Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T21:19:40.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sharpened lower bounds for cut elimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Samuel R. Buss
Samuel R. Buss*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Ca 92093-0112, USA, E-mail: sbuss@math.ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present sharpened lower bounds on the size of cut free proofs for first-order logic. Prior lower bounds for eliminating cuts from a proof established superexponential lower bounds as a stack of exponentials, with the height of the stack proportional to the maximum depth d of the formulas in the original proof. Our results remove the constant of proportionality, giving an exponential stack of height equal to d − O(1). The proof method is based on more efficiently expressing the Gentzen–Solovay cut formulas as low depth formulas.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 656 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1] Baaz, Matthias, and Leitsch, Alexander, On Skolemizations and proof complexity, Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 20 (1994), pp. 353–379.Google Scholar
[2] Baaz, Matthias, and Leitsch, Alexander, Cut normal forms and proof complexity, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 97 (1999), pp. 127–177.Google Scholar
[3] Baaz, Matthias, and Leitsch, Alexander, Fast cut-elimination by CERES, Proofs, categories and computations (Feferman, S. and Sieg, W., editors), College Publications, London, 2010, pp. 31–49.Google Scholar
[4] Beckmann, Arnold and Buss, Samuel R., Corrected upper bounds for free-cut elimination, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 412 (2011), no. 39, pp. 5433–5445.Google Scholar
[5] Buss, Samuel R., An introduction to proof theory, Handbook of proof theory (Buss, S. R., editor). North-Holland, 1998, pp. 1–78.Google Scholar
[6] Buss, Samuel R., Cut elimination in situ, typeset manuscript, 2011.Google Scholar
[7] Buss, Samuel R. and Johnson, Alan, The quantifier complexity of polynomial-size iterated definitions in first-order logic, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 56 (2010), no. 6, pp. 573–590.Google Scholar
[8] Ferrante, Jeanne and Rackoff, Charles W., The computational complexity of logical theories, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 718, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Gentzen, Gerhard, Beweisbarkeit und Unbeweisbarkeit von Anfangsfällen der transfiniten Induktion in der reinen Zahlentheorie, Mathematische Annalen, vol. 119 (1943), pp. 140–161, English translation in [10], pp. 287, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Gentzen, Gerhard, Collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen, North-Holland, 1969, Edited by Szabo, M. E..Google Scholar
[11] Gerhardy, Philipp, Refined complexity analysis of cut elimination, Computer Science Logic 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2803, Springer Verlag, 2003, pp. 212–225.Google Scholar
[12] Gerhardy, Philipp, The role of quantifier alternations in cut elimination, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 46 (2005), no. 2, pp. 165, 171.Google Scholar
[13] Girard, Jean-Yves, Proof theory and logical complexity, Humantities Press, 1987.Google Scholar
[14] Nelson, Edward, Predicative arithmetic, Princeton University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
[15] Orevkov, V. P., Lower bounds for lengthening of proofs after cut-elimination, Journal of Soviet Mathematics, vol. 20 (1982), pp. 2337–2350. Original Russian version in Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov (L.O.M.I.) Steklov , vol. 88 (1979), pp. 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Orevkov, V. P., Upper bound on the lengthening of proofs by cut elimination, Journal of Soviet Mathematics, vol. 34 (1986), pp. 1810–1819, Original Russian version in Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov [L.O.M.I.) Steklov , vol. 137 (1984), pp. 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Orevkov, V. P., Applications of cut elimination to obtain estimates of proof lengths, Soviet Mathematics Doklady, vol. 36 (1988), pp. 292–295, Original Russian version in Doklady Akademii Nauk , vol. 296 (1987), no. 3, pp. 539, 542.Google Scholar
[18] Paris, J. B. and Dimitracopoulos, C., A note on the undefinability of cuts, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), no. 3, pp. 564, 569.Google Scholar
[19] Pudlák, Pavel, The lengths of proofs, Handbook of proof theory (Buss, S. R., editor), Elsevier, North-Holland, 1998, pp. 547–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Solovay, Robert M., Letter to P. Hajek, 08 1976.Google Scholar
[21] Statman, Richard, Lower bounds on Herbrand's theorem, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 75 (1979), no. 1, pp. 104–107.Google Scholar
[22] Statman, Richard, Speed-up by theories with infinite models, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 81 (1981), pp. 465–469.Google Scholar
[23] Troelstra, Anne S. and Schwichtenberg, Helmut, Basic proof theory, 2nd ed., Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 43, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.Google Scholar
[24] Yessenin-Volpin, A. S., The ultra-intuitionistic criticism and the antitraditional program for foundations of mathematics, Intuitionism and proof theory (Kino, A., Myhill, J., and Vesley, R. E., editors). North-Holland, 1970, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
[25] Zhang, Wenhui, Cut elimination and automatic proof procedures, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 91 (1991), pp. 265–284.Google Scholar
[26] Zhang, Wenhui, Depth of proofs, depth of cut-formulas, and complexity of cut formulas, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 129 (1994), pp. 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27] Zhang, Wenhui, Structure of proofs and the complexity of cut elimination, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 353 (2006), pp. 63–70.Google Scholar