ON PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL ENCODINGS OF BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS EDINAH K. GNANG In a epoch-making book titled “An Investigation of the Laws of Thought”, George Boole [Boo54] laid the foun- dations for the Boolean algebra. This algebra serves as the first of two pillars of the computing revolution. In- terestingly, George Boole also initiated the branch of mathematics known as invariant theory [Wol08]. There is a recognition [GIM+19, GMQ16, Aar16, Gro20] that a rich interplay relates these seemingly separate branches both pioneered by Boole. Invariant theory emphasizes consequences which stem from symmetries or lack thereof. The importance of symmetries in the analysis of Boolean functions was well known to pioneers of the field, such as Shannon, Pólya and Redfield [Sha49, Pol40, Pol37, Red27]. We investigate in the present work, partial differential incarnations of Turing machines. Turing machines were introduced by Alan Turing [Tur36] as a mathematical model of computation. Turing machines are the second pillar of the computing revolution. The use of differential operators in invariant theory is very old. Their origin can be traced back to the work of early pioneers of invariant theory. Most notably to the work of George Boole, Arthur Cayley and James Joseph Sylvester [Cay89, Syl52] who instigated the use of differential operators to construct invariants of group actions. The framework is also known as Cayley’s Ω process. In complexity theory, differential operators were investigated in the context of arithmetic complexity by Baur and Strassen [BS83]. More recently, Cornelius Brand and Kevin Pratt [BP20] were able to match the runtime of the fastest known deterministic algorithm for detecting subgraphs of bounded path-width using a method of partial derivatives. We refer the reader to excellent recent surveys on partial differential methods in arithmetic complexity [CKW11, SY10]. The importance of investigating partial differential operators is rein- forced by the central role they play in physics and machine learning. The present work formally ties, aspects of arithmetic circuit complexity to aspects of Boolean circuit complexity. Fortunately, recent depth reduction results [VS81, AV08, Raz13, GKKS16, Hya79] reduce investigations of arithmetic circuit lower bounds to investigations of depth 3 arithmetic circuits lower bounds. These results justify our emphasis on low depth arithmetic circuits. The present work therefore argues that strong depth 3 arithmetic circuits lower bounds yield Boolean circuit lower bounds. In particular we show that the De Morgan Boolean formula complexity upper-bounds an algebraic variants of the Kolomogorov complexity measure. We devise from this connection new non-trivial upper and lower bounds for the De Morgan Boolean formula complexity of some familiar Boolean functions. arXiv:2008.06801v4 [cs.CC] 14 May 2021 1. Partial Differential Encodings. Recall the “needles in a haystack” conundrum. The conundrum translates mathematically [Sha49], into the observation that there are roughly speaking less than s3s Boolean circuits (expressed in the De Morgan basis) of n size s among the 2(2 ) possible Boolean functions on n-bit binary input strings. Consequently most circuits are 2n lower bounded in size albeit crudely by O n . Unfortunately, this particular incarnation suffers from a crippling deficiency. Namely, the pigeonhole argument hinders our ability to lower bound the size of specific families of Boolean functions across varying input lengths. We circumvent this drawback by considering a different incarnation of the conundrum. This new incarnation exploits the well known algebraic correspondence introduced by Boole 1 ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 2 [Boo54]. True 1, → False 0, → (1.1) x [i] 1 x [i] , ¬ → − x [i] x [j] x [i]+ x [j] x [i] x [j] , ∨ → − · x [i] x [j] x [i] x [j] . ∧ → · and 1 True, → 0 False, → (1.2) x [i] x [j] x [i] x [j] , · → ∧ 1 x [i] x [i] , − → ¬ (x [i]+ x [j]) mod 2 (x [i] x [j]) (x [i] x [j]) . → ∨ ∧ ¬ ∧ Polynomials in Boolean variables x [i]: i Z 1 are taken modulo algebraic relations { ∈ n} (x [i])2 x [i] (1.3) . i ≡Z ∀ ∈ n n 1 ( 0,1 × ) Proposition 1. The congruence class of a polynomial interpolant for a Boolean function F 0, 1 { } such as ∈{ } x [0] + (2 x [i])i d [0] (2 d [j])j 0<i<n − − 0<j<n (1.4) F (x)= P i P j n 1 d n 1 b b [0] + (2 b [i]) d [0] (2 d [j]) b × 0,1 × − − X0, 1 ∈{ Y} \{ } 0<i<n 0<j<n s.t.∈{F (b)=1} P P (x [i])2 x [i] modulo relations − , necessarily includes a unique multilinear polynomial viewed as a member of i Zn Z ∀ ∈ ( /2Z)[x [0] , , x [n 1]]. ··· − 1 For notational convenience let Zn := [0,n) ∩ Z. ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 3 Proof. Consider the polynomial interpolant for a Boolean function F given by x [0] + (2 x [i])i d [0] (2 d [j])j 0<i<n − − 0<j<n (1.5) F (x)= , P i P j n 1 d n 1 b b [0] + (2 b [i]) d [0] (2 d [j]) b × 0,1 × − − X0, 1 ∈{ Y} \{ } 0<i<n 0<j<n s.t.∈{F (b)=1} P P x [j]2j d [k]2k 2 0 j<n − 0 k<n (x [i]) x [i] x ≤ ≤ (1.6) F ( ) j k mod − . ⇒ ≡ P b [j]2 P d [k]2 i Zn n 1 d n 1 b b 0, 1 × 0,1 × 0 j<n − 0 k<n ∀ ∈ X ∈{ Y} \{ } ≤ ≤ s.t.∈{F (b)=1} P P Further reducing the expanded form of the polynomial on the right-hand side modulo prescribed algebraic relations yields a multilinear polynomial. By Lagrange’s interpolation construction, we know that the unique multilinear interpolant of F is such that for all i Z ∈ n (x[i] 1)F (x[0], ,x[i 1],0,x[i+1], ,x[n 1]) F (x [0] , , x [i 1] , x [i] , x [i + 1] , , x [n 1]) − ··· − ··· − + ··· − ··· − ≡ 0 1 (1.7) − (x[i] 0)F (x[0], ,x[i 1],1,x[i+1], ,x[n 1]) − ··· 1− 0 ··· − mod 2. − Repeatedly applying the identity above to intermediary restrictions F (x [0] , , x [i 1] , 0, x [i + 1] , , x [n 1]) ··· − ··· − and F (x [0] , , x [i 1] , 1, x [i + 1] , , x [n 1]) ··· − ··· − yields the desired claim. Alternatively, the justifications for Prop. (1) can be viewed from two vantage points. The first vantage point is provided by the sum product rule [Sha49]. The sum product rule, depicts an interpolation construction over the Boolean hypercube expressed by x [i] d [i] x (1 b [i]) (1.8) − = i − − , b [i] d [i] 2b [i] 1 n 1 0 i<n d[i] 0,1 b[i] n 1 0 i<n b X0, 1 × ≤Y ∈{ Y}\{ } − b X0, 1 × ≤Y − s.t.∈{F (b)=1} s.t.∈{F (b)=1} which directly expresses a multilinear polynomial. The second vantage point, depicts an interpolation construction mediated by integer binary encodings expressed by x [j]2j d [k]2k 0 j<n − 0 k<n (1.9) ≤ ≤ . P b [j]2j P d [k]2k n 1 d n 1 b b 0, 1 × 0,1 × 0 j<n − 0 k<n X ∈{ Y} \{ } ≤ ≤ s.t.∈{F (b)=1} P P ONPARTIALDIFFERENTIALENCODINGSOFBOOLEANFUNCTIONS 4 The latter construction somewhat implicitly prescribes the same multilinear polynomial as the former. Crucially, note that both constructions express a arithmetic circuit of the form PQP (1.10) B [u, v, 0]+ B [u,v,w + 1] x [w] . · n 1 0 v<d 0 w<n b 0, 1 × ≤ ≤ 0 u< X Y X ≤ ∈{ } s.t. F (b)=1 n 1 b 0, 1 × d (n+1) ∈{ } × × s.t. F (b)=1 We say that the hypermatrix B C underlies the arithmetic circuit in Eq. ∈ (1.10). Such sums of products of linear functionals play a central role in our discussion. We take multilinear polynomials to be canonical representative of congruence classesPQP associated with polynomial interpolants modulo relations prescribed by Eq. (1.3). In fact such representatives inspire the following alternative n 1 ( 0,1 × ) encoding scheme for any Boolean function F 0, 1 { } (1.11) ∈{ } 1 T [i] n 1 ∂ x [i] (1 b [i]) 1 0, 1 × , F (1 ) − − mod 2. ∀ T ⊂{ } T ≡ ∂x [i] 2b [i] 1 0 i<n n 1 0 i<n ≤Y b X0, 1 × ≤Y − ∈{ } s.t. F (b)=1 x 0 = n 1 × Such partial differential encoding schemes are inspired by the apolar inner product also known as the Sylvester product which originates in 19th century invariant theory [Cay89, Syl52]. For a Boolean function nk 1 F : 0, 1 × 0, 1 { } →{ } ρ d (1+nk ) Let H C × × be given such that ∈ H [u, v, 0]+ H [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] = F (1R) τR x [j] , k · 0 u<ρ 0 v<d 0 w<n R Z k j R ≤X ≤Y ≤X X⊆ n Y∈ Z n 1 where for all T nk , the vector 1T 0, 1 × denotes its indicator vector. A Partial Differential Encoding (or PDE for short)⊆ for the Boolean function∈{F is} defined to be an arithmetic circuit of the form m 1 ∂ T [i] (1.12) F (1 )= H [u, v, 0]+ H [u, v, 1+ w] x [w] , T ∂x [i] · i Z 0 u<ρ 0 v<d k nk 0 w<n x=0 ∈Y ≤X ≤Y ≤X nk 1 × where m (1.13) (τ ) =1, R Z k . R ∀ ⊆ n A slight abuse of terminology, enables us to also view Eq. (1.11) as expressing a PDE. We exemplify via PDEs an alternative incarnations of the “needles in a haystack” conundrum.