论文标题
仔细观察一些最近与压缩有关的说明
A Closer Look at Some Recent Proof Compression-Related Claims
论文作者
论文摘要
Gordeev和Haeusler [GH19]声称,每种重言式$ρ$最少的命题逻辑可以通过自然扣除尺寸多项式($ |ρ| $)的自然扣除。这是基于Hudelmaier [Hud93]的工作,该工作发现直觉命题逻辑的结果相似,但仅证明的高度是多发界限的,而不是整体大小。他们通过将Hudelmaier的顺序演算中的证据转换为Prawitz的自然扣除系统中的等效树状的证明,然后将类似树状的证据压缩为等效的DAG式证明,以这样的方式以多种态度绑定在高度和基础上,这意味着对整体大小结束了等效的方式。但是,我们的论文观察到这种构建仅是基于最小的含义逻辑进行的,我们显示出比他们声称结果的最小命题逻辑弱(请参阅第4.2节)。仅仅扩展用于涵盖最小命题逻辑的逻辑系统就不足以恢复论文的结果,因为它将完全破坏许多对证明主要结果至关重要的定理的证明。 Gordeev和Haeusler [GH20]大力依靠他们上述工作,声称建立了NP = Pspace。该参数在最小的命题逻辑中集中取决于多项式绑定的证明大小。由于我们表明该界限尚未正确确定,因此他们所谓的证明无法正确建立NP = Pspace。
Gordeev and Haeusler [GH19] claim that each tautology $ρ$ of minimal propositional logic can be proved with a natural deduction of size polynomial in $|ρ|$. This builds on work from Hudelmaier [Hud93] that found a similar result for intuitionistic propositional logic, but for which only the height of the proof was polynomially bounded, not the overall size. They arrive at this result by transforming a proof in Hudelmaier's sequent calculus into an equivalent tree-like proof in Prawitz's system of natural deduction, and then compressing the tree-like proof into an equivalent DAG-like proof in such a way that a polynomial bound on the height and foundation implies a polynomial bound on the overall size. Our paper, however, observes that this construction was performed only on minimal implicational logic, which we show to be weaker than the minimal propositional logic for which they claim the result (see Section 4.2). Simply extending the logic systems used to cover minimal propositional logic would not be sufficient to recover the results of the paper, as it would entirely disrupt proofs of a number of the theorems that are critical to proving the main result. Relying heavily on their aforementioned work, Gordeev and Haeusler [GH20] claim to establish NP=PSPACE. The argument centrally depends on the polynomial bound on proof size in minimal propositional logic. Since we show that that bound has not been correctly established by them, their purported proof does not correctly establish NP=PSPACE.