Subclasses of Presburger Arithmetic and the Weak EXP Hierarchy

It is shown that for any fixed $i>0$, the $\Sigma_{i+1}$-fragment of Presburger arithmetic, i.e., its restriction to $i+1$ quantifier alternations beginning with an existential quantifier, is complete for $\mathsf{\Sigma}^{\mathsf{EXP}}_{i}$, the $i$-th level of the weak EXP hierarchy, an analogue to the polynomial-time hierarchy residing between $\mathsf{NEXP}$ and $\mathsf{EXPSPACE}$. This result completes the computational complexity landscape for Presburger arithmetic, a line of research which dates back to the seminal work by Fischer & Rabin in 1974. Moreover, we apply some of the techniques developed in the proof of the lower bound in order to establish bounds on sets of naturals definable in the $\Sigma_1$-fragment of Presburger arithmetic: given a $\Sigma_1$-formula $\Phi(x)$, it is shown that the set of non-negative solutions is an ultimately periodic set whose period is at most doubly-exponential and that this bound is tight.Comment: 10 pages, 2 figure

Finitisation in Bounded Arithmetic

I prove various results concerning un-decidability in weak fragments of Arithmetic. All results are concerned with S^{1}_{2} \subseteq T^{1}_{2} \subseteq S^{2}_{2} \subseteq T^{2}_{2} \subseteq.... a hierarchy of theories which have already been intensively studied in the literature. Ideally one would like to separate these systems. However this is generally expected to be a very deep problem, closely related to some of the most famous and open problems in complexity theory. In order to throw some light on the separation problems, I consider the case where the underlying language is enriched by extra relation and function symbols. The paper introduces a new type of results. These state that the first three levels in the hierarchy (i.e. S^{1}_{2}, T^{1}_{2} and S^{2}_{2}) are never able to distinguish (in a precise sense) the "finite'' from the "infinite''. The fourth level (i.e. T^{2}_{2}) in some cases can make such a distinction. More precisely, elementary principles from finitistical combinatorics (when expressed solely by the extra relation and function symbols) are only provable on the first three levels if they are valid when considered as principles of general (infinitistical) combinatorics. I show that this does not hold for the fourth level. All results are proved by forcing

Short Proofs for Slow Consistency

Let $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T)\!\restriction\!x$ denote the finite consistency statement "there are no proofs of contradiction in $\mathbf T$ with $\leq x$ symbols". For a large class of natural theories $\mathbf T$, Pudl\'ak has shown that the lengths of the shortest proofs of $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T)\!\restriction\!n$ in the theory $\mathbf T$ itself are bounded by a polynomial in $n$. At the same time he conjectures that $\mathbf T$ does not have polynomial proofs of the finite consistency statements $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T+\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf T))\!\restriction\!n$. In contrast we show that Peano arithmetic ($\mathbf{PA}$) has polynomial proofs of $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf{PA}+\operatorname{Con}^*(\mathbf{PA}))\!\restriction\!n$, where $\operatorname{Con}^*(\mathbf{PA})$ is the slow consistency statement for Peano arithmetic, introduced by S.-D. Friedman, Rathjen and Weiermann. We also obtain a new proof of the result that the usual consistency statement $\operatorname{Con}(\mathbf{PA})$ is equivalent to $\varepsilon_0$ iterations of slow consistency. Our argument is proof-theoretic, while previous investigations of slow consistency relied on non-standard models of arithmetic

Consistency of circuit lower bounds with bounded theories

Proving that there are problems in $\mathsf{P}^\mathsf{NP}$ that require boolean circuits of super-linear size is a major frontier in complexity theory. While such lower bounds are known for larger complexity classes, existing results only show that the corresponding problems are hard on infinitely many input lengths. For instance, proving almost-everywhere circuit lower bounds is open even for problems in $\mathsf{MAEXP}$. Giving the notorious difficulty of proving lower bounds that hold for all large input lengths, we ask the following question: Can we show that a large set of techniques cannot prove that $\mathsf{NP}$ is easy infinitely often? Motivated by this and related questions about the interaction between mathematical proofs and computations, we investigate circuit complexity from the perspective of logic. Among other results, we prove that for any parameter $k \geq 1$ it is consistent with theory $T$ that computational class ${\mathcal C} \not \subseteq \textit{i.o.}\mathrm{SIZE}(n^k)$, where $(T, \mathcal{C})$ is one of the pairs: $T = \mathsf{T}^1_2$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{P}^\mathsf{NP}$, $T = \mathsf{S}^1_2$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{NP}$, $T = \mathsf{PV}$ and ${\mathcal C} = \mathsf{P}$. In other words, these theories cannot establish infinitely often circuit upper bounds for the corresponding problems. This is of interest because the weaker theory $\mathsf{PV}$ already formalizes sophisticated arguments, such as a proof of the PCP Theorem. These consistency statements are unconditional and improve on earlier theorems of [KO17] and [BM18] on the consistency of lower bounds with $\mathsf{PV}$