Révision 253
CSL17/tech-report/appendix-completeness.tex (revision 253) | ||
---|---|---|
38 | 38 |
%\begin{proof} |
39 | 39 |
%\end{proof} |
40 | 40 |
\begin{proof} |
41 |
This Lemma is proved by using the same method as for the proof of the analogous result in the bounded arithmetic $S_2^{i+1}$ (see \cite{Buss86book}, Thm 20, p. 58).
|
|
41 |
This Lemma is proved by using the same method as for the proof of the analogous result in the bounded arithmetic $S_2^{i}$ (see \cite{Buss86book}, Thm 20, p. 58). |
|
42 | 42 |
|
43 | 43 |
Let $A(x)$ be a $\Sigma^\safe_{i-1}$ formula, with $x$ in $\safe$. We define the formula $B(a,b,c)$ as: |
44 | 44 |
$$ \forall x^{\safe}. (x < |a| \moins b \cimp \zerobit(x,c)) \cand \forall y^{\safe}<c. \neg A(y) \cand \exists y^{\safe} < 2^{|a|\moins b}.A(c+y)$$ |
... | ... | |
60 | 60 |
Moreover we have: $A(a) \cand B(a,b,c) \cimp c\leq a$. |
61 | 61 |
From these three statements we deduce: |
62 | 62 |
$$(A(a) \cand a \neq 0 \cand b<|a| \cand \exists x^{\safe} \leq a. B(a,b,x)) \cimp \exists x^{\safe } \leq a.B(a,\succ{} b,x).$$ |
63 |
Note that here we have used the fact that we are in classical logic. |
|
64 |
|
|
63 | 65 |
The formula $\exists x\leq a. B(a,b,c)$ is in $\Sigma^{\safe}_{i}$, so by $\Sigma^{\safe}_{i}$-LIND on the formula $\exists x\leq a. B(a,b,c)$, with the variable $b$ which is in $\normal$, we obtain: |
64 | 66 |
$$(A(a) \cand a \neq 0 ) \cimp \exists x^{\safe } \leq a.B(a,|a|,x).$$ |
65 |
\patrick{Anupam, is it a valid instance of LIND? I think it is.} |
|
66 |
|
|
67 | 67 |
But $B(a,|a|,x)$ implies $(\forall y^{\safe}<x. \neg A(y))\cand A(x)$, so we have proven: |
68 | 68 |
$$(A(a) \cand a \neq 0 ) \cimp (\exists x^{\safe } \leq a. (\forall y^{\safe}<x. \neg A(y))\cand A(x))$$ |
69 | 69 |
which is the $\Sigma_{i-1}^{\safe}$ axiom for $A$. |
70 | 70 |
\end{proof} |
71 |
% \patrick{Examining it superficially, I think indeed the proof of Buss can be adapted to our setting. But we should probably look again at that with more scrutiny.} |
|
72 | 71 |
|
73 | 72 |
Now, working in $\arith^i$, let $\vec u \in \normal , \vec x \in \safe$ and let us prove: |
74 | 73 |
\[ |
CSL17/tech-report/intro.tex (revision 253) | ||
---|---|---|
7 | 7 |
|
8 | 8 |
To some extent there is a distinction between various notions of `representability', namely between logics that \emph{type} terms computing functions of a given complexity class, and theories that prove the \emph{totality} or \emph{convergence} of programs computing functions in a given complexity class. |
9 | 9 |
But a perhaps more important distinction is whether the constraints on the logic or theory are |
10 |
\textit{explicit} or \textit{implicit}, that is to say whether they stipulate some bounds or resources, or whether the bounds are only \textit{consequence} of some logical properties. One important representative of the first category is \textit{bounded arithmetic}, based on theories of arithmetic where quantifiers are bounded by terms in induction or comprehension formulae \cite{Buss86book,Krajicek:1996:BAP:225488,Cook:2010:LFP:1734064}. Cobham's function algebra \cite{Cobham} for polynomial time is of a similar nature, and indeed is used as a tool for the study of bounded arithmetic. In the second category one there are various systems of \textit{implicit computational complexity}, for instance function algebras based on \emph{ramification} or \emph{safe recursion} \cite{BellantoniCook92,Leivant95}, arithmetics or logics based on analogous restrictions of induction \cite{Cantini02}, \cite{Leivant94:intrinsic-theories} \cite{BelHof:02}, \cite{Marion01}, \cite{Leivant94:found-delin-ptime} and subsystems of \emph{linear logic} \cite{Girard94:lll} \cite{Lafont04} .
|
|
10 |
\textit{explicit} or \textit{implicit}, that is to say whether they stipulate some bounds or resources, or whether the bounds are only \textit{consequence} of some logical properties. One important representative of the first category is \textit{bounded arithmetic}, based on theories of arithmetic where quantifiers are bounded by terms in induction or comprehension formulae \cite{Buss86book,Krajicek:1996:BAP:225488,Cook:2010:LFP:1734064}. Cobham's function algebra \cite{Cobham} for polynomial time is of a similar nature, and indeed is used as a tool for the study of bounded arithmetic. In the second category there are various systems of \textit{implicit computational complexity}, for instance function algebras based on \emph{ramification} or \emph{safe recursion} \cite{BellantoniCook92,Leivant95}, arithmetics or logics based on analogous restrictions of induction \cite{Cantini02}, \cite{Leivant94:intrinsic-theories} \cite{BelHof:02}, \cite{Marion01}, \cite{Leivant94:found-delin-ptime} and subsystems of \emph{linear logic} \cite{Girard94:lll} \cite{Lafont04} . |
|
11 | 11 |
|
12 | 12 |
Bounded arithmetic is a deep and well-established field, and one of its advantages is its great versatility, allowing a characterization of a wide range of complexity classes, such as $\ptime$, the polynomial hierarchy $\ph$, $\pspace$, $\mathbf{NC}^i$ etc. |
13 | 13 |
%It is also closely related to \textit{proof complexity}, the research field investigating the size of propositional proofs in various proof systems. Finally it is also employed for the research direction of \textit{bounded reverse mathematics}. |
CSL17/tech-report/preliminaries.tex (revision 253) | ||
---|---|---|
142 | 142 |
|
143 | 143 |
%\anupam{Should add $+(;x,y)$ as a basic function (check satisfies polychecking lemma!), since otherwise not definable with safe input. Then define unary successor $\succ{} (;x)$ as $+(;x,\succ 1 0)$. } |
144 | 144 |
|
145 |
We denote $|x|=\ulcorner \log(x+1) \urcorner.$ |
|
145 | 146 |
\begin{example} |
146 | 147 |
[Some simple functions] |
147 | 148 |
\label{ex:simple-bc-fns} |
... | ... | |
153 | 154 |
%\item $\bit(l;x)$ returns the $\mode l$th bit of $x$. |
154 | 155 |
\item We can define the function $\bit(l;x)$ which returns the $|l|$th least significant bit of $x$. For instance $\bit(11;1101)=0$. |
155 | 156 |
|
156 |
For that let us first define the function $\shorten(l;x)$ which returns the $|x|- |l|+1$ prefix of $x$, as follows:
|
|
157 |
For that let us first define the function $\shorten(l;x)$ which returns the $|x|- |l|$ prefix of $x$, as follows: |
|
157 | 158 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
158 | 159 |
\shorten(0;x) &=&x\\ |
159 | 160 |
\shorten(\succ{i}l;x) &=&p(;\shorten(l;x)) |
CSL17/preliminaries.tex (revision 253) | ||
---|---|---|
157 | 157 |
For that let us first define the function $\shorten(l;x)$ which returns the $|x|- |l|$ prefix of $x$, as follows: |
158 | 158 |
\begin{eqnarray*} |
159 | 159 |
\shorten(0;x) &=&x\\ |
160 |
\shorten(\succ{i}l;x) &=&p(;\shorten(l;x)) \mbox{ if $l\neq 0$.}
|
|
160 |
\shorten(\succ{i}l;x) &=&p(;\shorten(l;x)) |
|
161 | 161 |
\end{eqnarray*} |
162 | 162 |
Then we define $\bit(l;x)$ as follows: |
163 | 163 |
$$\bit(l;x)=C(;\shorten(l;x),0,1).$$ |
Formats disponibles : Unified diff