Proof Size Comparison
A second question about proof complexity is whether a method is more efficient than another. Since the proof size depends on the formula, it is possible that one method can produce a short proof of a formula and only long proofs of another formula, while a second method can have exactly the opposite behavior. The assumptions of measuring the size of the proofs relative to the size of the formula and considering only the shortest proofs are also used in this context.
When comparing two proof methods, two outcomes are possible:
- for every proof of a formula produced using the first method, there is a proof of comparable size of the same formula produced by the second method;
- there exists a formula such that the first method can produce a short proof while all proofs obtained by the second method are consistently larger.
Several proofs of the second kind involve contradictory formulae expressing the negation of the pigeonhole principle, namely that pigeons can fit holes with no hole containing two or more pigeons.
Read more about this topic: Proof Complexity
Famous quotes containing the words proof, size and/or comparison:
“Right and proof are two crutches for everything bent and crooked that limps along.”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)
“Crotchless trouser allows wearer to show private parts in public. Neoprene-coated nylon pack cloth is stain resistant, water repellent and tickles thighs when walking. Tan-olive shade goes with most fetishes. Adjustable straps attach to belt for good fit and easy up-down. Pant is suitable for fast exposures as well as extended engagements. One size fits all.”
—Alfred Gingold, U.S. humorist. Items From Our Catalogue, “Flasher’s Pants,” Avon Books (1982)
“In comparison to the French Revolution, the American Revolution has come to seem a parochial and rather dull event. This, despite the fact that the American Revolution was successful—realizing the purposes of the revolutionaries and establishing a durable political regime—while the French Revolution was a resounding failure, devouring its own children and leading to an imperial despotism, followed by an eventual restoration of the monarchy.”
—Irving Kristol (b. 1920)