Advertisement

Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 301–329 | Cite as

Fast Formal Proof of the Erdős–Szekeres Conjecture for Convex Polygons with at Most 6 Points

  • Filip MarićEmail author
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

A conjecture originally made by Klein and Szekeres in 1932 (now commonly known as “Erdős–Szekeres” or “Happy Ending” conjecture) claims that for every \(m \ge 3\), every set of \(2^{m-2}+1\) points in a general position (none three different points are collinear) contains a convex m-gon. The conjecture has been verified for \(m \le 6\). The case \(m=6\) was solved by Szekeres and Peters and required a huge computer enumeration that took “more than 3000 GHz hours”. In this paper we improve the solution in several directions. By changing the problem representation, by employing symmetry-breaking and by using modern SAT solvers, we reduce the proving time to around only a half of an hour on an ordinary PC computer (i.e., our proof requires only around 1 GHz hour). Also, we formalize the proof within the Isabelle/HOL proof assistant, making it significantly more reliable.

Keywords

Erdős–Szekeres conjecture Happy ending problem Convex polygons Interactive theorem proving SAT solving Isabelle/HOL 

References

  1. 1.
    Aehlig, K., Haftmann, F., Nipkow, T.: A compiled implementation of normalization by evaluation. In: Mohamed, O.A., Munoz, C., Tahar, S. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs 2008), LNCS, vol. 5170, pp. 39–54. Springer, Berlin (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avigad, J., Harrison, J.: Formally verified mathematics. Commun. ACM 57(4), 66–75 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballarin, C.: Interpretation of locales in Isabelle: theories and proof contexts. In: Proceedings of Mathematical Knowledge Management, MKM, pp. 31–43 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biere, A., Biere, A., Heule, M., van Maaren, H., Walsh, T.: Handbook of Satisfiability. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonnice, W.E.: On convex polygons determined by a finite planar set. Am. Math. Mon. 81, 749752 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruz-Filipe, L., Marques-Silva, J., Schneider-Kamp, P.: Efficient certified resolution proof checking. In: Proceedings of Automated Deduction—CADE-26—26th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Gothenburg, Sweden, LNCS. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dehnhardt, K., Harborth, H., Längi, Z.: A partial proof of the Erdős–Szekeres conjecture for hexagons. J. Pure Appl. Math. Adv. Appl. 2, 6986 (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erdős, P., Szekeres, G.: A combinatorial problem in geometry. Compos. Math. 2, 463–470 (1935)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hales, T.C. (ed.): Notices of the AMS: Special Issue on Formal Proof, vol. 55(11). American Mathematical Society (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrison, J.: HOL light: a tutorial introduction. In: Proceedings of Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, First International Conference, FMCAD’96, Palo Alto, California, USA, pp. 265–269 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hölldobler, S., Manthey, N., Philipp, T., Steinke, P.: Generic CDCL—a formalization of modern propositional satisfiability solvers. In: POS@ SAT, pp. 89–102 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huet, G., Herbelin, H.: 30 years of research and development around Coq. In: Principles of Programming Languages, POPL, pp. 249–250 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalbfleisch, J.D., Kalbfleisch, J.G., Stanton, R.G.: A combinatorial problem on convex n-gons. In: Proceedings of Louisiana Conference on Combinational Graph Theory Computing, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge (1970)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knuth, D.E.: Axioms and Hulls, LNCS, vol. 606. Springer, Berlin (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lammich, P.: Efficient verified (un)sat certificate checking. In: Proceedings of Automated Deduction—CADE-26—26th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Gothenburg, Sweden, LNCS. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marić, F.: Formalization and implementation of modern SAT solvers. J. Autom. Reason. 43(1), 81–119 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marić, F.: Formal verification of a modern SAT solver by shallow embedding into Isabelle/HOL. Theor. Comput. Sci. 411(50), 4333–4356 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marić, F.: A survey of interactive theorem proving. Zb. Rad. 18, 173–223 (2015)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morris, W., Soltan, V.: The Erdős–Szekeres problem on points in convex position—a survey. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 37, 437–458 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morris, W., Soltan, V.: The Erdős–Szekeres Problem. Springer, Cham (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL—A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pichardie, D., Bertot, Y.: Formalizing convex hull algorithms. In: Boulton, R.J., Jackson, P.B. (eds.) Proceedings of Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: 14th International Conference, TPHOLs 2001 Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, pp. 346–361. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shankar, N., Vaucher, M.: The mechanical verification of a DPLL-based satisfiability solver. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 269, 3–17 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suk, A.: On the Erdős-Szekeres convex polygon problem. J. Am. Math. Soc. 30, 1047–1053 (2017)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szekeres, G., Peters, L.: Computer solution to the 17-point Erdős–Szekeres problem. ANZIAM J. 48(2), 151–164 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber, T.: Efficiently checking propositional resolution proofs in Isabelle/HOL. In: Benzmüller, C., Fischer, B., Sutcliffe, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on the Implementation of Logics, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 212, pp. 44–62 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weber, T.: Integrating a SAT solver with an LCF-style theorem prover. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 144(2), 67–78 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/Isar—a generic framework for human-readable proof documents. In: Matuszewski, R., Zalewska, A. (eds.) From Insight to Proof—Festschrift in Honour of Andrzej Trybulec, Studies in Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, vol. 10(23). University of Bialystok (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wetzler, N., Heule, M.J.H., Hunt, W.A.: Drat-trim: Efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2014: 17th International Conference, Held as Part of the Vienna Summer of Logic, VSL 2014, Vienna, Austria, Proceedings, pp. 422–429. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wetzler, N.D., et al.: Efficient, mechanically-verified validation of satisfiability solvers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, USA (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MathematicsUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations