Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Complexity of Theorem-Proving Procedures Stephen A. Cook University of Toronto PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ashlesha Kumar
    12 views8 pages

    Original Title

    The Complexity of Theorem-Proving Procedures Stephen A. Cook University of Toronto.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views8 pages

    The Complexity of Theorem-Proving Procedures Stephen A. Cook University of Toronto PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ashlesha Kumar

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    Rewer 2 ceeding Third Arava ACM Sympor 9 eee ee > Compu di Mey 47) ¢ Sunmary. It is shown that any recognition problem solved by a polynomial time- bounded nondeterministic Turing machine can be "reduced" to the pro- blem of determining whether a given propositional formula is a tautology. Here "reduced" means, roughly speak- ing, that the first problem can be solved deterministically in polyno- nial time provided an oracle is available for solving the second. From this notion of reducible, polynomial degrees of difficulty are defined, and it is shown that the problem of determining tautologyhood has the same polynomial degree as the problem of determining whether the first of two given graphs is iso- morphic to a subgraph of the second. Other examples are discussed. A method of measuring the complexity of proof procedures for the predicate calculus is introduced and discussed. Throughout this paper, a set of strings means a set of strings om Sone fixed, large, finite alphabet C. This alphabet is large enough to in- clude symbols for all sets described here. All Turing machines are deter- ministic recognition devices, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. 1. Tautologies and Polynomial R Reacibenity Let us fix a formalism for the propositional calculus in which formulas are written as strings on . Since we will re- quire infinitely many proposition symbols (atoms), each such symbol will consist ofa member of = followed by a number in binary notation to distinguish that symbol. Thus a formula of length n can only have about n/logn distinct function and predicate symbols. The logical connectives are & (and), v (or), and 7(not). The set of tautologies (denoted by {tautologies)) is a -151- Stephen The Complexity of Theoren-Proving Procedures + Cook University of Toronto certain recursive set of strings on this alphabet, and we are interested in the problem of finding a good lower bound on its possible recog- nition times. We provide no such lower bound here, but theorem I will give evidence that {tautologies} is a difficult set to recognize, since many apparently difficult problens can be reduced to determining tau- tologyhood. By reduced we mean, roughly speaking, that if tauto- logyhood could be decided instantly (by an “oracle") then these problens could be decided in polynomial time. In order to make this notion precise, we introduce query machines, which are like Turing machines with oracles in [1]. A query machine is a multitape Turing aachine witha distinguished tape called the query tape, ani three distinguished states cated the query state, yes state, and no State, respectively, TPM is @ query machine and 7 is a set of Strings, then a T-computation of M isa computation GFN in which initially M is in the initial state and has an input string w on its input tape, and each time M assumes the query state there is a String u on the query tape, and the next state M assumes is the yes state if ueT and the no state if udT. We think of an “oracle”, which knows T, placing M in the yes state or ho state. Definition A set_S of strings is P-redu- gible (P for polynomial) to a set YT of strings iff there is sone query machine M and a polynomial Q(n)" such that for each input string w, the T-computation of M. with in- put w halts within Q((w]) steps (lw| is the length of w), and ends in-an accepting state iff weS. It is not hard to see that P-reducibility is a transitive re- lation. Thus the relation £ on sets of strings, given by (S,T)cE iff each of S$ and’ T is Peredicible to the other, is an cquivalence relation. ‘The equivalence class containing a set Swill be denoted by deg (S) (the po- lynonial degree of difficulty ofS). Definition: We will denote deg ((0)) by 2Zq, where 0 denotes the zero func- tion! Thus Z, is the class of sets re- cognizable in polynomial tine. Ly was discussed in (2]) p. 5) and Is the String analog of Cabhan's Class fof Functions [3]. 4 We now define the following special sets of Strings. 1) The subgraph problem is the probien giveh two finite tndirected graphs, determine whether the first is iso- Borphi to a subgraph of the second. A graph G can be represented by a string 6 on the alphabet {0,1,4) by listing the successive rows of its adjacency matrix, separated by *s. We let (sub- Braph pairs) denote the set of strings G\**G, such that Gy a subgraph of G2. 2) ‘The graph isonorphism problem witt be represented by the set, denoted by (isomorphic graphpairs}, of all is isomorphic to strings G,**G, such that 6, is iso- morphic to G). 3)_The set {Primes} is the set of all binary notations for prine numbers. 4) The set (DNF tautologies) is the set of strings representing tauto~ logies in disjunctive normal form. 5) The set Ds consists of those tautologies in disjunctive normal form in which each disjunct has at most three Conjunets (each oF which is an atom or negation of an atom). Theorem 1: If a set S_ of strings is accepted by some nondeterministic Turing machine within polynomial time, then S is Pereducible to {DNF tautologies}. Gorollary: Each of the sets in defini- {Tone Tes) is Poredueible to” CINE tautologies}. This is because each set, or its complement, is accepted in polynomial time by some nondeterministic Turing -152- nachine. Proof of the theorem: Suppose a non- deterministic Turtsg machine accepts a set S of strings within time Q(n), where Q(n) is a polynomial. Given an Tnput For” My me wiil construct a proposition foraéta. A{w) tn condune tive normal form such that AGW) ds Eatisfiable iff N accepts sw Thus STAGe) vis easily put in disjunctive potaai form (using! be Morgan's is), and "A(w) vis a tautology if and onl Tf" ws") Since the whole construction can be carried out in tine bounded by a"polynonial in’ |x] (the length of ¥), the theorem will be proved. Me may a3 well assume the Turing machine "W has" only one tape, which is Infinite to the right but has'a Lert nost square. Let us number the squares fron left to right 1,2) 2"-. Let us fix'an input we to.’ ‘of length. ny and Suppose’ weS." "then there fea Computation of Ml with input w that grit in anvaccentigg sfater witha” sa(ny "steps. The formula. AG) x31 be bifit ttoaPainy different propos: tion symbols, whose intended meanings, Listed below, refer to such a comput tation. Suppose the tape alphabet for M is (Gy, +++) 3}, and the set of states is, (ayy s+) a4). Notice that since the computation has at nost T+ Q(m) steps, no tape square beyond number T is scanned. Proposition symbol. pi, for 1s ist, les ter. pi, is true i£f tape square number s at step t contains the symbol 0; - ah for reer, eect. Qh is true iff at step t the machine is in state aq; for 1ss,tsT is true iff at Sse time t square number s is scanned by the tape head. The formula ACW) tion BRCEDGEGFEGRHGI follows. Notice A(w) junctive normal form, is a conjune- formed as 3 will assert that at each step ty one andonly one square 1s scanned. Bis a Conjunction 8) @ By 6 ++ 8 By» where B, asserts that at time t one and only one square is scanned eC rs re) (8 O89 ¥ 75; 2) fej For lsssT and Lststy Cy asserts that at square s and time t there is one and only one symbol. C is the conjunction of all the Cy 4: D asserts that for each t there is one and only one state. E asserts the initial conditions are satisfied: B= Of 65,5 6 Pty 6 Pye Ge w PAD er eee aed 3. Then A and only if At is a tautology if is a tautology where AN = PARSE. GRyy APGR)ER,VB,V oe. v Bys where P is anew atom, Since we have Teduced the number of conjunets in By, this process may be repeated until eventually a formula is found with at most three conjuncts per disjunct. Clearly the entire process is bounded in time by a polynomial in the length of A. It remains to show D; is P-reduc- ible to (subgraph pairs}. > Suppose A is a formula in disjunctive normal form with three conjuncts per disjunct. Thus Racy ses Cys where -153- Cy = Ryy @ Rip & Ryss and each Ry is an atom or a negation of an atom. Now let G, be the complete graph with ver- tices Cvys vgs c++» vgs and let ) % be the graph with vertices Cu; Lsisk, 143, such that is connected by an edge tou, ifr and the two literals feu and only if (Ryjj+ Reg) do not form an opposite pair (that is they are neither of the form (P, 1) nor of the form (P,P). Thus there is a falsifying truth assignment to the formula A iff there is @ graph homonorphism ¢ : G, + G, such that for each i, (vj) = yj for some (The homomorphism tells for each i which of should be fal- Rue Rize Ris sified, and the selective lack of edges in G, guarantees that the resulting truth assignment is consistently spe- cified). In order to guarantee that @ one-one homomorphism § : G; Gp has the pro- perty that for each i, $(vj) = 4; for sone j, we modify G, and G, as fol- lows. We select graphs Hyy Hyy vey My which are sufficiently distinct from each other that if Gj is formed from G, by attaching Hy to vy, Ls is ky and 6} is formed from G, by attaching H to cach of uy, and uy, and Uys, 1s isk, then every one-one homomor- phism 6: G] + G3 has the property just stated. It is not hard to see such a construction can be carried cut in po- can be ea- AEDS. lynomial time. Then 6] bedded in G3 if and only if ‘This completes the proof of theorem 2. 2. Discussion Theoren 1 and its corollary give strong evidence that it is not easy to determine whether a given proposition formula isa tautology, even if the formula is in normal disjunctive form Theorens 1 and 2 together suggest that itis fruitless to search for a poly= nomial decision procedure for the sub- Graph problem, since success would bring polynomial decision procedures to many Sther apparently intractibie problens. Of course the sume renark applies to any Combinatorial problex to which {tauto= Togies} is P-reducible. Furthermore, the theorens suggest that (tautologi¢s) is a good candidate for an interesting set not in #*, and I feel it is worth spending consider- able effort trying to prove this con- jecture. Such a proof would be a major breakthrough in complexity theory. In view of the apparent complexity of {ONE tautologies}, it is interesting to examine the Davis-Putnam procedure [5]. This procedure was designed to determine whether a given formula in conjunctive normal form is satisfiable, but of course the "dual" procedure determines whether a given formula in disjunctive normal form is a tautology. I have not yet been able to find a series of examples showing the procedure (treated sympathetically to avoid certain pitfalls) must require more than polynonial tine. Nor have 1 found an interesting upper bound for the time required. If we let strings represent natural numbers, (or k-tuples of natural num bers) using m-adic or other suitable notation, then the notions in the pre Geeding sections can be made to apply to sets of nuabers (or k-place relations on fumbers). If is not hard to see that the Set of relations accepted in polynomial time by Some nondeterministic Turing ma- chine is precisely the set of te" lations of the form QQ) Gye, 69) RG) a)* where g,() = 2004 O)", a(2) is the -154- dyadic length of z, and R(%,y) He relation, (£* is the class of ex- tended positive rudinentary relations oF Bennett [6])- If we remove the bound on the quantifier in forma (1), the class £* would become the class of re-! cursively enumerable sets. Thus if £” is the analog of the class of r.e. Sets, then determining tautologyhood is the analog of the halting problem; since, according to theoren 1, { tautologies} has the complete £* degree just as the halting problem has the complete r-e. degree. Unfortunately, the diagonal argument which shows the halting problem is not recursive apparently cannot be adapted to show (tautologies) is not in 3. The Predicate Calculus Formulas in the predicate calculus are represented by strings in a manner Similar to the propositional calculus. in‘ addition to the synbois for the lat- kepr ge nega the quaptifier fynbots,¥ and’ $y and symbols for forming an in- Hngee’ aise oF individual variables, and infinite lists of function and predicate symbols of each order, (of course the Underlying siphaber D0 4s still Finite). Suppose Q is a procedure which operates on the above formulas and which tersinates on a given input formula A iff A is unsatisfiable. Since there is no decision procedure for satisfiability in the predicate calculus, it follows that there is no recursive function T such that if A’ is unsatisfiable, then Q. will terminate within Tin) Steps, Where nis the length of A. How then does one appraise the efficiency of the procedure? We Will take the following approach. Most automatic theorem provers depend on the Herbrand theorem, which states brief- ly that a formula A’ is unsatisfiable if and only if sone conjunction of subst: tution instances of the functional fora fn(A) of Avis truth functionally in- consistent. Suppose we order the teras in the Herbrand universe of | fn(A) ac- cording to rank, and then order in a natural way the substitution instances af fn(A). from the Herbrand universe. ‘The ordering should be such that in general substitution instances which use forms with greater rank follow substitu tion instances which use terms of lesser rank, Let Ay, A>, ... be these substi- tution instances in order. Definition: If A is unsatisfiable, then OA) is the least k such that ADGA, & -.. BAY is truth-functional- ly inconsistent. If A_ is satisfiable, then 9(A)” is undefined. Now let Q_ be the procedure which, given "A, computes the sequence "Ay, Ay: vs and for each i, tests whether A ee AUS Gs thuth:fineelonalty consistent. Tf the answer is ever m0, the procedure terminates, successfully. then! clearly. there 1s a recursive. TCR) Suen thot forall) and ait formulas wes the Tength of Ave k_and Stas be then, Q) Will terminate with- fn ray" steps. we'supgest thet the Zinction TG) iss acasure of the ef Fitieney of Q For convenience, all. procedures in this section will be’ realized on single {ape Turing machines, which we shall call Simply sachines Definition: Given a michine My end ive function Te(K y Mg is of sype Q. and runs within tine Tg(k) provided that when Mg starts with a predicate formula 4 written on its tape, then Mg halts if and only if A. is unsatisfiable, and for all k, if 9{A)

    You might also like