The k-provability for an axiomatic system A is to determine, given an integer k 1 and a formula in the language of A, whether or not there is a proof of in A containing at most k lines. In this paper we develop a unification-theoretic method for investigating the k-provability problem for Parikh systems, which are first-order axiomatic systems that contain a finite number of axiom schemata and a finite number of rules of inference. We show that the k-provability problem (...) for a Parikh system reduces to a unification problem that is essentially the unification problem for second-order terms. By solving various subproblems of this unification problem , we solve the k- probability problem for a variety of Parikh systems, including several formulations of Peano arithmetic. Our method for investigating the k-provability problem employs algorithms that compute and characterize unifiers. We give some examples of how these algorithms can be used to solve complexity problems other than the k-provability problem. (shrink)

Labelled sequent calculi are provided for a wide class of normal modal systems using truth values as labels. The rules for formula constructors are common to all modal systems. For each modal system, specific rules for truth values are provided that reflect the envisaged properties of the accessibility relation. Both local and global reasoning are supported. Strong completeness is proved for a natural two-sorted algebraic semantics. As a corollary, strong completeness is also obtained over general Kripke semantics. A duality result (...) is established between the category of sober algebras and the category of general Kripke structures. A simple enrichment of the proposed sequent calculi is proved to be complete over standard Kripke structures. The calculi are shown to be analytic in a useful sense. (shrink)

We consider the problem whether the $\forall \Sigma _{1}^{b}$ theorems of the fragments $T_{2}^{a}$ form a strictly increasing hierarchy. We shall show a link to some results about the lengths of proofs in predicate logic that supports the conjecture that the hierarchy is strictly increasing.

LK is a natural modification of Gentzen sequent calculus for propositional logic with connectives ¬ and $\bigwedge, \bigvee$. Then for every d ≥ 0 and n ≥ 2, there is a set Td n of depth d sequents of total size O which are refutable in LK by depth d + 1 proof of size exp) but such that every depth d refutation must have the size at least exp). The sets Td n express a weaker form of the pigeonhole (...) principle. (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)

The logical flow graphs of sequent calculus proofs might contain oriented cycles. For the predicate calculus the elimination of cycles might be non-elementary and this was shown in [Car96]. For the propositional calculus, we prove that if a proof of k lines contains n cycles then there exists an acyclic proof with O(k n+l ) lines. In particular, there is a polynomial time algorithm which eliminates cycles from a proof. These results are motivated by the search for general methods on (...) proving lower bounds on proof size and by the design of more efficient heuristic algorithms for proof search. (shrink)

Many times in mathematics there is a natural dichotomy betweendescribing some object from the inside and from the outside. Imaginealgebraic varieties for instance; they can be described from theoutside as solution sets of polynomial equations, but one can also tryto understand how it is for actual points to move around inside them,perhaps to parameterize them in some way. The concept of formalproofs has the interesting feature that it provides opportunities forboth perspectives. The inner perspective has been largely overlooked,but in fact (...) lengths of proofs lead to new ways to measure informationcontent of mathematical objects. The disparity between minimallengths of proofs with and without ``lemmas'' provides an indicationof internal symmetry of mathematical objects and their descriptions.A principal observation of this paper is that mathematicalstructures can be embedded into spaces of logical formulae and inheritadditional structure from proofs. We shall look at finitely-generatedgroups, rational numbers and SL(2,Z), and examples fromtopology and analysis. (shrink)

In this paper we prove some results about the complexity of proofs. We consider proofs in Hilbert-style formal systems such as in [17]. Thus a proof is a sequence offormulas satisfying certain conditions. We can view the formulas as being strings of symbols; hence the whole proof is a string too. We consider the following measures of complexity of proofs: length , depth and number of steps For a particular formal system and a given formula A we consider the shortest (...) length of a proof of A , the minimal depth of a proof of A and the minimal number of steps in a proof of A . The main results are the following: a bound on the depth in terms of the number of steps: Theorem 2.2, a bound on the depth in terms of the length: Theorem 2.3, a bound on the length in terms of the number of steps for restricted systems: Theorem 3.1. These results are applied to obtain several corollaries. In particular we show: a bound on the number of steps in a cut-free proof, some speed-up results, bounds on the number of steps in proofs of Paris-Harrington sentences. Some papers related to our research are listed in the references. We were especially influenced by Parikh's paper [17] on the famous conjecture of Kreisel . Many important problems in this field remain open. We hope that our paper will contribute to progress in this area. It should be noted that some results of this paper can be equally well obtained using unification theory , by translating a complexity-of-proof problem into a unification problem. A unification algorithm solving the unification problem can then be constructed and the complexity of the unification algorithm analyzed. As pointed out by the referee this method can be used to solve the problem stated in Section 3 for some non-simple schematic systems. (shrink)

We develop a combinatorial model to study the evolution of graphs underlying proofs during the process of cut elimination. Proofs are two-dimensional objects and differences in the behavior of their cut elimination can often be accounted for by differences in their two-dimensional structure. Our purpose is to determine geometrical conditions on the graphs of proofs to explain the expansion of the size of proofs after cut elimination. We will be concerned with exponential expansion and we give upper and lower bounds (...) which depend on the geometry of the graphs. The lower bound is computed passing through the notion of universal covering for directed graphs. In this paper we present ground material for the study of cut elimination and structure of proofs in purely combinatorial terms. We develop a theory of duplication for directed graphs and derive results on graphs of proofs as corollaries. (shrink)

Propositional proof complexity is the study of the sizes of propositional proofs, and more generally, the resources necessary to certify propositional tautologies. Questions about proof sizes have connections with computational complexity, theories of arithmetic, and satisfiability algorithms. This is article includes a broad survey of the field, and a technical exposition of some recently developed techniques for proving lower bounds on proof sizes.

§1. Introduction. The classical propositional calculus has an undeserved reputation among logicians as being essentially trivial. I hope to convince the reader that it presents some of the most challenging and intriguing problems in modern logic. Although the problem of the complexity of propositional proofs is very natural, it has been investigated systematically only since the late 1960s. Interest in the problem arose from two fields connected with computers, automated theorem proving and computational complexity theory. The earliest paper in the (...) subject is a ground-breaking article by Tseitin [62], the published version of a talk given in 1966 at a Leningrad seminar. In the three decades since that talk, substantial progress has been made in determining the relative complexity of proof systems, and in proving strong lower bounds for some restricted proof systems. However, major problems remain to challenge researchers. The present paper provides a survey of the field, and of some of the techniques that have proved successful in deriving lower bounds on the complexity of proofs. A major area only touched upon here is the proof theory of bounded arithmetic and its relation to the complexity of propositional proofs. The reader is referred to the book by Buss [10] for background in bounded arithmetic. The forthcoming book by Krajíček [40] also gives a good introduction to bounded arithmetic, as well as covering most of the basic results in complexity of propositional proofs. (shrink)

In proof theory one distinguishes sequent proofs with cut and cut-free sequent proofs, while for proof complexity one distinguishes Frege systems and extended Frege systems. In this paper we show how deep inference can provide a uniform treatment for both classifications, such that we can define cut-free systems with extension, which is neither possible with Frege systems, nor with the sequent calculus. We show that the propositional pigeonhole principle admits polynomial-size proofs in a cut-free system with extension. We also define (...) cut-free systems with substitution and show that the cut-free system with extension p-simulates the cut-free system with substitution. (shrink)

This collection of papers, celebrating the contributions of Swedish logician Dag Prawitz to Proof Theory, has been assembled from those presented at the Natural Deduction conference organized in Rio de Janeiro to honour his seminal research. Dag Prawitz’s work forms the basis of intuitionistic type theory and his inversion principle constitutes the foundation of most modern accounts of proof-theoretic semantics in Logic, Linguistics and Theoretical Computer Science. The range of contributions includes material on the extension of natural deduction with higher-order (...) rules, as opposed to higher-order connectives, and a paper discussing the application of natural deduction rules to dealing with equality in predicate calculus. The volume continues with a key chapter summarizing work on the extension of the Curry-Howard isomorphism, via methods of category theory that have been successfully applied to linear logic, as well as many other contributions from highly regarded authorities. With an illustrious group of contributors addressing a wealth of topics and applications, this volume is a valuable addition to the libraries of academics in the multiple disciplines whose development has been given added scope by the methodologies supplied by natural deduction. The volume is representative of the rich and varied directions that Prawitz work has inspired in the area of natural deduction. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. The classical propositional calculus has an undeserved reputation among logicians as being essentially trivial. I hope to convince the reader that it presents some of the most challenging and intriguing problems in modern logic. Although the problem of the complexity of propositional proofs is very natural, it has been investigated systematically only since the late 1960s. Interest in the problem arose from two fields connected with computers, automated theorem proving and computational complexity theory. The earliest paper in the (...) subject is a ground-breaking article by Tseitin [62], the published version of a talk given in 1966 at a Leningrad seminar. In the three decades since that talk, substantial progress has been made in determining the relative complexity of proof systems, and in proving strong lower bounds for some restricted proof systems. However, major problems remain to challenge researchers. The present paper provides a survey of the field, and of some of the techniques that have proved successful in deriving lower bounds on the complexity of proofs. A major area only touched upon here is the proof theory of bounded arithmetic and its relation to the complexity of propositional proofs. The reader is referred to the book by Buss [10] for background in bounded arithmetic. The forthcoming book by Krajíček [40] also gives a good introduction to bounded arithmetic, as well as covering most of the basic results in complexity of propositional proofs. (shrink)

In this paper we prove some results about the complexity of proofs. We consider proofs in Hilbert-style formal systems such as in [17]. Thus a proof is a sequence offormulas satisfying certain conditions. We can view the formulas as being strings of symbols; hence the whole proof is a string too. We consider the following measures of complexity of proofs: length , depth and number of steps For a particular formal system and a given formula A we consider the shortest (...) length of a proof of A , the minimal depth of a proof of A and the minimal number of steps in a proof of A . The main results are the following: a bound on the depth in terms of the number of steps: Theorem 2.2, a bound on the depth in terms of the length: Theorem 2.3, a bound on the length in terms of the number of steps for restricted systems: Theorem 3.1. These results are applied to obtain several corollaries. In particular we show: a bound on the number of steps in a cut-free proof, some speed-up results, bounds on the number of steps in proofs of Paris-Harrington sentences. Some papers related to our research are listed in the references. We were especially influenced by Parikh's paper [17] on the famous conjecture of Kreisel . Many important problems in this field remain open. We hope that our paper will contribute to progress in this area. It should be noted that some results of this paper can be equally well obtained using unification theory , by translating a complexity-of-proof problem into a unification problem. A unification algorithm solving the unification problem can then be constructed and the complexity of the unification algorithm analyzed. As pointed out by the referee this method can be used to solve the problem stated in Section 3 for some non-simple schematic systems. (shrink)