Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
c a b 2ab a 2 b 2
2 2
With people like Frege, Hilbert, Russell, and Gödel,
a new, formal notion of proof entered the world:
proof as a mathematical object in its own right
A string of symbols that “mechanically certifies” that a theorem
is true—generally, by starting from axioms and then applying
logical manipulations until the theorem is reached
-(n(x+y)=n(x)).
Proof that all Robbins algebras
n(n(n(x)+y)+n(x+y))=y. are Boolean. Discovered by the
n(n(n(x+y)+n(x)+y)+y)=n(x+y).
n(n(n(n(x)+y)+x+y)+y)=n(n(x)+y). computer program EQP in 1996,
n(n(n(n(x)+y)+x+y+y)+n(n(x)+y))=y.
n(n(n(n(n(x)+y)+x+y+y)+n(n(x)+y)+z)+n(y+z))=z.
solving a 63-year-old problem
n(n(n(n(x)+y)+n(n(x)+y)+x+y+y)+y)=n(n(x)+y).
n(n(n(n(x)+y)+n(n(x)+y)+x+y+y+y)+n(n(x)+y))=y.
n(n(n(n(n(x)+y)+x+y+y)+n(n(x)+y)+n(y+z)+z)+z)=n(y+z).
n(n(n(n(n(n(x)+y)+x+y+y)+n(n(x)+y)+n(y+z)+z)+z+u)+n(n(y+z)+u))=u.
n(n(n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x)+x)=n(n(x)+x).
n(n(n(n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x)+x+y)+n(n(n(x)+x)+y))=y.
n(n(n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x+x)+n(n(x)+x))=x.
n(n(n(n(x)+x)+n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x+x)+x)=n(n(x)+x).
n(n(n(n(n(x)+x)+n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x+x)+x+y)+n(n(n(x)+x)+y))=y.
n(n(n(n(n(x)+x)+n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x+x)+n(n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x)+x)+x)=n(n(n(x)+x)+n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x+x).
n(n(n(x)+x)+n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x+x)=n(n(n(x)+x)+x+x+x).
Formal proofs are often absurdly tedious!
Wittgenstein liked to
ridicule this sort of
formalization
But
Sometimes the gap between “proving” and “explaining”
has caused actual mathematical controversy
To “probabilistically prove” an
algebraic identity: just plug in a bunch
of random values and evaluate it!
But would you need to trust the quantum computer? In this case, no!
Given alleged prime factors, you could multiply them yourself
(and also use known classical methods to verify that they’re prime)
But not all quantum algorithms necessarily share that property!
Sometimes, the only feasible way to verify a quantum computer’s
output might be using a different quantum computer!
(indeed, there might be no “classical” proof that would fit inside
the observable universe)
Today, when theoretical computer scientists talk about a
“proof system,” they generally mean an interactive game…
“ ”
Given any two non-isomorphic graphs, there might always be a
short proof that they’re different, but no one has proved that
Simply listing all permutations is astronomically inefficient
Clever interactive solution: Arthur picks one of the graphs
randomly, randomly permutes its vertices, and sends Merlin
the result. He then asks Merlin which graph he started with
The IP=PSPACE Theorem (Lund et al. / Shamir 1990)
showed that these sorts of interactive proof systems are
incredibly powerful. For example, Merlin could quickly
convince Arthur that White has the win in chess
(assuming that’s indeed true)!
Recent Realization: Even if they can’t talk to each other, the two
Merlins could still sometimes cheat by measuring quantum-
mechanically entangled particles! (Related to the famous Bell Inequality)