English

P-Optimal Proof Systems for Each NP-Complete Set but no Complete Disjoint NP-Pairs Relative to an Oracle

Computational Complexity 2020-01-10 v7 Logic in Computer Science

Abstract

Pudl\'ak [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - DisjNP\mathsf{DisjNP}: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - SAT\mathsf{SAT}: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - UP\mathsf{UP}: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - NPcoNP\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}: NPcoNP\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP} does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which DisjNP\mathsf{DisjNP}, ¬SAT\neg \mathsf{SAT}, UP\mathsf{UP}, and NPcoNP\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP} hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication DisjNPUPNPcoNPSAT\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudl\'ak this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1904.06175,
  title  = {P-Optimal Proof Systems for Each NP-Complete Set but no Complete Disjoint NP-Pairs Relative to an Oracle},
  author = {Titus Dose},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.06175},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1910.08571, arXiv:1909.02839, arXiv:1903.11860