The complexity of the Pigeonhole Principle

Abstract

The Pigeonhole Principle forn is the statement that there is no one-to-one function between a set of sizen and a set of sizen−1. This statement can be formulated as an unlimited fan-in constant depth polynomial size Boolean formulaPHP n inn(n−1) variables. We may think that the truth-value of the variablex i,j will be true iff the function maps thei-th element of the first set to thej-th element of the second (see Cook and Rechkow [5]).PHP n can be proved in the propositional calculus. That is, a sequence of Boolean formulae can be given so that each one is either an axiom of the propositional calculus or a consequence of some of the previous ones according to an inference rule of the propositional calculus, and the last one isPHP n . Our main result is that the Pigeonhole Principle cannot be proved this way, if the size of the proof (the total number or symbols of the formulae in the sequence) is polynomial inn and each formula is constant depth (unlimited fan-in), polynomial size and contains only the variables ofPHP n .

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. [1]

    M. Ajtai: Firstorder definability on finite structures, to appear inAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic 1989.

  2. [2]

    M. Ajtai: The complexity of the Pigeonhole Principle,29-th FOCS, 1988, 346–358.

  3. [3]

    S. Buss: Polynomial size proofs of the propositional Pigeonhole Principle, to appear inJournal of Symbolic Logic.

  4. [4]

    S. Buss, andGy. Turán: Resolution proofs of Generalized Pigeonhole Principles, to appear inJournal of Symbolic Logic.

  5. [5]

    S. Cook, andR. Rechkhow: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems,Journal of Symbolic Logic 44 (1977), 36–50.

    Google Scholar 

  6. [6]

    A. Haken: The intractability of resolution,Theoretical Computer Science 39 (1985), 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  7. [7]

    J. B. Paris, andA. J. Wilkie: Counting problems in bounded arithmetic, in:Methods in Mathematical Logic, Proc. Caracas 1983, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics no. 1130. Eds.: A. Dold and B. Eckman, Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 317–340.

  8. [8]

    J. B. Paris, andA. J. Wilkie: Counting Δ0 sets,Fund. Math. 127 (1986), 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  9. [9]

    J. B. Paris, A. J. Wilkie, andA. R. Woods: Provability of the pigeonhole principle and the existence of infinitely many primes,Journal of Symbolic Logic 53 (1988) 1235–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  10. [10]

    R. Statman: Complexity of derivations from quantifier-free Horn formulae, mechanical introduction of explicit definitions, and refinement of completeness theorems, in:Logic Colloquium. '76, eds.: R. Gandy, M. Hyland, North Holland, 1977, 505–517.

  11. [11]

    A. Urquhart: Hard examples for resolution,Journal of the ACM,34 (1987) (1) 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  12. [12]

    A. J. Wilkie: talk presented at the ASL Summer meeting in Manchester, England, 1984.

  13. [13]

    A. R. Woods:Some problems in logic and number theory and their connections, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Mathematics, Manchester University, 1981.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ajtai, M. The complexity of the Pigeonhole Principle. Combinatorica 14, 417–433 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01302964

Download citation

AMS subject classification code (1991)

  • 03 F 20
  • 03 F 30
  • 03 H 15