Abstract:We present a streamlined and simplified exponential lower bound on the length of proofs in intuitionistic implicational logic, adapted to Gordeev and Haeusler's dag-like natural deduction.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to prove that a certain class of specific formulas in intuitionistic implicational logic require proofs of exponential - length. Specifically, the author aims to simplify and directly prove that in the dag - like natural deduction system proposed by Gordeev and Haeusler, the proof lengths of some intuitionistic implicational tautologies have an exponential lower bound.
### Problem Background
1. **Proof Complexity in Classical and Non - Classical Propositional Logics**
- For some tautologies in classical propositional logic, it is known that there are proofs of exponential - size.
- However, for more complex proof systems such as the Frege system, current techniques can only provide linear or quadratic lower bounds.
2. **Progress in Non - Classical Logics**
- Hrubeš et al. have proven that Frege proofs of some formulas in modal logic and intuitionistic logic require an exponential number of lines.
- Gordeev and Haeusler claimed that all intuitionistic implicational tautologies have polynomial - size proofs in their proposed dag - like natural deduction system, which would imply NP = PSPACE, but this claim has been proven false.
### Main Contributions of the Paper
- **Simplifying the Proof of the Exponential Lower Bound**: The author provides a simplified proof of the exponential lower bound, which is applicable to the dag - like natural deduction system of Gordeev and Haeusler.
- **Self - Contained Argument**: The new proof does not rely on other complex results but is based on the combinatorial lower bound of monotone circuits and uses the Kleene slash method.
- **Wide Applicability**: Although the proof is targeted at the dag - like natural deduction system, it is also applicable to the standard Frege system because the latter can be embedded into the former.
### Formula Presentation
To ensure the correctness and readability of the formulas, the following are the key formulas:
1. **Definition of τn**
\[
\alpha_n(\vec{p}, \vec{q}, v)=\left(\bigwedge_{i < n}\left(\bigwedge_{l < k}(q_{il}\to v)\to v\right)\right)\to\left(\bigwedge_{i < j < n, l < k}(q_{il}\to q_{jl}\to p_{ij}\to v)\to v\right)
\]
\[
\tau_n(\vec{p}, \vec{p'},\vec{q},\vec{r}, u, v, w)=\left(\bigwedge_{i < j < n}((p_{ij}\to u)\to(p'_{ij}\to u)\to u)\right)\to(\alpha_n(\vec{p},\vec{q}, v)\to u)\to(\alpha_n(\vec{p'},\vec{r}, w)\to u)\to u
\]
2. **Monotone Interpolation Circuit C**
\[
C(\vec{p})=\text{a monotone circuit of size }O(t^3)
\]
This circuit is used to interpolate the classical tautology \(\neg\alpha_1(\neg\vec{p},\vec{r})\to\alpha_0(\vec{p},\vec{q})\).
Through these formulas and methods, the author has successfully proven that the proof lengths of some formulas in intuitionistic implicational logic do indeed require exponential growth, thus refuting the false claim of Gordeev and Haeusler.