Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-lmk9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-27T21:08:54.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tautologies from Pseudo-Random Generators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Jan Krajíček
Jan Krajíček*
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Žitná 25, 11567 Praha 1, Czech Republic Institute for Theoretical Computer Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, E-mail: krajicek@matsrv.math.cas.cz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider tautologies formed from a pseudo-random number generator, defined in Krajíček [11] and in Alekhnovich et al. [2]. We explain a strategy of proving their hardness for Extended Frege systems via a conjecture about bounded arithmetic formulated in Krajíček [11]. Further we give a purely finitary statement, in the form of a hardness condition imposed on a function, equivalent to the conjecture.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 197 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2001

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] Ajtai, M., The complexity of the pigeonhole principle, Proceedings of the IEEE 29th annual symposium on foundation of computer science, 1988, pp. 346–355.Google Scholar
[2] Alekhnovich, M., Ben-Sasson, E., Razborov, A. A., and Wigderson, A., Pseudorandom generators in propositional proof complexity, preprint, 03 2000.Google Scholar
[3] Buss, S. R., Bounded arithmetic, Bibliopolis, Naples, 1986, Revision of 1985 Princeton University Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
[4] Cobham, A, The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions, Proceedings of logic, methodology and philosophy of science (Bar-Hillel, Y., editor), North-Holland, 1965, pp. 24–30.Google Scholar
[5] Cook, S. A., The complexity of theorem proving procedures, Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, ACM Press, 1971, pp. 151–158.Google Scholar
[6] Cook, S. A., Feasibly constructive proofs and the propositional calculus, Proceedings of the 7th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, ACM Press, 1975, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
[7] Cook, S. A. and Reckhow, A. R., The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 44 (1979), no. 1, pp. 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Dowd, M., Propositional representations of arithmetic proofs, Ph.D. thesis , University of Toronto, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Haken, A., The intractability of resolution, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 39 (1985), pp. 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Impagliazzo, R. and Wigderson, A., P = BPP unless E has sub-exponential circuits: derandomizing the XOR lemma, Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, 1997, pp. 220–229.Google Scholar
[11] Krajíček, J., On the weak pigeonhole principle, to appear in Fundamenta Mathematicae (preprint on web 08 9 '99).Google Scholar
[12] Krajíček, J., Speed-up for propositional Frege systems via generalizations of proofs, Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 30 (1989), no. 1, pp. 137–140.Google Scholar
[13] Krajíček, J., Lower bounds to the size of constant-depth propositional proofs, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 59 (1994), no. 1, pp. 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Krajíček, J., Bounded arithmetic, propositional logic, and complexity theory, Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications, vol. 60, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
[15] Krajíček, J., On Frege and extended Frege proof systems, “Feasible mathematics II” (Clote, P. and Remmel, J., editors), Birkhauser, 1995, pp. 284–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Krajíček, J., Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems, and independence results for bounded arithmetic, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 62 (1997), no. 2, pp. 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first order theories and the complexity of computations, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 54 (1989), no. 3, pp. 1063–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Propositional provability in models of weak arithmetic, Computer science logic, October 1989 (Kaiserlautern) (Boerger, E., Kleine-Bunning, H., and Richter, M. M., editors), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 440, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 193–210.Google Scholar
[19] Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Quantified propositional calculi and fragments of bounded arithmetic, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 36 (1990), pp. 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Krajíček, J. and Pudlák, P., Some consequences of cryptographical conjectures for and EF, Information and Computation, vol. 140 (1998), no. 1, pp. 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P., and Sgall, J., Interactive computations of optimal solutions, Mathematical foundations of computer science (Rovan, B., editor), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 452, Springer-Verlag, B. Bystrica, 08 1990, pp. 48–60.Google Scholar
[22] Krajíček, J., Pudlák, P., and Takeuti, G., Bounded arithmetic and the polynomial hierarchy, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 52 (1991), pp. 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Maciel, A., Pitassi, T., and Woods, A., A new proof of the weak pigeonhole principle, preprint, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Paris, J. and Wilkie, A. J., Counting problems in bounded arithmetic, Methods in mathematical logic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1130, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Paris, J. B., Wilkie, A. J., and Woods, A. R., Provability of the pigeonhole principle and the existence of infinitely many primes, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 53 (1988), pp. 1235–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Pudlák, P., Some relations between subsystems of arithmetic and the complexity of computations, Logic from computer science (Moschovakis, Y. N., editor), Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publication, vol. 21, Springer-Verlag, 1992, proceedings of a workshop held 11 13-17, 1989 in Berkeley, pp. 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27] Pudlák, P., The lengths of proofs, Handbook of proof theory (Buss, S., editor), Elsevier, 1997.Google Scholar
[28] Razborov, A. A., Bounded arithmetic and lower bounds in Boolean complexity, Feasible mathematics (Clote, P. and Remmel, J., editors), Progress in Computer Science and Applied Logic, vol. 13, Birkhauser, 1995, pp. 344–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Razborov, A. A., Unprovability of lower bounds on the circuit size in certain fragments of bounded arithmetic, Rossiîskaya Akademiya Nauk. Izvestiya. Seriya Matematicheskaya, vol. 59 (1995), no. 1, pp. 201–224.Google Scholar
[30] Razborov, A. A. and Rudich, S., Natural proofs, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 55 (1997), no. 1, pp. 24–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Tseitin, G. C., On the complexity of derivations in propositional calculus, Studies in mathematics and mathematical logic, part II (Slisenko, A. O., editor), 1968, pp. 115–125.Google Scholar
[32] Urquhart, A., The complexity of propositional proofs, this Bulletin, vol. 1 (1995), no. 4, pp. 425–467.Google Scholar
[33] Yao, A., Theory and applications of trapdoor functions, Proceedings of the 23rd annual symposium on foundation of computer science, 1982, pp. 92–99.Google Scholar