Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T19:47:26.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the complexity of Gödel's proof predicate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Yijia Chen  and
Jörg Flum
Yijia Chen
Affiliation:
Basics, Department of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai 200030, China, E-mail: [email protected]
Jörg Flum
Affiliation:
Abteilung für Mathematische Logik, Universität Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The undecidability of first-order logic implies that there is no computable bound on the length of shortest proofs of valid sentences of first-order logic. Some valid sentences can only have quite long proofs. How hard is it to prove such “hard” valid sentences? The polynomial time tractability of this problem would imply the fixed-parameter tractability of the parameterized problem that, given a natural number n in unary as input and a first-order sentence φ as parameter, asks whether φ has a proof of length ≤ n. As the underlying classical problem has been considered by Gödel we denote this problem by p-Gödel. We show that p-Gödel is not fixed-parameter tractable if DTIME(h O(1)) ≠ NTIME(h O(1)) for all time constructible and increasing functions h. Moreover we analyze the complexity of the construction problem associated with p-Gödel.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 239 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Buhrman, H. and Hitchcock, J. M., NP-hard sets are exponentially dense unless co NP ⊆ NP/poly, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC'08), 2008, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
[2] Buss, S., On Gödel's theorems on lengths of proofs. II. Lower bounds for recognizing k symbol provability, Feasible mathematics, II (Clote, P. and Remmel, J., editors), Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1995, pp. 57–90.Google Scholar
[3] Chen, Y. and Flum, J., A logic for PTIME and a parameterized halting problem, Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS '09), 2009, pp. 397–406.Google Scholar
[4] Church, A., A note on the Entscheidungsproblem, this Journal, vol. 1 (1936), pp. 40–41.Google Scholar
[5] Downey, R. G. and Fellows, M. R., Parameterized complexity, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
[6] Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J., and Thomas, W., Mathematical logic, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
[7] Flum, J. and Grohe, M., Parameterized complexity theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.Google Scholar
[8] Gödel, K., Collected works, vol. VI, Clarendon Press, 2003.Google Scholar
[9] Lutz, J.H., The quantitative structure of exponential time, Complexity theory retrospective, II (Hemaspaandra, L. A. and Selman, A. L., editors), Springer, New York, 1997, pp. 225–254.Google Scholar
[10] Mayordomo, E., Almost every set in exponential time is P-bi-immune, Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 136 (1994), no. 2, pp. 487–506.Google Scholar