{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

lect21

lect21 - 6.841 Advanced Complexity Theory Lecture 21...

This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

6.841 Advanced Complexity Theory Apr 27, 2009 Lecture 21 Lecturer: Jakob Nordstr ¨ o m Scribe: Rishi Gupta Today and Thursday we will give an (extremely) selective overview of Proof Complexity . We will cover some major concepts, give an overview of the area, prove a classic result, and develop some nice tools along the way. Introduction to Proof Systems Proof Complexity is about figuring out how hard it is to prove things. But what is a proof? I claim 25957 is a product of two primes. What would we accept as proof of this fact? Some possibilities: “Left to the reader”. In a sense, every statement is its own proof. Proof by exhaustion: compute 25957 mod 2 and every odd number less than 25957, and see that exactly 2 of them are 0. 25957 = 101 · 257, check that 101 and 257 are prime. Observation by Cook: A proof should be efficiently verifiable. In particular, a proof system P for a language L is a deterministic function P ( x, π ) ∈ { 0 , 1 } , polynomial-time in x and π , where x L there exists π such that P ( x, π ) = 1 (a proof exists) x 6∈ L for all π, P ( x, π ) = 0 (there are no fake proofs) Note that there is no restriction on the length of π . Propositional Proof Complexity We’re interested in proving tautologies , namely (boolean) formulas that are true no matter how you assign values to the variables. For instance, ( x ¯ x ) TAUT. Why are they interesting? For a while, people thought this would help with the P vs NP question. It provides a framework for quantifying/understanding limits of different kinds of mathematical rea- soning. Proof systems have varying strengths, like the complexity classes we’re familiar with. Commercial SAT-solvers are absurdly quick, and routinely solve formulas that have millions of variables. In fact, good SAT-solvers are now roughly Θ( n ). This subfield is called automated theorem proving. A proof system has complexity g if every x ∈ P has a proof of size g ( | x | ). If g is polynomial we say P is a polynomially-bounded [propositional] proof system, or a pbpps for short. Observation by Cook and Reckhow (1979): NP = coNP if and only if there exists a polynomially-bounded propositional proof system for TAUT (easy exercise). Corollary: If there is no pbpps for TAUT, P 6 = NP, since P is closed under complementation.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}