6
$\begingroup$

Fischer and Rabin's Super-Exponential Complexity of Presburger Arithmetic (1974) has the following theorem.

(Theorem 12) Let $U$ be any class of additive structures, so if $A = (A, +) \in U$, then $+$ is a binary associative operation on $A$. Let Th($U$) be the set of sentences of $L$ valid in every structure of $U$. Assume $U$ has the property that, for every $k \in \mathbb N$, there is a structure $A_k = (A_k, +) \in U$ and an element $u \in A_k$ such that the elements $u, u + u, u + u + u, ... , k . u$ are distinct. Then the statement of Theorem 1 holds for Th($U$) with the lower bound $2^ {dn}$ for some $d > 0$.

The conclusion that Th($U$) is at least exponential time. They don't provide a proof for this (they say they will in a subsequent paper, which I believe has never appeared), but they say that their proof for the theory of the real numbers can be adapted by using $ku$ as a representation for $k$.

Is there a more detailed exposition of a proof of this theorem? The following points are not clear to me:

  1. The exact hypothesis of this theorem is unclear to me. On one hand, they say "additive", use the symbol $+$, and list commutative monoids or expansions thereof as examples after stating this theorem. On the other hand, they do not explicitly say "commutative" or "abelian"; it may be sufficient to assume associativity if we are applying the operation to $u, u+u, \dots$ to represent natural numbers because commutativity is not an issue as long as these elements are concerned.

  2. Presumably, one needs to say in the language $\{+\}$ that $u, \dots ku$ are distinct in order to use them as representation for natural numbers up to $k$. One also needs very large $k$ to simulate Turing machines. How can one ensure that $u$ has the desired property with a relatively short logical formula?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For (2) at least, I would take the comment about distinctness of elements as a 'meta-hypothesis'; it's not necessary to try and say in U that the elements are distinct, since we're not trying to prove the theorem within U. $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Feb 25 '18 at 4:56
  • $\begingroup$ @StevenStadnicki I would imagine the proof goes as follows: given $(e, \sigma, t)$, where $e$ is a code for an $O(2^n)$-time TM, $\sigma$ is an input and $t$ is a number, we write a sentence like $\exists u \exists m T_{e,\sigma,t}(m, u)$, where $T_{e,\sigma,t}(m, u)$ says that $m$ is the code of a computation of time at most $t$ that starts with $\sigma$ on the tape, where the code uses $u, u+u, \dots$ as integers. My worry is that unless we conjoin the sentence with another that says $u, u+u, \dots$ are distinct, $T_{e,\sigma,t}$ might not mean what we want it to mean. ... $\endgroup$ – Pteromys Feb 25 '18 at 6:26
  • $\begingroup$ @StevenStadnicki ... For, for instance, if $ku = u$ for all $k$, there is no hope that $T_{e,\sigma,t}$ can encode/decode any interesting thing. $\endgroup$ – Pteromys Feb 25 '18 at 6:29

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.