Motivated by the problem of finding finite versions of classical incompleteness theorems, we present some conjectures that go beyond NP ≠ coNP. These conjectures formally connect computational complexity with the difficulty of proving some sentences, which means that high computational complexity of a problem associated with a sentence implies that the sentence is not provable in a weak theory, or requires a long proof. Another reason for putting forward these conjectures is that some results in proof complexity seem to be (...) special cases of such general statements and we want to formalize and fully understand these statements. Roughly speaking, we are trying to connect syntactic complexity, by which we mean the complexity of sentences and strengths of the theories in which they are provable, with the semantic concept of complexity of the computational problems represented by these sentences. -/- We have introduced the most fundamental conjectures in our earlier works. Our aim in this article is to present them in a more systematic way, along with several new conjectures, and prove new connections between them and some other statements studied before. (shrink)

The theories Si1 and Ti1 are the analogues of Buss' relativized bounded arithmetic theories in the language where every term is bounded by a polynomial, and thus all definable functions grow linearly in length. For every i, a Σbi+1-formula TOPi, which expresses a form of the total ordering principle, is exhibited that is provable in Si+11 , but unprovable in Ti1. This is in contrast with the classical situation, where Si+12 is conservative over Ti2 w. r. t. Σbi+1-sentences. The independence (...) results are proved by translations into propositional logic, and using lower bounds for corresponding propositional proof systems. (shrink)

We consider tautologies expressing equivalence‐chain properties in the spirit of Thapen and Krajíček, which are candidates for exponentially separating depth k and depth Frege proof systems. We formulate a special case where the initial member of the equivalence chain is fully specified and the equivalence‐chain implications are actually equivalences. This special case is shown to lead to polynomial size resolution refutations. Thus it cannot be used for separating depth k and depth propositional systems. We state some Håstad switching lemma conditions (...) that restrict the possible propositional proofs in more general situations. (shrink)