This paper studies the complexity of constant depth propositional proofs in the cedent and sequent calculus. We discuss the relationships between the size of tree-like proofs, the size of dag-like proofs, and the heights of proofs. The main result is to correct a proof construction in an earlier paper about transformations from proofs with polylogarithmic height and constantly many formulas per cedent.

The combinatorial parity principle states that there is no perfect matching on an odd number of vertices. This principle generalizes the pigeonhole principle, which states that for a fixed bipartition of the vertices, there is no perfect matching between them. Therefore, it follows from recent lower bounds for the pigeonhole principle that the parity principle requires exponential-size bounded-depth Frege proofs. Ajtai previously showed that the parity principle does not have polynomial-size bounded-depth Frege proofs even with the pigeonhole principle as an (...) axiom schema. His proof utilizes nonstandard model theory and is nonconstructive. We improve Ajtai's lower bound from barely superpolynomial to exponential and eliminate the nonstandard model theory. Our lower bound is also related to the inherent complexity of particular search classes . In particular, oracle separations between the complexity classes PPA and PPAD, and between PPA and PPP also follow from our techniques. (shrink)

This paper proves exponential separations between depth d-LK and depth -LK for every utilizing the order induction principle. As a consequence, we obtain an exponential separation between depth d-LK and depth -LK for . We investigate the relationship between the sequence-size, tree-size and height of depth d-LK-derivations for , and describe transformations between them. We define a general method to lift principles requiring exponential tree-size -LK-refutations for to principles requiring exponential sequence-size d-LK-refutations, which will be described for the Ramsey principle (...) and d=0. From this we also deduce width lower bounds for resolution refutations of the Ramsey principle. (shrink)