How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Clocks, cutoffs, and finite unions preserve nondeterministic time bounds
Statement
For fixed acceptors A,B there are acceptors for and with shortest acceptance bounded respectively by and on the corresponding accepted inputs. Exact-clock cutoffs have all-branch-halting machines with time . These machines can be converted to two-tape acceptors with fixed linear shortest-acceptance overhead; all-branch bounds are asserted for the clocked constructions, not for an unclocked guessing simulator.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Fixed finite descriptions A,B and, when used, an exact clock T.
Shortest acceptance and the inclusive last-round cutoff clock are defined in Nondeterministic acceptance time and exact clocks.
Two-tape normalization preserves the language and costs on a shortest accepting branch (Linear acceptance-time simulation on two tapes).
Proof
For union, make an initial nondeterministic choice between two tagged branches. Copy the input to the selected machine's disjoint tapes and run it, accepting only on its acceptance. Thus a resulting accepting branch supplies acceptance by A or B, and each such acceptance supplies a branch of the union machine. Copy and setup cost at most ; use the faster accepting alternative to obtain the displayed minimum bound, interpreting the other alternative as infinity when necessary. A divergent unselected computation has no effect.
For intersection, prepare two input copies on disjoint tape sets. Simulate A, and only after an accepting branch of A continue with B on its untouched copy; accept only when B also accepts. A successful branch therefore witnesses both memberships. Conversely concatenate any two finite accepting instruction sequences, using the two independent copies. Their combined length plus copying cost is bounded by for a fixed c. If either machine has no accepting branch, no combined branch accepts.
For a cutoff, simulate A and its exact clock in rounds on disjoint tapes, testing A's acceptance no later than the inclusive last round. Every branch rejects at expiry unless already accepted. This recognizes precisely and halts on every branch within . For a fixed integer factor in the desired cutoff, use that many sequential clock runs as in F1. Finite unions/intersections of such clocked machines also halt on every branch, since there are finitely many sequential calls each with a bound; the corresponding min/sum estimates for acceptance remain valid.
Apply F2 to any of the fixed acceptors above if two tapes are required, multiplying the bounds by a fixed constant and adding . This does not by itself claim that the normalized machine halts on every branch; its guessing phase may diverge. When an all-branch result is required, use the direct clocked multitape construction from step 1.3, or separately supply and run an adequate clock after normalization. Empty inputs cost a constant; if both union languages are empty or one intersection language is empty, the construction correctly has no accepting branch. No choice beyond two finite alternatives is used.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
8 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Seiferas, Fischer, and Meyer, Lemma 1 and clock discussion, pp. 148-149 (standard reference, not scraped)