Matpic
mathematics, in pictures
Generator

A tableau for (p → q) → (¬q → ¬p)

A generator in the logic library, called 94 times across 18 essays. Below: what it draws with nothing chosen and at each mode an essay asks for, what it checks while drawing, and everywhere it is used.

tree is one function. Everything below came out of it during this build, at parameters taken from the essays rather than invented for this page — so a figure here is the same figure a reader meets in an essay, and if the generator changes, this page changes with it.

With nothing chosen

A tableau for (p → q) → (¬q → ¬p). A branching tree of formulas, each branch ending in a contradiction or in a description of a counterexample.

Tseitin's clauses on the complete graph on four vertices

Tseitin's clauses on the complete graph on four vertices. the complete graph on four vertices with a variable on each edge and a charge of 0 or 1 at each vertex, exactly one vertex charged 1. The parity demands give 16 clauses that cannot all be true.

The parity demands of the complete graph on four vertices as a matrix

The parity demands of the complete graph on four vertices as a matrix. A 4 by 6 table of zeros and ones — each vertex's row marks its edges — with the charges in a last column and a bottom row that adds the rows modulo two: all zeros on the left, one on the right.

A violated vertex that can be moved and never removed, on the cube

A violated vertex that can be moved and never removed, on the cube. 4 copies of the cube. Each flips one more edge along a path, and the single vertex whose parity demand fails moves one step along the path each time.

The smallest failed search for Tseitin's clauses

The smallest failed search for Tseitin's clauses. Search-tree size against number of edges for cycles of 3 to 10 and for K4, the prism, K3,3, a two-by-four grid and the cube; the graphs of degree three need much larger searches than cycles with as many edges.
A failed search on four clauses, read as a resolution refutation. A binary search tree branching on variables, each branch ending at a clause the partial assignment makes false, with every branch point labelled by the resolvent of the clauses below it, the top label being the empty clause.

What it checks while it draws

Collected by running the family and recording what it asserted, not written here. The count is how many separate times the claim was put to the test while these drawings were made.

Where it is called

Every figure on this list is drawn by the same rule, so a change to the rule changes all of them at once. That is why the list is published.

Logic

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.

 Logic

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.

 Logic

A lemma, and the proof that never mentions one

Proving something by first proving a lemma is what makes mathematics readable, and it is exactly what makes a proof system impossible to search — because the lemma can be any formula at all. Gentzen proved the step can always be removed, and the removal is not free.

 Logic

A proof with one rule

Two clauses that disagree about exactly one variable can be combined into a third that forgets it; repeat, and if the clauses cannot all be true the empty clause eventually appears — a complete proof system with a single move.

 Logic

An infinite tree has an infinite path

A tree that goes on forever, in which every node has only finitely many children, must contain a single branch that goes on forever. The proof is a rule for walking, and the rule is the whole of why finite information can decide an infinite question.

 Logic

Every derivation is a term

Write a variable for each assumption, an abstraction where one is discharged, and an application where an implication is used, and a natural-deduction derivation becomes a term. The formula it proves is the term's type, and checking the one is checking the other. A detour in the proof — a lemma introduced and at once used — is a term that simplifies, and simplifying it is removing the detour.

 Logic

One type for every use

In the simply typed calculus a numeral must be told in advance what kind of thing it will iterate, and with input and output of one type it computes only polynomials with tests. Let a single type stand for every type — a numeral is then a term of type ∀X. (X → X) → X → X, used at whatever type each occasion needs — and the same few symbols compute subtraction, exponentials and Ackermann's function, which grows faster than anything built from primitive recursion. Every run still finishes, and the proof that it does lies just beyond the reach of second-order arithmetic.

 Logic

One type up

A numeral is an iterator, and the formula it proves fixes what it may iterate. At the lowest type it can only repeat the successor, and every function it computes is a polynomial — no predecessor. Let the same numeral iterate a function on functions and 2ⁿ appears; let it iterate a function that takes a function and returns a value, and the predecessor appears at size 15; let it iterate a pair of values, and the predecessor, halving and parity all arrive at size 16. The trick is Kleene's, from 1932, and an exhaustive search finds it without being told.

 Logic

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.

 Logic

The assumption a proof pays back

A tableau assumes the opposite once and takes it apart. Natural deduction assumes things freely, uses them, and then withdraws them — and the withdrawal is what turns a derivation of a consequence into a proof of an implication.

 Logic

The instance that has to be guessed

Every rule of a propositional tableau replaces a formula by shorter ones, which is why it stops. The rule for a universal claim does not replace it — it keeps it and adds an instance — and one word changing turns a decision procedure into a search that may run forever.

 Logic

The order that keeps elimination narrow

Eliminating letters one at a time costs whatever the widest step costs, and the least width any order can achieve is the treewidth of the formula's graph. Finding it exactly is NP-hard, but a search over sets of letters instead of sequences finds it for small graphs, and a greedy rule that adds the fewest new edges finds it on 566 of 600 random graphs and misses by more than one only once. On Tseitin's 6 × 6 grid that rule forms twenty-four times fewer resolvents than sweeping row by row. What it cannot do is prove that its order is the best.

 Logic

The sentence between a premise and its consequence

When one formula implies another, something sits between them written only in the words the two have in common: a sentence the first implies and that implies the second. A refutation of the first together with the denial of the second hands such a sentence over, and every possible one lies between a strongest and a weakest that can be computed outright.

 Logic

The sentence that says it has no proof

Number every sentence and every proof, and a formal system can talk about itself. Then the diagonal is available one more time, and what it builds is a sentence that is true exactly when it is unprovable.

 Logic

The tree that closes

To prove a formula, assume it false and take it apart. Every branch ends in a contradiction, or one of them describes exactly how it could have been false — and either way the tree is the answer, drawn.

 Logic

Two literals make an arrow

A clause of two literals, p ∨ q, says that if p is false then q is true, and if q is false then p is true — two arrows. A set of such clauses is a directed graph on the literals, and it is unsatisfiable exactly when some variable and its negation reach each other. Each of those two paths is a chain of resolution steps, and finding them takes time proportional to the size of the input.

 Logic

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.

 Logic

What a proof about numbers can compute

The proofs of (o → o) → o → o without detours are the whole numbers, one for each count of how often the assumption is used. A proof of the implication from that formula to itself therefore takes a number and returns one, and removing its detours computes the answer. Enumerating all 14,659 such proofs up to size 16 finds 299 different functions — sums, products, squares, cubes, tests on zero — and not one of them subtracts. The predecessor, n − 1, is not among them, and a single line about polynomials says it never will be.

The whole library · What the figures prove