This book provides a detailed exposition of one of the most practical and popular methods of proving theorems in logic, called Natural Deduction. It is presented both historically and systematically. Also some combinations with other known proof methods are explored. The initial part of the book deals with Classical Logic, whereas the rest is concerned with systems for several forms of Modal Logics, one of the most important branches of modern logic, which has wide applicability.

§1. Introduction. The classical propositional calculus has an undeserved reputation among logicians as being essentially trivial. I hope to convince the reader that it presents some of the most challenging and intriguing problems in modern logic. Although the problem of the complexity of propositional proofs is very natural, it has been investigated systematically only since the late 1960s. Interest in the problem arose from two fields connected with computers, automated theorem proving and computational complexity theory. The earliest paper in the (...) subject is a ground-breaking article by Tseitin [62], the published version of a talk given in 1966 at a Leningrad seminar. In the three decades since that talk, substantial progress has been made in determining the relative complexity of proof systems, and in proving strong lower bounds for some restricted proof systems. However, major problems remain to challenge researchers. The present paper provides a survey of the field, and of some of the techniques that have proved successful in deriving lower bounds on the complexity of proofs. A major area only touched upon here is the proof theory of bounded arithmetic and its relation to the complexity of propositional proofs. The reader is referred to the book by Buss [10] for background in bounded arithmetic. The forthcoming book by Krajíček [40] also gives a good introduction to bounded arithmetic, as well as covering most of the basic results in complexity of propositional proofs. (shrink)

Propositional proof complexity is the study of the sizes of propositional proofs, and more generally, the resources necessary to certify propositional tautologies. Questions about proof sizes have connections with computational complexity, theories of arithmetic, and satisfiability algorithms. This is article includes a broad survey of the field, and a technical exposition of some recently developed techniques for proving lower bounds on proof sizes.

Propositional proof complexity is the study of the sizes of propositional proofs, and more generally, the resources necessary to certify propositional tautologies. Questions about proof sizes have connections with computational complexity, theories of arithmetic, and satisfiability algorithms. This is article includes a broad survey of the field, and a technical exposition of some recently developed techniques for proving lower bounds on proof sizes.

We develop and study the complexity of propositional proof systems of varying strength extending resolution by allowing it to operate with disjunctions of linear equations instead of clauses. We demonstrate polynomial-size refutations for hard tautologies like the pigeonhole principle, Tseitin graph tautologies and the clique-coloring tautologies in these proof systems. Using interpolation we establish an exponential-size lower bound on refutations in a certain, considerably strong, fragment of resolution over linear equations, as well as a general polynomial upper bound on interpolants (...) in this fragment.We then apply these results to extend and improve previous results on multilinear proofs , as studied in [Ran Raz, Iddo Tzameret, The strength of multilinear proofs. Comput. Complexity ]. Specifically, we show the following:• Proofs operating with depth-3 multilinear formulas polynomially simulate a certain, considerably strong, fragment of resolution over linear equations.• Proofs operating with depth-3 multilinear formulas admit polynomial-size refutations of the pigeonhole principle and Tseitin graph tautologies. The former improve over a previous result that established small multilinear proofs only for the functional pigeonhole principle. The latter are different from previous proofs, and apply to multilinear proofs of Tseitin mod p graph tautologies over any field of characteristic 0. We conclude by connecting resolution over linear equations with extensions of the cutting planes proof system. (shrink)

The $$\varepsilon $$ -elimination method of Hilbert’s $$\varepsilon $$ -calculus yields the up-to-date most direct algorithm for computing the Herbrand disjunction of an extensional formula. A central advantage is that the upper bound on the Herbrand complexity obtained is independent of the propositional structure of the proof. Prior (modern) work on Hilbert’s $$\varepsilon $$ -calculus focused mainly on the pure calculus, without equality. We clarify that this independence also holds for first-order logic with equality. Further, we provide upper bounds analyses (...) of the extended first $$\varepsilon $$ -theorem, even if the formalisation incorporates so-called $$\varepsilon $$ -equality axioms. (shrink)

We consider tautologies formed form a pseudo-random number generator, defined in Krajicek [11] and in Alekhnovich et al. [2]. We explain a strategy of proving their hardness for Extended Frege systems via a conjecture about bounded arithmetic formulated in Krajicek [11]. Further we give a purely finitary statement, in the form of a hardness condition imposed on a function, equivalent to the conjecture. This is accompanied by a brief explanation, aimed at non-specialists, of the relation between prepositional proof complexity and (...) bounded arithmetic. (shrink)

We consider tautologies formed from a pseudo-random number generator, defined in Krajíček [11] and in Alekhnovich et al. [2]. We explain a strategy of proving their hardness for Extended Frege systems via a conjecture about bounded arithmetic formulated in Krajíček [11]. Further we give a purely finitary statement, in the form of a hardness condition imposed on a function, equivalent to the conjecture.

We define the notion of a combinatorics of a first order structure, and a relation of covering between first order structures and propositional proof systems. Namely, a first order structure M combinatorially satisfies an L-sentence Φ iff Φ holds in all L-structures definable in M. The combinatorics Comb(M) of M is the set of all sentences combinatorially satisfied in M. Structure M covers a propositional proof system P iff M combinatorially satisfies all Φ for which the associated sequence of propositional (...) formulas 〈Φ〉 n , encoding that Φ holds in L-structures of size n, have polynomial size P-proofs. That is, Comb(M) contains all Φ feasibly verifiable in P. Finding M that covers P but does not combinatorially satisfy Φ thus gives a super polynomial lower bound for the size of P-proofs of 〈Φ〉 n . We show that any proof system admits a class of structures covering it; these structures are expansions of models of bounded arithmetic. We also give, using structures covering proof systems R * (log) and PC, new lower bounds for these systems that are not apparently amenable to other known methods. We define new type of propositional proof systems based on a combinatorics of (a class of) structures. (shrink)

A Ramsey statement denoted \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${n \longrightarrow (k)^2_2}$$\end{document} says that every undirected graph on n vertices contains either a clique or an independent set of size k. Any such valid statement can be encoded into a valid DNF formula RAM(n, k) of size O(nk) and with terms of size \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\left(\begin{smallmatrix}k\\2\end{smallmatrix}\right)}$$\end{document}. Let rk be the minimal n for which the statement holds. We prove that (...) RAM(rk, k) requires exponential size constant depth Frege systems, answering a problem of Krishnamurthy and Moll [15]. As a consequence of Pudlák’s work in bounded arithmetic [19] it is known that there are quasi-polynomial size constant depth Frege proofs of RAM(4k, k), but the proof complexity of these formulas in resolution R or in its extension R(log) is unknown. We define two relativizations of the Ramsey statement that still have quasi-polynomial size constant depth Frege proofs but for which we establish exponential lower bound for R. (shrink)

Atserias, Galesi, and Pudlák have shown that the monotone sequent calculus MLK quasipolynomially simulates proofs of monotone sequents in the full sequent calculus LK . We generalize the simulation to the fragment MCLK of LK which can prove arbitrary sequents, but restricts cut-formulas to be monotone. We also show that MLK as a refutation system for CNFs quasipolynomially simulates LK.

For all i ≥ 1, Ti+11 is not ∀Σb2-conservative over Ti1.

In this paper we give a new proof of Richardson's theorem [31]: a global function G[MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL A] of a cellular automaton [MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL A] is injective if and only if the inverse of G[MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL A] is a global function of a cellular automaton. Moreover, we show a way how to construct the inverse cellular automaton using the method of feasible interpolation from [20]. We also solve two problems regarding complexity of cellular automata formulated by Durand (...) [12]. (shrink)

This paper proves exponential separations between depth d-LK and depth -LK for every utilizing the order induction principle. As a consequence, we obtain an exponential separation between depth d-LK and depth -LK for . We investigate the relationship between the sequence-size, tree-size and height of depth d-LK-derivations for , and describe transformations between them. We define a general method to lift principles requiring exponential tree-size -LK-refutations for to principles requiring exponential sequence-size d-LK-refutations, which will be described for the Ramsey principle (...) and d=0. From this we also deduce width lower bounds for resolution refutations of the Ramsey principle. (shrink)

This paper studies the complexity of constant depth propositional proofs in the cedent and sequent calculus. We discuss the relationships between the size of tree-like proofs, the size of dag-like proofs, and the heights of proofs. The main result is to correct a proof construction in an earlier paper about transformations from proofs with polylogarithmic height and constantly many formulas per cedent.

Resolution and cut-free LK are the most popular propositional systems used for logical automated reasoning. The question whether or not resolution and cut-free LK have the same efficiency on the system of CNF formulas has been asked and studied since 1960 425–467). It was shown in Cook and Reckhow, J. Symbolic Logic 44 36–50 that tree resolution has super-polynomial speed-up over cut-free LK. Naturally, the current issue is whether or not resolution and cut-free LK expressed as directed acyclic graphs have (...) the same efficiency. In this paper, we introduce a new algorithm to eliminate atomic cuts and show that cut-free LK polynomially simulates resolution when the input formula is expressed as a k-CNF formula. As a corollary, we show that regular resolution does not polynomially simulate cut-free LK . We also show that cut-free LK polynomially simulates regular resolution. (shrink)