connectives : and V ; W (both of unbounded arity). Then for every d 0 and n 2, there is a set T d n of depth d sequents of total size O(n 3+d ) which are refutable in LK by depth d + 1 proof of size exp(O(log 2 n)) but such that every depth d refutation must have the size at least exp(n\Omega\Gamma21 ). The sets T d n express a weaker form of the pigeonhole principle. It is a fundamental problem of mathematical logic and complexity theory whether there exists a proof system for propositional logic in which every tautology has a short proof, where the length (equivalently the size) of a proof is measured essentially by the total number of symbols in it and short means polynomial in the length of the tautology. Equivalently one can ask whether for every theory T there is another theory S (both first order and reasonably axiomatized, e.g. by schemes) having the property that if a statement...
Lower Bounds For The Polynomial Calculus
, 1998
"... We show that polynomial calculus proofs (sometimes also called Groebner proofs) of the pigeonhole principle PHP n must have degree at least (n=2)+1 over any field. This is the first nontrivial lower bound on the degree of polynomial calculus proofs obtained without using unproved complexity assumpt ..."
Abstract

Cited by 49 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that polynomial calculus proofs (sometimes also called Groebner proofs) of the pigeonhole principle PHP n must have degree at least (n=2)+1 over any field. This is the first nontrivial lower bound on the degree of polynomial calculus proofs obtained without using unproved complexity assumptions. We also show that for some modifications of PHP n , expressible by polynomials of at most logarithmic degree, our bound can be improved to linear in the number of variables. Finally, we show that for any Boolean function f n in n variables, every polynomial calculus proof of the statement "f n cannot be computed by any circuit of size t," must have degree t=n). Loosely speaking, this means that low degree polynomial calculus proofs do not prove NP 6 P=poly.
A New Proof of the Weak Pigeonhole Principle
, 2000
"... The exact complexity of the weak pigeonhole principle is an old and fundamental problem in proof complexity. Using a diagonalization argument, Paris, Wilkie and Woods [16] showed how to prove the weak pigeonhole principle with boundeddepth, quasipolynomialsize proofs. Their argument was further re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The exact complexity of the weak pigeonhole principle is an old and fundamental problem in proof complexity. Using a diagonalization argument, Paris, Wilkie and Woods [16] showed how to prove the weak pigeonhole principle with boundeddepth, quasipolynomialsize proofs. Their argument was further refined by Kraj'icek [9]. In this paper, we present a new proof: we show that the the weak pigeonhole principle has quasipolynomialsize LK proofs where every formula consists of a single AND/OR of polylog fanin. Our proof is conceptually simpler than previous arguments, and is optimal with respect to depth. 1 Introduction The pigeonhole principle is a fundamental axiom of mathematics, stating that there is no onetoone mapping from m pigeons to n holes when m ? n. It expresses Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 136995815, U.S.A. alexis@clarkson.edu. Research supported by NSF grant CCR9877150. y Department of Computer Science, University o...