The complexity of resource-bounded first-order classical logic

  • Jean Goubault
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 775)

Abstract

We give a finer analysis of the difficulty of proof search in classical first-order logic, other than just saying that it is undecidable. To do this, we identify several measures of difficulty of theorems, which we use as resource bounds to prune infinite proof search trees.

In classical first-order logic without interpreted symbols, we prove that for all these measures, the search for a proof of bounded difficulty (i.e, for a simple proof) is σ2p-complete. We also show that the same problem when the initial formula is a set of Horn clauses is only NP-complete, and examine the case of first-order logic modulo an equational theory. These results allow us not only to give estimations of the inherent difficulty of automated theorem proving problems, but to gain some insight into the computational relevance of several automated theorem proving methods.

Topics

computational complexity logics computational issues in AI (automated theorem proving) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. B. Andrews. Theorem proving via general matings. J. ACM, 28(2):193–214, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Benanav, D. Kapur, and P. Narendran. Complexity of matching problems. J. Symb. Computation, 3:203–216, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, second, revised edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Boudet. A new combination technique for AC-unification. Technical Report 494, LRI, Orsay, France, Juin 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.-L. Chang and R. C.-T. Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Computer Science Classics. Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Church. A note on the Entscheidungsproblem. J. Symb. Logic, 1:40–41, 1936.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Church. A note on the Entscheidungsproblem (correction). J. Symb. Logic, 1:101–102, 1936.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. A. Cook. The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In 3rd STOC, pages 151–158, New York, 1971. ACM.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. F. Dowling and J. H. Gallier. Linear time algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional Horn formulae. J. Logic Programming, 3:267–284, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Dreben and W. D. Goldfarb. The Decision Problem — Solvable Classes of Quantificational Formulas. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachussetts, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Eder. Relative Complexities of First-Order Calculi. Artificial Intelligence. Vieweg Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. C. Fitting. First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability — A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.-Y. Girard. Linear logic. TCS, 50:1–102, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. D. Goldfarb. The undecidability of the second-order unification problem. TCS, 13:225–230, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Goubault. Démonstration automatique en logique classique: complexité et méthodes. PhD thesis, école Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France, September 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Goubault. Syntax independent connections. In Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, number MPI-I-93-213 in Max-Planck-Iinstitut für Informatik, pages 101-111, Marseille, France, avril 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Gurevich. On the classical decision problem. Bulletin of the EATCS, 42:140–150, October 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Kapur and P. Narendran. Matching, unification and complexity. SIGSAM Bulletin, October 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Kapur and P. Narendran. Double-exponential complexity of computing a complete set of AC-unifiers. In 7th LICS, pages 11–21, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Kozen. Positive first-order logic is NP-complete. IBM J. Res. and Development, 25(4):327–332, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. R. Lewis. Complexity of solvable cases of the decision problem for the predicate calculus. In 19th FOCS, pages 35–47, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Lincoln, J. Mitchell, A. Scedrov, and N. Shankar. Decision problems for propositional linear logic. In 32nd FOCS, pages 662–671, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Lincoln and A. Scedrov. First order linear logic without modalities is nexptimehard. Available through anonymous ftp from ftp.csl.sri.com, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Lincoln and T. Winkler. Constant-only multiplicative linear logic is NP-complete. Available through anonymous ftp from ftp.csl.sri.com, file/pub/lincoln/comultnpc.dvi, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Minoux. LTUR: A simplified linear-time unit resolution algorithm for Horn formulÆ and computer implementation. Technical Report 206, Laboratoire MASI, CNRS UA 818, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, janvier 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Parikh. Some results on the lengths of proofs. Trans. AMS, 177:29–36, 1973.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Paterson and M. Wegman. Linear unification. J. Comp. Sys. Sciences, 16:158–167, 1978.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Plotkin. Building in equational theories. Machine Intelligence, 7:73–90, 1972.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Posegga. Deduction with Shannon Graphs or: How to Lift BDDs to First-order Logic. PhD thesis, Institut für Logik, Komplexität und Deduktionssysteme, Uni. Karlsruhe, FRG, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. Prawitz. An improved proof procedure. Theoria, 26:102–139, 1960.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Prawitz. Advances and problems in mechanical proof procedures. Machine Intelligence, 4:59–71, 1969.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. J. Stockmeyer and A. R. Meyer. Word problems requiring exponential time. In 5th STOC, pages 1–9, New York, NY, USA, 1973. ACM.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Tseitin. On the complexity of proofs in propositional logics. Seminars in Mathematics, 8:466–483, 1970.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    C. Wrathall. Complete sets and the polynomial-time hierarchy. TCS, 3:23–33, 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Goubault
    • 1
  1. 1.Bull Corporate Research CenterLes Clayes sous Bois

Personalised recommendations