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.
BLR acceptance implies agreement with a linear function
Statement
Let and fix . If BLR accepts with probability at least , where , then some linear agrees with on at least a fraction of the cube. Equivalently, rejection probability at most , with , guarantees distance at most from some linear function. Every linear function passes the test with probability one.
For and integer , repeating the test times with independent randomness and rejecting if any trial rejects detects every fixed at distance greater than from every linear function with probability at least .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For h=(-1)^f, the cubic sum equals twice BLR acceptance minus one (The cubic Fourier identity for BLR).
Parseval for real cube functions states that the sum of squared normalized Fourier coefficients is E h² (Character orthogonality, inversion and Parseval).
Proof
Put and . The finite nonempty index set has elements, so a maximizing index exists. Parseval and give . Hence , since each coefficient is at most and every square is nonnegative. This is a signed maximum, not a maximum absolute value.
If is the actual acceptance probability, the cubic identity gives . At a maximizing index , . Therefore agreement is at least . Substituting proves the rejection formulation; conversely setting in that formulation gives the agreement formulation. These are equivalent parametrizations of a guarantee, not a claim that distance determines acceptance exactly.
For , distributivity modulo two gives for every pair, so completeness is perfect. This includes and the sole linear function in dimension zero. At or , the guarantee in the previous step likewise gives exact agreement.
If is farther than from every linear function, its acceptance probability cannot exceed : otherwise it is greater than , and step 2.1 applied with would give distance at most . Independent trials of a fixed function have all-accept probability . Taking complements proves the repetition bound. For the always-accept empty repetition has rejection probability zero, equal to the bound; for this is the single-test bound.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
3 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
- Arora and Barak, Computational Complexity, January 2007 web draft, Theorems 18.23 and 19.9, pp.364 and 390–391 (standard reference, not scraped)