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.
The nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem
Statement
For nondecreasing time-constructible with eventually and ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the displayed hypotheses, with constructibility and all-branch time classes as in Time-constructible and space-constructible functions and The classes DTIME, NTIME, DSPACE, and NSPACE.
Proof
Construct a deterministic unary-input clock as follows: read its input, compute the binary value with the fixed constructor, and perform countdown iterations before halting. A least-significant-bit-first binary counter has linear total decrement cost (the numbers of bit changes form a geometric sum); returning its head after each decrement has the same bound. Thus the clock's actual running time is eventually, and can be arranged to be at least for every . It is an exact running time in the terminology of Seiferas--Fischer--Meyer, even though was supplied only by an asymptotically bounded binary-output constructor.
Apply Nondeterministic recursive-padding separation to the exact clock from step 1.1. It gives a binary language under the local all-branch convention, but for every total recursive with .
Since , the all-branch machine from step 2.1 is an all-branch machine. Hence .
If belonged to local , a constant integer would bound its accepting times at every length by the total recursive function : enlarge to cover the finitely many exceptional lengths. Since eventually, . This contradicts the exclusion in step 2.1. Thus .
Nondecreasing gives , so every all-branch decider is an all-branch decider. Together with steps 3.1 and 3.2 this proves the strict inclusion.
Depends on
Used by
- Hierarchy theorems do not separate P from NP Proposition
Dependency tree · two levels
14 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, Section 3.3, Theorem 3.3 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Seiferas, Fischer, and Meyer, Separating Nondeterministic Time Complexity Classes, Theorem 4 and Corollary 4.1, pp. 152–155 (standard reference, not scraped)