Complexity
Named by 16 essays across 9 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
How many ways to sort it
An order says some things come before others and leaves the rest open. Counting the orderings consistent with it measures how much is still unknown — and the counting is as hard as any counting problem gets.
The tree inside the triangulation
The shortest network joining a set of points is built from edges chosen by length, and the triangulation is built from edges chosen by an emptiness condition about circles. The two constructions share no step, and every edge of the first is an edge of the second.
Randomness that has to be earned
A generator that resists prediction cannot be built out of a rule anybody can fit. It has to be built out of a computation believed hard to undo, and the belief is the load-bearing part — which makes cryptographic randomness a conditional statement rather than a construction.
Where the corners stop being whole
The easy theory of assignment rests on one property — the relaxation of the assignment problem has whole-numbered corners. Add a single edge that closes an odd cycle and the property fails, a corner appears with a half in every coordinate, and the problem changes character completely.
Where the guarantee stops
Convexity converts every downhill method into a correct one, and its absence removes the guarantee entirely rather than degrading it. What is left is a collection of partial answers, and knowing which of them apply to a given problem is most of what non-convex optimisation is.
A failed search is a proof
Search for an assignment by branching on variables and backing up whenever a clause turns false. If every branch fails, the tree the search leaves behind is itself a resolution refutation: write at each branch point the resolvent of the clauses below it, and the top of the tree is the empty clause. So every limit on short refutations is a limit on every such search — and the pigeonhole clauses, whose refutations are long, defeat them all.
As many cuts as colours
Two thieves steal a necklace and want half of every colour of bead each. However the beads are strung, they never need more cuts than there are colours — three cuts for three colours, four for four — and sometimes they need every one. The guarantee is the Borsuk–Ulam theorem again, with a point on a sphere read as a way of cutting the necklace, and every necklace of several small kinds has been checked against it.
How many cuts a fair share costs
Every person can be guaranteed a share of a cake worth at least one n-th by their own measure, and the oldest rule that does it asks about n²/2 questions. Splitting the people into halves and the cake at a median mark asks about n log n — and a theorem says nothing can ask fewer. Fairness has a price, and it can be counted.
The price of a construction
Three theorems have shown that a compass alone, a straightedge with one circle, and a compass stuck at one opening all reach exactly the points a full set of instruments reaches. None of them said what the journey costs. Émile Lemoine priced every movement of the hand in 1888, and by his count a compass that collapses when lifted — Euclid's — pays twenty-one operations, by Euclid's own method, for what a compass that holds its opening does in four.
Opposite labels that have to meet
Cut a square into triangles, label every corner +1, −1, +2 or −2, and insist only that opposite points of the edge get opposite labels. Somewhere inside, an edge must join a label to its negative. The proof counts quarter-turns round a diamond — an odd number on the boundary, zero in any triangle that avoids opposites — and making the triangles smaller turns the count back into the theorem about opposite points on the Earth.
The word a straight line spells
A ball rolling across a square table, forever, hits walls in some order: V for a side wall, H for the end wall. Unfold the table and the ball becomes a straight line across a grid, and the order of walls becomes a word — VHVHVVHVHVVHV… for the golden slope. That word has exactly n + 1 different blocks of every length n, the fewest any word that never repeats can have; every stretch of it holds its fair share of H's to within one; and its blocks occur with at most three different frequencies.
A contradiction that is only a sum
Put a variable on every edge of a graph and ask each vertex for an odd or an even number of true edges, with the demands adding up to odd. Add all the demands and every edge is counted twice, so the left side is zero and the right side is one: the contradiction is a single sum. Resolution cannot add. It has to reach the same conclusion clause by clause, and on a graph where every group of vertices has many edges leaving it, that takes exponentially long.
Two terms made equal, and no more
Resolution with variables needs two literals to clash, and they clash only after something has been substituted for their variables. There are infinitely many substitutions that would do. One of them is the most general — every other is it followed by something more — and an algorithm of four rewriting rules finds it or proves there is none. That single computation turns the search for instances from guessing into arithmetic.
The row that proves a prime
Fermat's little theorem can be fooled: 561 passes it for every base and is not prime. Thread necklaces with a fixed number of black beads instead of any colours at all, and the count becomes a statement about a whole row of Pascal's triangle — every middle entry of row n is a multiple of n exactly when n is prime — which no composite can fake. Written as polynomials it is (x + a)ⁿ = xⁿ + a, and cut down to size it is the first proof that primes can be recognised in polynomial time.
Half the neighbours forces a tour
Deciding whether a graph has a closed tour through every point is one of the hardest problems computers are asked to solve. Gabriel Dirac found a condition that settles it in one glance: if every point is joined to at least half the others, a tour exists. The proof is a counting argument on a single path, it runs as an algorithm, and two small graphs show that the half cannot be lowered — while random graphs show how much stronger than necessary it is.
Resolving one letter away at a time
Davis and Putnam's procedure of 1960 decides a set of clauses by removing its letters one at a time, replacing every clause that mentions a letter by all the ways of resolving it away. On a cycle the clauses never multiply; on a grid they swell by a factor of three and a half for each extra row, and on the 4 × 4 grid each extra unit of the order's width doubles the peak exactly. The cost is not the size of the formula but how wide it is.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Exhaustive searchRefutationResolutionSatisfiabilityProof systemAntipodal pairExistence proofFair divisionGraphLower boundModular arithmeticParity