Proof
The ≤ direction is obvious: we can write a program to produce x and y by concatenating a program to produce x, a program to produce y given access to x, and (whence the log term) the length of one of the programs, so that we know where to separate the two programs for x and y|x (log(K(x, y)) upper-bounds this length).
For the ≥ direction, it suffices to show that for all k,l such that k+l = K(x,y) we have that either
K(x|k,l) ≤ k + O(1) or K(y|x,k,l) ≤ l + O(1).Consider the list (a1,b1), (a2,b2), ..., (ae,be) of all pairs (a,b) produced by programs of length exactly K(x,y) . Note that this list
- contains the pair (x,y),
- can be enumerated given k and l (by running all programs of length K(x,y) in parallel),
- has at most 2K(x,y) elements (because there are at most 2n programs of length n).
First, suppose that x appears less than 2l times as first element. We can specify y given x,k,l by enumerating (a1,b1), (a2,b2), ... and then selecting (x,y) in the sub-list of pairs (x,b). By assumption, the index of (x,y) in this sub-list is less than 2l and hence, there is a program for y given x,k,l of length l + O(1). Now, suppose that x appears at least 2l times as first element. This can happen for at most 2K(x,y)-l = 2k different strings. These strings can be enumerated given k,l and hence x can be specified by its index in this enumeration. The corresponding program for x has size k + O(1). Theorem proved.
Read more about this topic: Chain Rule For Kolmogorov Complexity
Famous quotes containing the word proof:
“The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!”
—Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)
“The moment a man begins to talk about technique that’s proof that he is fresh out of ideas.”
—Raymond Chandler (1888–1959)
“The source of Pyrrhonism comes from failing to distinguish between a demonstration, a proof and a probability. A demonstration supposes that the contradictory idea is impossible; a proof of fact is where all the reasons lead to belief, without there being any pretext for doubt; a probability is where the reasons for belief are stronger than those for doubting.”
—Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743)