ICALP 2000: Automata, Languages and Programming pp 151-162

# Monotone Proofs of the Pigeon Hole Principle

• Albert Atserias
• Nicola Galesi
• Ricard Gavaldá
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1853)

## Abstract

We study the complexity of proving the Pigeon Hole Principle (PHP) in a monotone variant of the Gentzen Calculus, also known as Geometric Logic. We show that the standard encoding of the PHP as a monotone sequent admits quasipolynomial-size proofs in this system. This result is a consequence of deriving the basic properties of certain quasipolynomial-size monotone formulas computing the boolean threshold functions. Since it is known that the shortest proofs of the PHP in systems such as Resolution or Bounded Depth Frege are exponentially long, it follows from our result that these systems are exponentially separated from the monotone Gentzen Calculus. We also consider the monotone sequent (CLIQUE) expressing the clique-coclique principle defined by Bonet, Pitassi and Raz (1997). We show that monotone proofs for this sequent can be easily reduced to monotone proofs of the one-to-one and onto PHP, and so CLIQUE also has quasipolynomial-size monotone proofs. As a consequence, Cutting Planes with polynomially bounded coefficients is also exponentially separated from the monotone Gentzen Calculus. Finally, a simple simulation argument implies that these results extend to the Intuitionistic Gentzen Calculus. Our results partially answer some questions left open by P. Pudlák.

## Preview

### References

1. 1.
M. Ajtai. The complexity of the pigeonhole principle. Combinatorica, 14, pp. 417–433, 1994.
2. 2.
M. Ajtai, J. Komlós, E. Szemer edi. An O(n log n) sorting network. Combinatorica, 3(1), pp. 1–19, 1983.Google Scholar
3. 3.
N. Alon, R. B. Boppana. The monotone circuit complexity of boolean functions. Combinatorica, 7, pp. 1–22, 1987.
4. 4.
P. Beame, R. Impagliazzo, J. KrajÍček, T. Pitassi, P. Pudlák, A. Woods. Exponential lower bounds for the Pigeon Hole Principle. STOC’92, pp. 200–220, 1992.Google Scholar
5. 5.
P. Beame, T. Pitassi. Propositional Proof Complexity: Past, Present and Future. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 65, 1998.Google Scholar
6. 6.
P. Beame, T. Pitassi. Simplified and Improved Resolution Lower Bound. FOCS’96, pp. 274–282, 1996.Google Scholar
7. 7.
M. Bonet, C. Domingo, R. Gavaldá, A. Maciel, T. Pitassi. Non-automatizability of Bounded-Depth Frege Proofs. IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 1998.Google Scholar
8. 8.
M. Bonet, T. Pitassi, R. Raz. Lower Bounds for Cutting Planes Proofs with small Coefficients. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 62(3), pp. 708–728, 1997. A preliminary version appeared in STOC’95.
9. 9.
S. R. Buss. Polynomial size proofs of the propositional pigeon hole principle. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 52(4), pp. 916–927, 1987.
10. 10.
S. Buss. Some remarks on length of proofs. Archive for Mathematical Logic, 34, pp. 377–394, 1995.
11. 11.
S. Buss, G. Mints. The complexity of disjunction and existence properties in intuitionistc logic. Preprint, 1998.Google Scholar
12. 12.
S. Buss, T. Pitassi. Resolution and the weak Pigeonhole principle. Invited Talk to CSL 97. To appear in Selected Papers of the 11-th CSL, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1998.Google Scholar
13. 13.
S. R. Buss, G. Turan. Resolution proofs of generalized pigeonhole principles. Theoretical Computer Science, 62(3), pp. 311–317, 1988.
14. 14.
V. Chvátal E. Szemer edi. Many hard examples for resolution. Journal of the Association for Computer Machinery, 35, pp. 759–768, 1988.Google Scholar
15. 15.
P. Clote, A. Setzer. On PHP, st-connectivity and odd charged graphs. Proof Complexity and Feasible Arithmetics, 93–118, DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol 39, eds. Paul W. Beame and Samuel R. Buss, 1998.Google Scholar
16. 16.
S. Cook, R. Reckhow. The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44, pp. 36–50, 1979.
17. 17.
W. Cook, C. R. Coullard, G. Turán. On the complexity of Cutting Plane proofs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 18, pp. 25–38, 1987.
18. 18.
A. Haken. The intractability of resolution. Theoretical Computer Science, 39(2–3), pp. 297–305, 1985.
19. 19.
R. Impagliazzo, P. Pudlak, J. Sgall. Lower Bounds for the Polynomial Calculus and the Groebner basis Algorithm. ECCC TR97-042. To appear in Computational Complexity.Google Scholar
20. 20.
J. KrajÍček. Speed-up for propositional Frege systems via generalizations of proofs, Commentationes Mathematicae Universiatatis Carolinae, 30, 1989, pp. 137–140.
21. 21.
J. Krajíček. Interpolation theorems, lower bounds for proof systems and independence results for bounded arithmetic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 62, pp. 457–486, 1997.
22. 22.
A. Maciel, T. Pitassi, and A. R. Woods. A New Proof of the Weak Pigeonhole Principle. To appear in STOC’00.Google Scholar
23. 23.
J. B. Paris, A. J. Wilkie, and A. R. Woods. Provability of the pigeonhole principle and the existence of infinitely many primes. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 53(4), pp. 1235–1244, 1988.
24. 24.
P. Pudlák. On the complexity of the propositional Calculus. Logic Colloquium’ 97. To appear.Google Scholar
25. 25.
P. Pudlák. Lower bounds for resolutions and cutting planes proofs and monotone computations. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 62(2), pp., 1997.Google Scholar
26. 26.
P. Pudlák, S. Buss. How to lie without being (easily) convicted and the lengths of proofs in propositional calculus. 8th Workshop on CSL, Kazimierz, Poland, September 1994, Springer Verlag LNCS n. 995, pp. 151–162, 1995.Google Scholar
27. 27.
A. Razborov. Lower bounds for the monotone complexity of some boolean functions. Soviet Math. Doklady, 31(2), pp. 354–357, 1985.
28. 28.
A. Razborov. Lower bounds for the Polynomial Calculus. Computational Complexity, 7(4), pp. 291–324, 1998.
29. 29.
A. A. Razborov, A. Wigderson, A. Yao. Read Once Branching Programs, Rectangular Proofs of the Pigeonhole Principle and the Transversal Calculus. STOC’97, pp. 739–748, 4–6 May 1997.Google Scholar
30. 30.
S. Riis. A Complexity Gap for Tree-Resolution. BRICS Report Series, RS-99-29, 1999.Google Scholar
31. 31.
G. Takeuti. Proof Theory. North-Holland, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
32. 32.
A. Urquhart. Hard examples for Resolution. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 34(1), pp. 209–219, 1987.
33. 33.
L. Valiant. Short monotone formulae for the majority function. Journal of Algorithms, 5, pp. 363–366, 1984.
34. 34.
H. Vollmer. Introduction to Circuit Complexity. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
35. 35.
I. Wegener. The Complexity of Boolean Functions. J. Wiley and Sons, 1987.Google Scholar