[FOM] syntactic power/3
carette at mcmaster.ca
Mon Oct 14 15:03:01 EDT 2019
That is not truly robust either -- at the very least, you ought to have
" let t = t' in t'' " as a language former. In all sorts of places,
including counter-examples to Richardson's uniformity conjecture are due
to 'sharing' not being accounted for properly. This is also well-known
in computer science in general, where loss of sharing causes quite
unnecessary exponential blow-up; in mathematical practice, one always
gives names to intermediate results, without ever really thinking about
it. This has very strong complexity implications.
Eventually, if you want robustness meta-theorems, you'll likely want to
use ideas from Kolmogorov Complexity and/or Minimum Description Length.
I guess it depends on whether the sizes you end up encountering are
small [ <1000 in your current definitions] or quite large [ > 50,000 is
likely enough]. What we know from Chaitin's number Omega and Busy
Beaver (and so on) unfortunately might imply quite small sizes [ < 100
], which makes all counts, even ones based on KC, extremely fragile. At
those size, extremely small changes in vocabulary can change the results.
For a concrete example, in number theory the cyclotomic polynomials (and
roots of unity, best represented via cyclotomic polynomials) grow
exponentially fast in representation size [eventually!] and are a
frequent source of counter-examples to naive complexity results -
especially for factoring, for example. But there are 'vocabularies' in
which one can represent cyclotomic polymials without the exponential
blowup. There are conjectures that cyclotomics are the only
'obstruction', and so this change of vocabulary would be enough to avoid
If this is of interest, I can provide references (some of which will be
to my own work).
PS: I find the questions quite interesting. It would be fascinating if
for some of the pairs of theories, the best answer would be "they are
the same", not because numerically the lengths involved are equal, but
that the ordering depends in a fundamental way in the method of counting.
On 2019-10-13 3:07 p.m., Harvey Friedman wrote:
> Regarding https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2019-October/021728.html
> For robustness I think it is better to count the number of distinct
> atomic formulas x = y, x epsilon y, that appear.
> Harvey Friedman
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
More information about the FOM