ON SOME PROPERTIES OF SEVERAL PROOF SYSTEMS FOR 2-VALUED AND 3-VALUED PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC Chubaryan Anahit Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Full Professor of Yerevan State University and Russian-Armenian University E-mail:
[email protected]
PetrosyanGarik Master Student of Department of Informatics and Applied Mathematics of Yerevan State University and Scientific Assistant in of Russian-Armenian University E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract In this work we investigate the relations between the proofs complexities of minimal tautologies and of results of substitutions in them in some systems of 2-valyed classical logic an 3-valued logic.. We show that the result of substitution can be proved easier, than corresponding minimal tautology, therefore the systems, which are considered in this paper, are no monotonous neither by lines nor by size. Keywords: minimal tautology; Frege systems; substitution Frege systems; Sequent proof systems; proof complexity measures; monotonous system, 3-valued logic.
1. Introduction The minimal tautologies, i.e. tautologies, which are not a substitution of a shorter tautology, play main role in proof complexity area. Really all hard propositional formulaes, proof complexities of which are investigated in many well known papers, are minimal tautologies. There is traditional assumption that minimal tautology must be no harder than any substitution in it. This idea was revised at first by Anikeev in [1]. He had introduced the notion of monotonous proof system and had given two examples of no complete propositional proof systems: monotonous system, in which the proof lines of all minimal tautologies are no more, than the proof lines for results of a substitutions in them, and no monotonous system, the proof lines of substituted 1
formulas in which can be less than the proof lines of corresponding minimal tautologies. We introduce for the propositional proof systems the notions of monotonous by lines and monotonous by sizes of proofs. In [2] it is proved that Frege systems π are no monotonous neither by lines nor by size. In this paper we prove that substitution Frege systems Sπ, the well known propositional sequent systems π·π², π·π²β and corresponding systems with substitution rule ππ·π², ππ·π²β are no monotonous neither by lines nor by size. Analogous result we prove for some systems of Εukasiewiczβs 3-valued propositional logic also. This work consists from 4 main sections. After Introduction we give the main notion and notations as well as some auxiliary statements in Preliminaries. The main results are given in the last two sections.
2.Preliminaries We will use the current concepts of a propositional formula, a classical tautology, sequent, Frege proof systems, sequent systems for classical propositional logic and proof complexity [3]. Let us recall some of them.
2.1.The considered systems of 2-valued propositional logic. Follow [3] we give the definition of main systems, which are considered in this point. 2.1.1. A Frege system π uses a denumerable set of 2-valued variables, a finite, complete set of propositional connectives; π has a finite set of inference rules defined by a figure of the form
A1 A2 ο Am (the rules of inference with zero hypotheses are the axioms schemes); π must be sound B and complete, i.e. for each rule of inference
A1 A2 ο Am every truth-value assignment, satisfying B
A1 A2 ο Am , also satisfies B , and π must prove every tautology.
The particular choice of a language for presented propositional formulas is immaterial in this consideration. However, because of some technical reasons we assume that the language contains
2
the propositional variables p, q and pi ,qi (π β₯ 1), logical connectives Β¬, β, β¨, β§ and parentheses (,). Note that some parentheses can be omitted in generally accepted cases. We assume also that π has well known inference rule modus ponens. 2.1.2 A substitution Frege system Sβ± consists of a Frege system β± augmented with the substitution rule with inferences of the form
ππ1 for any substitution π = ( π AΟ
π π2 β¦ π ππ ππ2 β¦ πππ ), s β₯ 1,
π΄
π1
consisting of a mapping from propositional variables to propositional formulas, and π΄π denotes the result of applying the substitution to formula A, which replaces each variable in A with its image under Ο. This definition of substitution rule allows to use the simultaneous substitution of multiple formulas for multiple variables of A without any restrictions. 2.1.3. π·π²β system uses the denotation of sequentΞ β Ξ where Ξ is antecedent and Ξ is succedent. The axioms of π·π²β system are 1) p β p, 2) β T, where p is propositional variable and πdenotes Β«truthΒ». For every formulas π΄ , π΅ and for any sequence of formulas Ξ, Ξ the logic ruls are. ββ β¨β
ΞβΞ, A
B, ΞβΞ
ββ
π΄βπ΅, ΞβΞ
A, ΞβΞ
B, ΞβΞ
ΞβΞ, A
ββ¨ ΞβΞ,
π΄β¨π΅, ΞβΞ A, ΞβΞ
β§β π΄β§π΅,
ΞβΞ
B, ΞβΞ
and β§β π΄β§π΅,
ββ§
ΞβΞ
ΞβΞ, A
Β¬β Β¬π΄,
π΄β¨π΅
A, ΞβΞ, B ΞβΞ, π΄βπ΅ ΞβΞ, B
and ββ¨ ΞβΞ, ΞβΞ, A
ΞβΞ, B
ΞβΞ, π΄β§π΅ π΄, ΞβΞ
β Β¬ ΞβΞ,
ΞβΞ
The only structured inference rule is
3
π΄β¨π΅
Β¬π΄
ΞβΞ Ξβ²βΞβ²
Str.r., where Ξβ²(Ξβ²) contains Ξ(Ξ) as a set.
2.1.4. The system π·π² is π·π²β augmented with cut-rule
Ξ1 βΞ1 , A
A, Ξ2 βΞ2
Ξ1 ,Ξ2 βΞ1 ,Ξ2
2.1.5. Substitution sequent calculus πΊπ·π²(πΊπ·π²β ) defined by adding to π·π² (π·π²β ) the following rule of substitution ΞβΞ, A (p) ΞβΞ, A (B)
,
where simultaneous substitution of the formula B is allowed for the variable p, and where p does not appear in Ξ, Ξ.
Note (1) LetΞ β Ξ be some sequent, where Ξ is a sequence of formulas π΄1 , π΄2 , β¦ , π΄π (π β₯ 0) and Ξis a sequence of formulas π΅1 , π΅2 , β¦ , π΅π (π β₯ 0). The formula form of sequent Ξ β Ξ is the formula πΞβΞ , which is defined usually as follows: 1) π΄1 β§ π΄2 β§ β¦ β§ π΄π β π΅1 β¨ π΅2 β¨ β¦ β¨ π΅π π, π β₯ 1 2) π΄1 β§ π΄2 β§ β¦ β§ π΄π ββ₯ for π β₯ 1 , π = 0 β₯is false 3) π΅1 β¨ π΅2 β¨ β¦ β¨ π΅π
for π = 0 and π β₯ 1.
2.2. Proof complexity measures By | π| we denote the size of a formula π, defined as the number of all logical signs in it. It is obvious that the full size of a formula, which is understood to be the number of all symbols is bounded by some linear function in |π |. In the theory of proof complexity two main characteristics of the proof are: t- complexity (length), defined as the number of proof steps, π-complexity (size), defined as sum of sizes for all formulas in proof (size) [3]. π
π
Let Ο be a proof system and Ο be a tautology. We denote by π‘Ο (πΟ )the minimal possible value of t-complexity (π -complexity) for all Ο-proofs of tautology Ο. 4
Definition 2.2.1. A tautolgy is called minimal if it is not a substitution of a shorter tautology. We denote by S(π) the set of all formulas, every of which is result of some substitution in a minimal tautology π. Definition 2.2.2. The proof system Ο is called t-monotonous (π-monotonous) if for every π
π
π
π
minimal tautology Ο and for all formulas πβS(Ο) π‘Ο β€ π‘Ο (πΟ β€πΟ ). Definition 2.2.3. Sequent Ξ β Ξ is called minimal valid if its formula form πΞβΞ is minimal tautology. Definition 2.2.4. Sequent proof system Ξ¦ is called t-monotonous (π -monotonous) if for every π
π
valid sequent Ξ β Ξ and for every sequent Ξ1 β Ξ1 such that πΞ1 βΞ1 βS(πΞβΞ ) π‘ΞβΞ β€ π‘Ξ1 βΞ1 π
π
(πΞβΞ β€πΞ1 βΞ1 ). 2.3. Essential subformulas of tautologies For proving the main results we use the notion of essential subformulas, introduced in [4]. Let F be some formula and Sf (F ) be the set of all non-elementary subformulas of formula
F. For every formula F , for every οͺ ο Sf (F ) and for every variable p by Fοͺp is denoted the result of the replacement of the subformulas οͺ everywhere in F by the variable p . If οͺ ο Sf (F ) , then Fοͺp is F .α΅ We denote by Var (F ) the set of all variables in F . Definition 2.3.1. Let p be some variable that p οVar (F ) and οͺ ο Sf (F ) for some tautology
F . We say that οͺ is an essential subformula in F iff Fοͺp is non-tautology. The set of essential subformulas in tautology F we denote by Essf(F), the number of essential subformulas β by Nessf(F) and the sum of sizes of all essential subformulas by Sessf(F).
5
If F is minimal tautology, then Essf ( F ) = Sf ( F ) . Definition 2.3.2. The subformula οͺ is essential for valid sequent Ξ β Ξ if it is essential for its formula form. In [4] the following statement is proved. Proposition 1. Let F be a tautology and οͺ ο Essf (F ) , then a) in every π-proof of F subformula οͺ must be essential either at least in some axiom, used in proof or in formulae A1β (A2β (β¦βAm)β¦)βB for some used in proof inference rule
A1 A2 ο Am , B
b) in every Sπ-proof of F , where
π΄
,
π΄
π΄
, β¦ ,AΟk (kβ₯1) are used substitution rules,
AΟ1 AΟ2
subformula οͺ must be essential either at least in some axiom, used in proof, or in formulae A1β (A2β (β¦βAm)β¦)βB for some used in proof inference rule
A1 A2 ο Am , B
and or must be result of successive substitutions πi1, πi2, β¦, πir for 1β€ i1, i2, β¦ , irβ€k in them. Note (2) that for every Frege system the number of essential subformulas both in every axiom and in formulae A1β (A2β (β¦βAm)β¦)βB for every inference rule
A1 A2 ο Am is bounded B
with some constant. Note (3). It is not difficult to prove that all above statements are true for every formula form of valid sequent and axioms and rules of above mentioned sequent systems. 2.4. Main Formulas It is known, that in the alphabet, having 3 letters, for every π > 0 a word with size π can be constructed such, that neither of its subwords repeats in it twice one after the other [5]. Let πΌ1 , πΌ2 , β¦ , πΌπ be some of such words in the alphabet {π, π, π}. In [4] the formulas ππ are 6
obtained as follow: For π > 0 let ππ+1,π = (π0 β ¬¬π0 ). Let the formula ππ+1,π for the subwords πΌπ+1 , πΌπ+2 , β¦ , πΌπ (1 β€ π β€ π) be constructed then: 1) if πΌπ = π then ππ,π = (ππ β ππ ) β§ ππ+1,π; 2) if πΌπ = π then ππ,π = (Β¬ππ β¨ ππ ) β ππ+1,π ; 3) if πΌπ = π then ππ,π = (Β¬ππ β§ ππ ) β¨ ππ+1,π ; As formula ππ (π0 , π1 , π2 , β¦ , ππ )we take the formula π1,π (π0 , π1 , π2 , β¦ , ππ ), for which we have
|ππ |= Ξ(π) and all subformulas ππ,π (1 β€ π β€ π + 1)are essential for ππ , therefore
2 Nessf(ππ ) = Ξ©(π) and Sessf(ππ ) = Ξ©(π ).
Note (4) As neither of these essential subformulas of formulas ππ cannot be obtained from other by substitution rule, it is proved in [4] that formulas ππ require more or equal than π steps and π2 size both in the Frege systems and substitution Frege systems. It is obvious, that this statement is valid for sequent β ππ for the all mentioned sequent systems also. 3. Main results for 2-valued logic. Here we give the main theorem, but at first we must give the following easy proved auxiliary statements. Lemma 1.a) The minimal t-complexity and π -complexity of Frege proofs and thus of substitution Frege proofs for formula pβ p are bounded by constant. b) For each formulae A and B the minimal t-complexity of Frege proofs and thus of substitution Frege proofs for formula π΄ β (Β¬π΄ β π΅) is bounded by constant, just as its minimal π -
complexity is bounded by cΒ·max( | π΄|, | π΅|) for some constant c. Lemmπ π. a) If πΉ is minimal tautology and π is some variable that π β πππ(πΉ), then the formula π β πΉ is also minimal tautology, and all essential subfomulas of formula πΉ are essential for formula π β πΉ. 7
b) If β πΉ is minimal valid sequent and π is some variable that π β πππ(πΉ) then sequent β π β πΉ is also minimal valid sequent, and all essential subfomulas of sequent β πΉ are essential for sequent β π β πΉ.
Theorem 1. Every Frege system π, substitution Frege system Sβ±, sequent systemsπ·π², π·π²β , ππ·π², ππ·π²β are neither t-monotonous nor π -monotonous. Proof. Let us consider the tautologies ππ§ = pβππ ,
πn=Β¬ (pβp)βππ
πn=(pβp)βΞ±π ,
and
where ππ are the formulas from previous section and variable p is not belong to Var(ππ ). Note that for every n formula πn (sequent βπn) belongs to S(ππ§ ) (S(β ππ§ )). According to statement of Lemma 2. every formula ππ§ is minimal tautology and the sequentβ ππ§ is minimal valid sequent. For every n the formula πn can be deduced in every Frege system π as follows: at first we deduce formula pβp, then πn=(pβp)βΞ±π and lastly πn by modus ponens. From statement of Lemma 1 we obtain for lengths and sizes of proofs in every Frege system for the set of formulas πn the bounds O(1) and O(π) accordingly. It is obvious, that for more βstrongerβ substitution systems Frege the bounds are no more. By statements of Lemma 2 and Note (4) we obtain for lengths and sizes of proofs in every Frege system and substitution systems Frege for the set of formulas ππ§ the bounds Ξ©(π) and Ξ©(π2 ) accordingly. Now we give deduction of the sequent β Β¬ (pβp) βππ in the system π·π²β as follows: πβπ β(πβπ) Β¬(πβπ)β Β¬(πβπ)βππ
βΒ¬ (πβπ) βππ
.
It is obvious, that the bounds for lengths and sizes of proofs in system π·π²β for the set of sequents βπn are O(1) and O(π) accordingly, therefore for more βstrongerβ systems π·π²,
8
ππ·π²,ππ·π²β the bounds are no more. By statements of Lemma 2 and Note (4) we obtain for lengths and sizes of proofs in the systems π·π², π·π²β ,ππ·π²,ππ·π²β
for the set of sequents β ππ§ the bounds Ξ©(π) and Ξ©(π2 )
accordingly. β§ Remark .Above results only for Frege systems are parts of publications [6,7]. 4. Main results for 3-valued logic. Many-valued logic (MVL) as a separate subject was created and developed first by Εukasiewicz [6]. At present many interesting applications of MVL were found in such fields as logic, mathematics, hardware design, artificial intelligence and some other area soft information technologies, therefore the investigations in area of MVL are very actual. 4.1.Main Definitions Let E3 be the set {0,1/2,1}. We use the well-known notions of propositional formula, which defined as usual from 3-valued propositional variables p, q, pi (i β₯1,) with values from E3, may be also propositional constants, parentheses (,), and logical connectives & , ο , ο ,~ defined as follow: π β¨ π = πππ₯(π, π), πβπ={
1, 1 β π + π,
π&π = πππ(π, π), πππ π β€ π πππ π > π
and negation, defined as follow: ~π = 1 β π
(Εukasiewiczβs negation). π
For propositional variable p and π
=2(0β€iβ€2) we define additionally: pπ
as (π β Ξ΄)& (Ξ΄ β π) (exponent function). Note, that exponent is no new logical function and note also that exponent for π
=1 is π, and for π
=0 is ~π. In considered logics we fix 1 as designated value, so a formula Ο with variables p1,p2,β¦pn is called k-tautology if for every πΏΜ = (πΏ1 , πΏ2 , β¦ , πΏπ ) β πΈ3π assigning πΏ j (1β€jβ€n) to each pj gives the value 1 of Ο. 4.2. Εukasiewiczβs proof system L for 3-Valued Logic 9
For every formula A, B, C of 3-valued logic the following formulas are axioms schemes of L [7]: 1. π΄ β (π΅ β π΄)
2. (π΄ β (π΅ β πΆ)) β (π΅ β (π΄ β πΆ))
3. (π΄ β π΅) β ((π΅ β πΆ) β (π΄ β πΆ)) 4. (π΄ β (π΄ β π΅)) β ((βΌ π΅ β (βΌ π΅ ββΌ π΄)) β (π΄ β π΅)) 5. (π΄ β π΅) β (βΌ π΅ ββΌ π΄)
6. π΄ ββΌβΌ π΄
7. βΌβΌ π΄ β π΄
8. π΄&π΅ β π΅
9. π΄&π΅ β π΄
10. (πΆ β π΄) β ((πΆ β π΅) β (πΆ β π΄&π΅))
11. π΄ β π΄ β¨ π΅
12. π΅ β π΄ β¨ π΅
13. (π΄ β πΆ) β ((π΅ β πΆ) β (π΄ β¨ π΅ β πΆ))
Inference rule is modus ponens /m.p./
π΄,π΄βπ΅ π΅
.
4.3. A substitution system SL consists of a system L augmented with the substitution rule with inferences of the form
π π1 for any substitution π = ( ππ1 AΟ π΄
π π2 β¦ ππ2 β¦
π ππ πππ ), s β₯ 1, consisting of a
mapping from 3-valued propositional variables to 3-valued propositional formulas, and π΄π denotes the result of applying the substitution to formula A, which replaces each variable in A with its image under Ο. This definition of substitution rule allows to use the simultaneous substitution of multiple formulas for multiple variables of A without any restrictions. 4.4. Every definitions and statements of points 2.2. and 2.3. relate to 2-valued tautologies, to essential subformulas, to Frege systems and to substitution Frege systems are valid for 3-valued tautologies, systems L and SL. The Main Formulas define here as follow: For π > 0 let πΎπ+1,π = (π0 β ~~π0 ). Let the formula πΎπ+1,π for the subwords πΌπ+1 , πΌπ+2 , β¦ , πΌπ (1 β€ π β€ π) be constructed then: 1) if πΌπ = π then πΎπ,π = (ππ β ππ ) β§ πΎπ+1,π ; 1/2
β¨ ππ1 ) β πΎπ+1,π ;
1/2
β§ ππ1 ) β¨ πΎπ+1,π ;
2) if πΌπ = π then πΎπ,π = (ππ0 β¨ ππ 3) if πΌπ = π then πΎπ,π = (ππ0 β§ ππ
10
As formula πΎπ (π0 , π1 , π2 , β¦ , ππ )we take the formula πΎ1,π (π0 , π1 , π2 , β¦ , ππ ), for which we have |πΎπ |= Ξ(π) and all subformulas πΎπ,π (1 β€ π β€ π + 1)are essential for πΎπ , therefore Nessf(πΎπ ) = Ξ©(π) 2 and Sessf(πΎπ ) = Ξ©(π ).
4.5. Main Lemmas for 3-valued tautologies. It is not difficult to prove the following statements. Lemma 4.5.1.a) The minimal t-complexity and π -complexity of L proof and thus of SL proof for formula pβ p are bounded by constant. b) For each formulae A and B the minimal t-complexity of L proof and thus of SL proof for formula Aβ ( AΒ½ β ( A0 β π΅)) is bounded by constant, just as its minimal π -complexity is bounded by cΒ·max( | π΄|, | π΅|) for some constant c. Lemmπ π. π. π. If πΉ is minimal tautology and π is some variable that π β πππ(πΉ), then the formula p1/2 β(p0 βF) also is minimal tautology, and all essential subfomulas of formula πΉ are essential for formula p1/2 β(p0 βF) . Theorem 2. The systems L and SL are neither t-monotonous nor π -monotonous. Proof. Let us consider the tautologies ππ§ = p1/2 β(p0 β πΎπ ), πn= (pβp)1/2 β((pβp)0 β πΎπ )) and
πn=(pβp)βΞ±π ,
where πΎπ are the formulas from previous section and variable p is not belong to Var(πΎπ ). Note that for every n formula πn belongs to S(ππ§ ). According to statement of Lemma 4.5.2. every formula ππ§ is minimal tautology and as above we obtain for lengths and sizes of proofs in the systems L and SL for the set of formulas ππ§ the bounds Ξ©(π) and Ξ©(π2 ) accordingly. For every n the formula πn can be deduced in the system L as follows: at first we deduce formula pβp, then πn=(pβp)βΞ±π and lastly πn by modus ponens. From statement of Lemma 4.5. 1 we obtain for lengths and sizes of proofs in the system L for the set of formulas πn the bounds O(1) and O(π) accordingly. It is obvious, that for more βstrongerβ system SL the bounds are no more. β§ Acknowledgments 11
This work arose in the context of propositional proof complexities research supported by the Russian-Armenian University from founds of MES of RF. References 1. S.A.Cook, A.R.Reckhow: The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, Journal of Symbolic logic, vol. 44, 1979, 36-50. 2. Π.Π‘. ΠΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ΅Π΅Π², Π Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠΎΡΠΌΡΠ», ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Π·Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ, 11, Π²ΡΠΏ.2, 1972, 165-174. 3. ΠΠ½.Π§ΡΠ±Π°ΡΡΠ½,Π ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π² Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°Ρ
ΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Π²ΡΡΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, βΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΡ ΠΊΠΈΠ±Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΈβ, Π²ΡΠΏ. 14, 2005, Π., Π€ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ»ΠΈΡ, 49-56. 4. AΠ΄ΡΠ½ Π‘.Π., ΠΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ ΠΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠ°ΠΉΠ΄Π° ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠΆΠ΄Π΅ΡΡΠ²Π° Π² Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΠ°Ρ
. Π., ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠ°, 1975. 5. Anahit Chubaryan, GarikPetrosyan, Frege systems are no monotonous, Evolutio, ΠΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅Π½Π°ΡΠΊΠΈ, ΠΡΠΏ 3, 2016, 12-14. 6. J.Lukasiewicz, OLogiceTrojwartosciowej,Ruchfiloseficzny(Lwow), Vol.5,1920,169-171. 7. I.D. Zaslawskij, Symmetrical Konstructive Logic, Press. ASAR, (in Russian),1978.
12