See any bugs/typos/confusing explanations? Open a GitHub issue. You can also comment below

★ See also the **PDF version of this chapter** (better formatting/references) ★

# Code as data, data as code

- Understand one of the most important concepts in computing: duality between code and data.

- Build up comfort in moving between different representations of programs.

- Follow the construction of a “universal NAND-CIRC program” that can evaluate other NAND-CIRC programs given their representation.

- See and understand the proof of a major result that compliments the result of the last chapter: some functions require an
*exponential*number of gates to compute. - Understand the
*physical extended Church-Turing thesis*that NAND-CIRC programs capture*all*feasible computation in the physical world, and its physical and philosophical implications.

“The term code script is, of course, too narrow. The chromosomal structures are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow. They are law-code and executive power - or, to use another simile, they are architect’s plan and builder’s craft - in one.”, Erwin Schrödinger, 1944.

“A mathematician would hardly call a correspondence between the set of 64 triples of four units and a set of twenty other units,”universal“, while such correspondence is, probably, the most fundamental general feature of life on Earth”, Misha Gromov, 2013

A NAND-CIRC program can be thought of as simply a sequence of symbols, each of which can be encoded with zeros and ones using (for example) the ASCII standard. Thus we can represent every NAND-CIRC program (and hence also every Boolean circuit) as a binary string. This statement seems obvious but it is actually quite profound. It means that we can treat circuits or NAND-CIRC programs both as instructions to carrying computation and also as *data* that could potentially be input to other computations.

A *program* is a piece of text, and so it can be fed as input to other programs.

This correspondence between *code* and *data* is one of the most fundamental aspects of computing. It underlies the notion of *general purpose* computers, that are not pre-wired to compute only one task, and it is also the basis of our hope for obtaining *general* artificial intelligence. This concept finds immense use in all areas of computing, from scripting languages to machine learning, but it is fair to say that we haven’t yet fully mastered it. Indeed many security exploits involve cases such as “buffer overflows” when attackers manage to inject code where the system expected only “passive” data (see Figure 5.1). The idea of code as data reaches beyond the realm of electronic computers. For example, DNA can be thought of as both a program and data (in the words of Schrödinger, who wrote before DNA’s discovery a book that inspired Watson and Crick, it is both “architect’s plan and builder’s craft”).

## A NAND interpreter in NAND

Since we can represent programs as strings, we can also think of a program as an input to a function. In particular, for every choice of a representation scheme for NAND-CIRC programs, the following is a well defined mathematical function:

\[ \ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}(P,x) = \begin{cases} P(x) & |x|= \text{no. of $P$'s inputs} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \] where \(P\) and \(x\) are strings in \(\{0,1\}^*\), and we denote by \(P(x)\) the output of the program represented by the string \(P\) on the input \(x\).

The above is one of those observations that are simultaneously both simple and profound. Please make sure that you understand **(1)** how for every fixed choice of representing programs as strings, the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}\) above is well defined, and **(2)** what this function actually does.

\(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}\) takes strings of *arbitrary length*, and hence cannot be computed by a NAND-CIRC program, since such programs take inputs of finite length. However, for every fixed number of lines \(s\), inputs \(n\), and outputs \(m\), we can define \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) to be the function that on input a string \(P\) representing an \(s\)-line \(n\)-input \(m\)-output program, and a string \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\), output the value \(P(x)\).^{1} Specifically, we will fix some representation scheme for NAND-CIRC programs and let \(S(s)\) denote the number of bits needed to represent programs of \(s\) lines. Then \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) takes inputs of length \(S+n\) (that is a string \(P \in \{0,1\}^S\) representing the program and a string \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\) which corresponds to the input) and outputs the string \(P(x) \in \{0,1\}^m\).

One of the first examples of *self circularity* we will see in this book is the following theorem:

For every \(s,n,m \in \N\) with \(s\geq m\) there is a NAND-CIRC program \(U_{s,n,m}\) that computes the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\).

That is, the NAND-CIRC program \(U_{s,n,m}\) takes the description of *any other NAND-CIRC program* \(P\) (of the right length and inputs/outputs) and *any input* \(x\), and computes the result of evaluating the program \(P\) on the input \(x\). Given the equivalence between NAND-CIRC programs and Boolean circuits, we can also think of \(U_{s,n,m}\) as a circuit that takes as input the description of other circuits and their inputs, and returns their evaluation, see Figure 5.2.

We call this NAND-CIRC program \(U_{s,n,m}\) that computes \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) a *bounded universal program* (or a *universal circuit*). “Universal” stands for the fact that this is a *single program* that can evaluate *arbitrary* code, where “bounded” stands for the fact that \(U_{s,n,m}\) only evaluates programs of bounded size. Of course this limitation is inherent for the NAND-CIRC programming language, since a program of \(s\) lines (or, equivalently, a circuit of \(s\) gates) can take at most \(2s\) inputs. Later, in Chapter 6, we will introduce the concept of *loops*, that allows to escape this limitation.

Of course to fully specify \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\), we need to fix a precise representation scheme for NAND-CIRC programs as binary strings. We can simply use the ASCII representation, though below we will choose a more convenient representation. But regardless of the choice of representation, Theorem 5.1 is an immediate corollary of Theorem 4.9, which states that *every* finite function, and so in particular the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{S,n,m}\) above, can be computed by *some* NAND-CIRC program.

Once again, Theorem 5.1 is subtle but important. Make sure you understand what this theorem means, and why it is a corollary of Theorem 4.9.

### Efficient universal programs

It turns out that we don’t even need to pay that much of an overhead for universality. Namely, the size of \(U\) needs only be *polynomial* in the size of the input program.

For every \(s,n,m \in \N\) there is a NAND-CIRC program of at most \(O(s^2 \log s)\) lines that computes the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{S,n,m}:\{0,1\}^{S+n} \rightarrow \{0,1\}^m\) defined above.

Unlike Theorem 5.1, Theorem 5.2 is not a trivial corollary of the fact that every finite function can be computed by some circuit. Proving Theorem 5.1 requires us to present a concrete NAND-CIRC program for the \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) function. We will do so in several stages.

First, we will spell out precisely how to represent NAND-CIRC programs as strings. We can prove Theorem 5.2 using the ASCII representation, but a “cleaner” representation will turn out to be more convenient.

Then, we will show how we can write a program to compute \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) in

*Python*.^{2}Finally, we will show how we can transform this Python program into a NAND-CIRC program.

### Concrete representation for NAND-CIRC programs

A NAND-CIRC program is simply a sequence of lines of the form

There is of course nothing special about the particular names we use for variables. Although they would be harder to read, we could write all our programs using only working variables such as `temp_0`

, `temp_1`

etc. Therefore, our representation for NAND-CIRC programs will ignore the actual names of the variables, and just associate a *number* with each variable. Thus we will encode a *line* of the program as just a triple of numbers. If the line has the form `foo = NAND(bar,blah)`

then we encode it with the triple \((i,j,k)\) where \(i\) is the number corresponding to the variable `foo`

and \(j\) and \(k\) are the numbers corresponding to `bar`

and `blah`

respectively.

More concretely, we use the set \([t]= \{0,1,\ldots,t-1\}\) as our set of variables. The first \(n\) numbers \(\{0,\ldots,n-1\}\) will correspond to the *input* variables, the last \(m\) numbers \(\{t-m,\ldots,t-1\}\) will correspond to the *output* variables, and the intermediate numbers \(\{ n,\ldots, t-m-1\}\) will correspond to the remaining “workspace” variables.

This motivates the following definition:

Let \(P\) be a NAND-CIRC program of \(n\) inputs, \(m\) outputs, and \(s\) lines, and let \(t\) be the number of distinct variables used by \(P\). The *list of tuples representation of \(P\)* is the triple \((n,m,L)\) where \(L\) is a list of triples of the form \((i,j,k)\) for \(i,j,k \in [t]\).

We assign a number for variable of \(P\) as follows:

For every \(i\in [n]\), the variable

`X[`

\(i\)`]`

is assigned the number \(i\).For every \(j\in [m]\), the variable

`Y[`

\(j\)`]`

is assigned the number \(t-m+j\).Every other variable is assigned a number in \(\{n,n+1,\ldots,t-m-1\}\) in the order of which it appears.

The list of tuples representation will be our default choice for representing NAND-CIRC programs, and since “list of tuples representation” is a bit of a mouthful, we will often call this simply the *representation* for a program \(P\).

Our favorite NAND-CIRC program, the XOR program:

is represented as the tuple \((2,1,L)\) where \(L=((2, 0, 1), (3, 0, 2), (4, 1, 2), (5, 3, 4))\). That is, the variables `X[0]`

and `X[1]`

are given the indices \(0\) and \(1\) respectively, the variables `u`

,`v`

,`w`

are given the indices \(2,3,4\) respectively, and the variable `Y[0]`

is given the index \(5\).

Transforming a NAND-CIRC program from its representation as code to the representation as a list of tuples is a fairly straightforward programming exercise, and in particular can be done in a few lines of *Python*.^{3} Note that this representation loses information such as the particular names we used for the variables, but this is OK since these names do not make a difference to the functionality of the program. To represent these \(s\) triples numbers as a string requires \(O(s \log s)\) bits, as each number in \([t]\) can be represented in the binary basis using \(\ceil{\log t}\) bits, and \(t \leq 3s\).^{4} For a fixed \(s,n,m\), we can represent the list of triples of a program with \(n\) inputs, \(m\) outputs, and \(s\) lines by simply concatenating the representation of the \(3s\) numbers, with each represented as a string of length \(\ceil{\log 3s}\) using the binary basis. Hence we can think of \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) as mapping \(\{0,1\}^{3s\ceil{\log 3s} + n}\) to \(\{0,1\}^m\).

### A NAND interpeter in “pseudocode”

To prove Theorem 5.2 it suffices to give a NAND-CIRC program of \(O(s^2 \log s) \leq O((s\log s)^2)\) lines that can evaluate NAND-CIRC programs of \(s\) lines. Let us start by thinking how we would evaluate such programs if we weren’t restricted to the NAND operations. That is, let us describe informally an *algorithm* that on input \(n,m,s\), a list of triples \(L\), and a string \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\), evaluates the program represented by \((n,m,L)\) on the string \(x\).

It would be highly worthwhile for you to stop here and try to solve this problem yourself. For example, you can try thinking how you would write a program `NANDEVAL(n,m,s,L,x)`

that computes this function in the programming language of your choice.

Here is a description of such an algorithm:

**Input:** Numbers \(n,m\) and a list \(L\) of \(s\) triples of numbers in \([t]\) for some \(t\leq 3s\), as well as a string \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\).

**Goal:** Evaluate the program represented by \((n,m,L)\) on the input \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\).

**Operation:**

We will create a

*dictionary*data structure`Vartable`

that for every \(i \in [t]\) stores a bit. We will assume we have the operations`GET(Vartable,i)`

which restore the bit corresponding to`i`

, and the operation`UPDATE(Vartable,i,b)`

which update the bit corresponding to`i`

with the value`b`

. (More concretely, we will write this as`Vartable = UPDATE(Vartable,i,b)`

to emphasize the fact that the state of the data structure changes, and to keep our convention of using functions free of “side effects”.)We will initialize the table by setting the \(i\)-th value of

`Vartable`

to \(x_i\) for every \(i\in [n]\).We will go over the list \(L\) in order, and for every triple \((i,j,k)\) in \(L\), we let \(a\) be

`GET(Vartable,`

\(j\)`)`

, \(b\) be`GET(Vartable,`

\(k\)`)`

, and then set the value corresponding to \(i\) to the NAND of \(a\) and \(b\). That is, let`Vartable = UPDATE(Vartable,`

\(i\),`NAND(`

\(a\)`,`

\(b\)`))`

.Finally, we output the value

`GET(Vartable,`

\(t-m+j\)`)`

for every \(j\in [m]\).

Please make sure you understand this algorithm and why it does produce the right value.

### A NAND interpreter in Python

To make things more concrete, let us see how we implement the above algorithm in the *Python* programming language. We will construct a function `NANDEVAL`

that on input \(n,m,L,x\) will output the result of evaluating the program represented by \((n,m,L)\) on \(x\).^{5}

```
def NANDEVAL(n,m,L,X):
# Evaluate a NAND-CIRC program from its list of triple representation.
s = len(L) # number of lines
t = max(max(a,b,c) for (a,b,c) in L)+1 # maximum index appearing + 1
Vartable = [0] * t # we'll simply use an array to store data
def GET(V,i): return V[i]
def UPDATE(V,i,b):
V[i]=b
return V
# load input values to Vartable:
for i in range(n): Vartable = UPDATE(Vartable,i,X[i])
# Run the program
for (i,j,k) in L:
a = GET(Vartable,j)
b = GET(Vartable,k)
c = NAND(a,b)
Vartable = UPDATE(Vartable,i,c)
# Return outputs Vartable[t-m], Vartable[t-m+1],....,Vartable[t-1]
return [GET(Vartable,t-m+j) for j in range(m)]
# Test on XOR (2 inputs, 1 output)
L = ((2, 0, 1), (3, 0, 2), (4, 1, 2), (5, 3, 4))
print(NANDEVAL(2,1,L,(0,1))) # XOR(0,1)
# [1]
print(NANDEVAL(2,1,L,(1,1))) # XOR(1,1)
# [0]
```

Accessing an element of the array `Vartable`

at a given index takes a constant number of basic operations. Hence (since \(n,m \leq s\) and \(t \leq 3s\)), the program above will use \(O(s)\) basic operations.^{6}

### Constructing the NAND interpreter in NAND

We now turn to describing the proof of Theorem 5.2. To do this, it is of course not enough to give a Python program. Rather, we need to show how we compute the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) itself using a NAND-CIRC program. In other words, our job is to transform, for every \(s,n,m\), the Python code above to a NAND-CIRC program \(U_{s,n,m}\) that computes the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\).

Before reading further, try to think how *you* could give a “constructive proof” of Theorem 5.2. That is, think of how you would write, in the programming language of your choice, a function `universal(s,n,m)`

that on input \(s,n,m\) outputs the code for the NAND-CIRC program \(U_{s,n,m}\) such that \(U_{s,n,m}\) computes \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\). Note that there is a subtle but crucial difference between this function and the Python `NANDEVAL`

program described above. Rather than actually evaluating a given program \(P\) on some input \(w\), the function `universal`

should output the *code* of a NAND-CIRC program that computes the map \((P,x) \mapsto P(x)\).

Our construction will follow very closely the Python implementation of `EVAL`

above. We will use variables `Vartable[`

\(0\)`]`

,\(\ldots\),`Vartable[`

\(2^\ell-1\)`]`

, where \(\ell = \ceil{\log 3s}\) to store our variables. However, NAND doesn’t have integer-valued variables, so we cannot write code such as `Vartable[i]`

for some variable `i`

. However, we *can* implement the function `GET(Vartable,i)`

that outputs the `i`

-th bit of the array `Vartable`

. Indeed, this is nothing but the function `LOOKUP`

that we have seen in Theorem 4.7!

Please make sure that you understand why `GET`

and `LOOKUP`

are the same function.

We saw that we can compute `LOOKUP`

on arrays of size \(2^\ell\) in time \(O(2^\ell)\), which will be \(O(s)\) for our choice of \(\ell\).

To compute the `update`

function on input `V`

,`i`

,`b`

, we need to scan the array `V`

, and for \(j \in [2^\ell]\), have our \(j\)-th output be `V[`

\(j\)`]`

unless \(j\) is equal to `i`

, in which case the \(j\)-th output is `b`

. We can do this as follows:

For every \(j\in [2^\ell]\), there is an \(O(\ell)\) line NAND-CIRC program to compute the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EQUALS}}_j: \{0,1\}^\ell \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) that on input \(i\) outputs \(1\) if and only if \(i\) is equal to (the binary representation of) \(j\). (We leave verifying this as Exercise 5.2 and Exercise 5.3.)

We have seen that we can compute the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{IF}}:\{0,1\}^3 \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) such that \(\ensuremath{\mathit{IF}}(a,b,c)\) equals \(b\) if \(a=1\) and \(c\) if \(a=0\).

Together, this means that we can compute `UPDATE`

as follows:

```
def UPDATE(V,i,b):
# update a 2**ell length array at location i to the value b
for j in range(2**ell): # j = 0,1,2,....,2^ell -1
a = EQUALS_j(i)
Y[j] = IF(a,b,V[j])
return Y
```

Once we can compute `GET`

and `UPDATE`

, the rest of the implementation amounts to “book keeping” that needs to be done carefully, but is not too insightful, and hence we omit the full details.

Since the loop over `j`

in `UPDATE`

is run \(2^\ell\) times, and computing `EQUALS_j`

takes \(O(\ell)\) lines, the total number of lines to compute `UPDATE`

is \(O(2^\ell \cdot \ell) = O(s \log s)\). Since we run this function \(s\) times, the total number of lines for computing \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}\) is \(O(s^2 \log s)\). This completes (up to the omitted details) the proof of Theorem 5.2.

The NAND-CIRC program above is less efficient that its Python counterpart, since NAND does not offer arrays with efficient random access. Hence for example the `LOOKUP`

operation on an array of \(s\) bits takes \(\Omega(s)\) lines in NAND even though it takes \(O(1)\) steps (or maybe \(O(\log s)\) steps, depending how we count) in *Python*.

It turns out that it is possible to improve the bound of Theorem 5.2, and evaluate \(s\) line NAND-CIRC programs using a NAND-CIRC program of \(O(s \log s)\) lines. The key is to consider the description of NAND-CIRC programs as circuits, and in particular as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) of bounded in degree. A universal NAND-CIRC program \(U_s\) for \(s\) line programs will correspond to a *universal graph* \(H_s\) for such \(s\) vertex DAGs. We can think of such as graph \(U_s\) as fixed “wiring” for communication network, that should be able to accommodate any arbitrary pattern of communication between \(s\) vertices (where this pattern corresponds to an \(s\) line NAND-CIRC program). It turns out that there exist such efficient routing networks exist that allow embedding any \(s\) vertex circuit inside a universal graph of size \(O(s \log s)\), see the bibliographical notes Section 5.8 for more on this issue.

## A Python interpreter in NAND (discussion)

To prove Theorem 5.2 we essentially translated every line of the Python program for `EVAL`

into an equivalent NAND snippet. It turns out that none of our reasoning was specific to the particular function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}\). It is possible to translate *every* Python program into an equivalent `NAND`

program of comparable efficiency.^{7} Actually doing so requires taking care of many details and is beyond the scope of this book, but let me try to convince you why you should believe it is possible in principle.

For starters, one can can use CPython (the reference implementation for Python), to evaluate every Python program using a `C`

program. We can combine this with a C compiler to transform a Python program to various flavors of “machine language”. So, to transform a Python program into an equivalent NAND-CIRC program, it is enough to show how to transform a *machine language* program into an equivalent NAND-CIRC program. One minimalistic (and hence convenient) family of machine languages is known as the *ARM architecture* which powers many mobile devices including essentially all Android devices.^{8} There are even simpler machine languages, such as the LEG acrhitecture for which a backend for the LLVM compiler was implemented (and hence can be the target of compiling any of large and growing list of languages that this compiler supports). Other examples include the TinyRAM architecture (motivated by interactive proof systems that we will discuss in Chapter 21) and the teaching-oriented Ridiculously Simple Computer architecture. Going one by one over the instruction sets of such computers and translating them to NAND snippets is no fun, but it is a feasible thing to do. In fact, ultimately this is very similar to the transformation that takes place in converting our high level code to actual silicon gates that are not so different from the operations of a NAND-CIRC program. Indeed, tools such as MyHDL that transform “Python to Silicon” can be used to convert a Python program to a NAND-CIRC program.

The NAND-CIRC programming language is just a teaching tool, and by no means do I suggest that writing NAND-CIRC programs, or compilers to NAND, is a practical, useful, or enjoyable activity. What I do want is to make sure you understand why it *can* be done, and to have the confidence that if your life (or at least your grade) depended on it, then you would be able to do this. Understanding how programs in high level languages such as Python are eventually transformed into concrete low-level representation such as NAND is fundamental to computer science.

The astute reader might notice that the above paragraphs only outlined why it should be possible to find for every *particular* Python-computable function \(f\), a *particular* comparably efficient NAND-CIRC program \(P\) that computes \(f\). But this still seems to fall short of our goal of writing a “Python interpreter in NAND” which would mean that for every parameter \(n\), we come up with a *single* NAND-CIRC program \(\ensuremath{\mathit{UNIV}}_n\) such that given a description of a Python program \(P\), a particular input \(x\), and a bound \(T\) on the number of operations (where the length of \(P\), \(x\) and the magnitude of \(T\) are all at most \(n\)) would return the result of executing \(P\) on \(x\) for at most \(T\) steps. After all, the transformation above would transform every Python program into a different NAND-CIRC program, but would not yield “one NAND-CIRC program to rule them all” that can evaluate every Python program up to some given complexity. However, it turns out that it is enough to show such a transformation for a single Python program. The reason is that we can write a Python interpreter *in Python*: a Python program \(U\) that takes a bit string, interprets it as Python code, and then runs that code. Hence, we only need to show a NAND-CIRC program \(U^*\) that computes the same function as the particular Python program \(U\), and this will give us a way to evaluate *all* Python programs.

What we are seeing time and again is the notion of *universality* or *self reference* of computation, which is the sense that all reasonably rich models of computation are expressive enough that they can “simulate themselves”. The importance of this phenomena to both the theory and practice of computing, as well as far beyond it, including the foundations of mathematics and basic questions in science, cannot be overstated.

## Counting programs, and lower bounds on the size of NAND-CIRC programs

One of the consequences of our representation is the following:

For every \(n,m,s\) with \(s \geq m, s \geq n/2\), \[|\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n,m}(s)| \leq 2^{O(s \log s)}.\] That is, there are at most \(2^{O(s\log s)}\) functions computed by NAND-CIRC programs of at most \(s\) lines.

Moreover, the implicit constant in the \(O(\cdot)\) notation in Theorem 5.7 is at most \(10\).^{9}

The idea behind the proof is that, as we’ve seen, we can represent every \(s\) line program by a binary string of \(O(s \log s)\) bits. Therefore the number of functions computed by \(s\)-line programs cannot be larger than the number of such strings, which is \(2^{O(s \log s)}\). In the actual proof, given below, we count the number of representations a little more carefully, talking directly about triples rather than binary strings, although the idea remains the same.

Every NAND-CIRC program \(P\) with \(s\) lines has at most \(3s\) variables. Hence, using our canonical representation, \(P\) can be represented by the numbers \(n,m\) of \(P\)’s inputs and outputs, as well as by the list \(L\) of \(s\) triples of natural numbers, each of which is smaller or equal to \(3s\).

If two programs compute distinct functions then they have distinct representations. (Make sure you understand why the above statement is true!) This means that our representation scheme yields a *one to one function* from \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n,m}(s)\) to the set \([3s]^{3s}\) of all length-\(s\) lists of triples of numbers in \([3s]\).^{10} Therefore

\[|\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n,m}(s)| \leq (3s)^{3s} = 2^{3s \log (3s)} = 2^{3s \log s + 3\log 3 s} \;.\]

Since \(s = o(s \log s)\), for sufficiently large \(n\), this bound will be smaller than \(2^{4s\log s}\).

We can also establish Theorem 5.7 directly from the ASCII representation of the source code. Since an \(s\)-line NAND-CIRC program has at most \(3s\) distinct variables, we can change all the non input/output variables of such a program to have the form `Temp[`

\(i\)`]`

for \(i\) between \(0\) and \(3s-1\) without changing the function that it computes. This means that after removing extra whitespaces, every line of such a program (which will be of the form form `var = NAND(var',var'')`

for variable identifiers which will be either `X[###]`

,`Y[###]`

or `Temp[###]`

where `###`

is some number smaller than \(3s\)) will require at most, say, \(20 + 3\log_{10} (3s) \leq O(\log s)\) characters. Since each one of those characters can be encoded using seven bits in the ASCII representation, we see that the number of functions computed by \(s\)-line NAND-CIRC programs is at most \(2^{O(s \log s)}\).

A function mapping \(\{0,1\}^2\) to \(\{0,1\}\) can be identified with the table of its four values on the inputs \(00,01,10,11\); a function mapping \(\{0,1\}^3\) to \(\{0,1\}\) can be identified with the table of its eight values on the inputs \(000,001,010,011,100,101,110,111\). More generally, every function \(F:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) can be identified with the table of its \(2^n\) values on the inputs \(\{0,1\}^n\). Hence the number of functions mapping \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}\) is equal to the number of such tables which (since we can choose either \(0\) or \(1\) for every row) is exactly \(2^{2^n}\). Note that this is *double exponential* in \(n\), and hence even for small values of \(n\) (e.g., \(n=10\)) the number of functions from \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}\) is truly astronomical.^{11} This has the following important corollary:

There is a function \(F:\{0,1\}^n\rightarrow \{0,1\}\) such that the shortest NAND-CIRC program to compute \(F\) requires \(2^n/(100n)\) lines.

Suppose, towards the sake of contradiction, that every function \(F:\{0,1\}^n\rightarrow\{0,1\}\) can be computed by a NAND-CIRC program of at most \(s=2^n/(100n)\) lines. Then the by Theorem 5.7 the total number of such functions would be at most \(2^{10s\log s} \leq 2^{10 \log s \cdot 2^n/(100 n)}\). Since \(\log s = n - \log (100 n) \leq n\) this means that the total number of such functions would be at most \(2^{2^n/10}\), contradicting the fact that there are \(2^{2^n}\) of them.

We have seen before that *every* function mapping \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}\) can be computed by an \(O(2^n /n)\) line program. We now see that this is tight in the sense that some functions do require such an astronomical number of lines to compute.

Some functions \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) *cannot* be computed by a Boolean circuit using a fewer than exponential number of gates.

In fact, as we explore in the exercises below, this is the case for *most* functions. Hence functions that can be computed in a small number of lines (such as addition, multiplication, finding short paths in graphs, or even the \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}\) function) are the exception, rather than the rule.

The list of triples is not the shortest representation for NAND-CIRC programs. We have seen that every NAND-CIRC program of \(s\) lines and \(n\) inputs can be represented by a directed graph of \(s+n\) vertices, of which \(n\) have in-degree zero, and the \(s\) others have in-degree at most two. Using the adjacency list representation, such a graph can be represented using roughly \(2s\log(s+n) \leq 2s (\log s + O(1))\) bits. Using this representation we can reduce the implicit constant in Theorem 5.7 arbitrarily close to \(2\).

## Size hierarchy theorem (advanced, optional)

By Theorem 4.9 the class \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n}(4 \cdot 2^n)\) contains *all* functions from \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}\). In fact, as discussed in Subsection 4.4.2 this can be improved to show that there is some constant \(C\) such that \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_n(C \cdot 2^n / n)\) contains all functions from \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}\) (in fact, \(C=4\) will do). On the other hand, Theorem 5.9 shows that if \(c >0\) is small enough (\(c = 1/4\) will do) then \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_n(c 2^n / n)\) does *not* contain all functions. Thus, these two results together show that there exists some constants \(C>c>0\) such that for every sufficiently large \(n\), \[
\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_n(c 2^n /n) \subsetneq \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_n(C 2^n /n) \;.
\] That is, the set of functions that can be computed using \(c 2^n/n\) gates is a *strict subset* of the set of functions that can be computed using \(C 2^n / n\) gates.

In fact, we can use the same results to show a more general result: as a general rule, if we increase our “budget” of gates by a constant factor, then we can compute new functions:

There exists some constant \(C\) such that for *every* \(n \leq s \leq 2^n/(4n)\), there exists some function \(f\) that *can not* be computed using \(s\) gates but *can* be computed using \(C\cdot s\) gates.

The idea is to “scale down” the result of Theorem 5.9. We set \(\ell\) to be such that \(s\) is about exponential in \(\ell\), and so that \(Cs\) gates are enough to compute all functions on \(\ell\) bits but \(s\) gates are not enough to compute some function \(g:\{0,1\}^\ell \rightarrow \{0,1\}\). We can then let \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) be a function that ignores all but the first input \(\ell\) bits, and returns the result of applying \(g\) to these bits.

Let \(s\) be as in the theorem statement, and let \(\ell\) be the largest integer such that \(10s \geq 2^\ell/(10\ell)\). (By this choice \(10s < 2^{\ell-1}/(10\ell-1)\) which means that \(5s < 2^\ell/(10\ell)\).) Let \(g:\{0,1\}^\ell \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) be a function outside \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_\ell(2^\ell/(10\ell)) \supseteq \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_\ell(5s)\) (the existence of such a function is guaranteed by Theorem 5.9). We let \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) be the function defined as \(f(x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1}) = g(x_0,\ldots,x_{\ell-1})\). We claim that there is some constant \(C\) such that:

\(f \in \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_n(C \cdot s)\).

\(f \not\in \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_n(s)\).

For the former, by the Theorem 4.9 (more precisely its strengthened variant discussed in Subsection 4.4.2), if \(C'\) is sufficiently large then \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_\ell(C' \cdot 2^\ell / \ell)\) contains *all* functions mapping \(\{0,1\}^\ell\) to \(\{0,1\}\). Therefore we can compute \(g\), and hence \(f\) as well, using a circuit of at most \(C' \cdot 2^\ell / \ell\) gates which is at most \(C s\) for \(C=10C'\).

For the latter, suppose towards the sake of contradiction that \(f\) *can* be computed by an \(n\)-input NAND-CIRC program \(P\) of at most \(s\) lines. Now consider the following program \(P'\) which is obtained by \(P\) as follows:

We add three lines to ensure access to the variable

`zero`

that is always equal to \(0\).We replace every instance in which \(P\) refers to a variable of the form

`X[`

\(i\)`]`

for \(i>\ell\) with the variable`zero`

.

The new program \(P'\) only takes \(\ell\) inputs and has at most \(s+3\) lines. Moreover, for every \(x\in \{0,1\}^\ell\), \(P'(x)=P(x0^{n-\ell})\). This means that under our assumption that \(P\) computes \(f\), \(P'(x)=f(x0^{n-\ell})=g(x)\) for every \(x\in \{0,1\}^\ell\). But this contradicts the assumption that \(g \not\in \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_\ell(5s)\).

While the size hierarchy theorem guarantees that there exists *some* function that *can* be computed using, for example, \(n^2\) gates, but not using \(100n\) gates, we do not know of any explicit example of such a function. While we suspect that integer multiplication is such an example, we do not have any proof that this is the case.

## The physical extended Church-Turing thesis (discussion)

We’ve seen that NAND gates can be implemented using very different systems in the physical world. What about the reverse direction? Can NAND-CIRC programs simulate any physical computer?

We can take a leap of faith and stipulate that NAND-CIRC programs do actually encapsulate *every* computation that we can think of. Such a statement (in the realm of infinite functions, which we’ll encounter in Chapter 6) is typically attributed to Alonzo Church and Alan Turing, and in that context is known as the *Church Turing Thesis*. As we will discuss in future lectures, the Church-Turing Thesis is not a mathematical theorem or conjecture. Rather, like theories in physics, the Church-Turing Thesis is about mathematically modelling the real world. In the context of finite functions, we can make the following informal hypothesis or prediction:

If a function \(F:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}^m\) can be computed in the physical world using \(s\) amount of “physical resources” then it can be computed by a Boolean circuit program of roughly \(s\) gates.

We call this hypothesis the **“Physical Extended Church-Turing Thesis”** or *PECTT* for short. A priori it might seem rather extreme to hypothesize that our meager NAND model captures all possible physical computation. But yet, in more than a century of computing technologies, no one has yet built any scalable computing device that challenges this hypothesis.

We now discuss the “fine print” of the PECTT in more detail, as well as the (so far unsuccessful) challenges that have been raised against it. There is no single universally-agreed-upon formalization of “roughly \(s\) physical resources”, but we can approximate this notion by considering the size of any physical computing device and the time it takes to compute the output, and ask that any such device can be simulated by a Boolean circuit with a number of gates that is a polynomial (with not too large exponent) in the size of the system and the time it takes it to operate.

In other words, we can phrase the PECTT as stipulating that any function that can be computed by a device of that takes as a certain volume \(V\) of space and requires \(t\) time to complete the computation, must be computable by a Boolean circuit with a number of gates that is polynomial in \(V\) and \(t\).

The exact polynomial is not clear but it is generally accepted that if \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) is an *exponentially hard* function, in the sense that it has no NAND-CIRC program of fewer than, say, \(2^{n/2}\) lines, then a demonstration of a physical device that can compute in the real world \(f\) for moderate input lengths (e.g., \(n=500\)) would be a violation of the PECTT.

We can attempt at a more exact phrasing of the PECTT as follows. Suppose that \(Z\) is a physical system that accepts \(n\) binary stimuli and has a binary output, and can be enclosed in a sphere of volume \(V\). We say that the system \(Z\) *computes* a function \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) within \(t\) seconds if whenever we set the stimuli to some value \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\), if we measure the output after \(t\) seconds then we obtain \(f(x)\).

One can then phrase the PECTT as stipulating that if there exists such a system \(Z\) that computes \(F\) within \(t\) seconds, then there exists a NAND-CIRC program that computes \(F\) and has at most \(\alpha(Vt)^2\) lines, where \(\alpha\) is some normalization constant.^{12} In particular, suppose that \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) is a function that requires \(2^n/(100n)>2^{0.8n}\) lines for any NAND-CIRC program (such a function exists by Theorem 5.9). Then the PECTT would imply that either the volume or the time of a system that computes \(F\) will have to be at least \(2^{0.2 n}/\sqrt{\alpha}\). Since this quantity grows *exponentially* in \(n\), it is not hard to set parameters so that even for moderately large values of \(n\), such a system could not fit in our universe.

To fully make the PECTT concrete, we need to decide on the units for measuring time and volume, and the normalization constant \(\alpha\). One conservative choice is to assume that we could squeeze computation to the absolute physical limits (which are many orders of magnitude beyond current technology). This corresponds to setting \(\alpha=1\) and using the Planck units for volume and time. The *Planck length* \(\ell_P\) (which is, roughly speaking, the shortest distance that can theoretically be measured) is roughly \(2^{-120}\) meters. The *Planck time* \(t_P\) (which is the time it takes for light to travel one Planck length) is about \(2^{-150}\) seconds. In the above setting, if a function \(F\) takes, say, 1KB of input (e.g., roughly \(10^4\) bits, which can encode a \(100\) by \(100\) bitmap image), and requires at least \(2^{0.8 n}= 2^{0.8 \cdot 10^4}\) NAND lines to compute, then any physical system that computes it would require either volume of \(2^{0.2\cdot 10^4}\) Planck length cubed, which is more than \(2^{1500}\) meters cubed or take at least \(2^{0.2 \cdot 10^4}\) Planck Time units, which is larger than \(2^{1500}\) seconds. To get a sense of how big that number is, note that the universe is only about \(2^{60}\) seconds old, and its observable radius is only roughly \(2^{90}\) meters. The above discussion suggests that it is possible to *empirically falsify* the PECTT by presenting a smaller-than-universe-size system that computes such a function.^{13}

### Attempts at refuting the PECTT

One of the admirable traits of mankind is the refusal to accept limitations. In the best case this is manifested by people achieving longstanding “impossible” challenges such as heavier-than-air flight, putting a person on the moon, circumnavigating the globe, or even resolving Fermat’s Last Theorem. In the worst case it is manifested by people continually following the footsteps of previous failures to try to do proven-impossible tasks such as build a perpetual motion machine, trisect an angle with a compass and straightedge, or refute Bell’s inequality. The Physical Extended Church Turing thesis (in its various forms) has attracted both types of people. Here are some physical devices that have been speculated to achieve computational tasks that cannot be done by not-too-large NAND-CIRC programs:

**Spaghetti sort:**One of the first lower bounds that Computer Science students encounter is that sorting \(n\) numbers requires making \(\Omega(n \log n)\) comparisons. The “spaghetti sort” is a description of a proposed “mechanical computer” that would do this faster. The idea is that to sort \(n\) numbers \(x_1,\ldots,x_n\), we could cut \(n\) spaghetti noodles into lengths \(x_1,\ldots,x_n\), and then if we simply hold them together in our hand and bring them down to a flat surface, they will emerge in sorted order. There are a great many reasons why this is not truly a challenge to the PECTT hypothesis, and I will not ruin the reader’s fun in finding them out by her or himself.**Soap bubbles:**One function \(F:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) that is conjectured to require a large number of NAND lines to solve is the*Euclidean Steiner Tree*problem. This is the problem where one is given \(m\) points in the plane \((x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_m,y_m)\) (say with integer coordinates ranging from \(1\) till \(m\), and hence the list can be represented as a string of \(n=O(m \log m)\) size) and some number \(K\). The goal is to figure out whether it is possible to connect all the points by line segments of total length at most \(K\). This function is conjectured to be hard because it is*NP complete*- a concept that we’ll encounter later in this course - and it is in fact reasonable to conjecture that as \(m\) grows, the number of NAND lines required to compute this function grows*exponentially*in \(m\), meaning that the PECTT would predict that if \(m\) is sufficiently large (such as few hundreds or so) then no physical device could compute \(F\). Yet, some people claimed that there is in fact a very simple physical device that could solve this problem, that can be constructed using some wooden pegs and soap. The idea is that if we take two glass plates, and put \(m\) wooden pegs between them in the locations \((x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_m,y_m)\) then bubbles will form whose edges touch those pegs in the way that will minimize the total energy which turns out to be a function of the total length of the line segments. The problem with this device of course is that nature, just like people, often gets stuck in “local optima”. That is, the resulting configuration will not be one that achieves the absolute minimum of the total energy but rather one that can’t be improved with local changes. Aaronson has carried out actual experiments (see Figure 5.5), and saw that while this device often is successful for three or four pegs, it starts yielding suboptimal results once the number of pegs grows beyond that.

**DNA computing.**People have suggested using the properties of DNA to do hard computational problems. The main advantage of DNA is the ability to potentially encode a lot of information in relatively small physical space, as well as compute on this information in a highly parallel manner. At the time of this writing, it was demonstrated that one can use DNA to store about \(10^{16}\) bits of information in a region of radius about milimiter, as opposed to about \(10^{10}\) bits with the best known hard disk technology. This does not posit a real challenge to the PECTT but does suggest that one should be conservative about the choice of constant and not assume that current hard disk + silicon technologies are the absolute best possible.^{14}**Continuous/real computers.**The physical world is often described using continuous quantities such as time and space, and people have suggested that analog devices might have direct access to computing with real-valued quantities and would be inherently more powerful than discrete models such as NAND machines. Whether the “true” physical world is continuous or discrete is an open question. In fact, we do not even know how to precisely*phrase*this question, let alone answer it. Yet, regardless of the answer, it seems clear that the effort to measure a continuous quantity grows with the level of accuracy desired, and so there is no “free lunch” or way to bypass the PECTT using such machines (see also this paper). Related to that are proposals known as “hypercomputing” or “Zeno’s computers” which attempt to use the continuity of time by doing the first operation in one second, the second one in half a second, the third operation in a quarter second and so on.. These fail for a similar reason to the one guaranteeing that Achilles will eventually catch the tortoise despite the original Zeno’s paradox.**Relativity computer and time travel.**The formulation above assumed the notion of time, but under the theory of relativity time is in the eye of the observer. One approach to solve hard problems is to leave the computer to run for a lot of time from*his*perspective, but to ensure that this is actually a short while from*our*perspective. One approach to do so is for the user to start the computer and then go for a quick jog at close to the speed of light before checking on its status. Depending on how fast one goes, few seconds from the point of view of the user might correspond to centuries in computer time (it might even finish updating its Windows operating system!). Of course the catch here is that the energy required from the user is proportional to how close one needs to get to the speed of light. A more interesting proposal is to use time travel via*closed timelike curves (CTCs)*. In this case we could run an arbitrarily long computation by doing some calculations, remembering the current state, and the travelling back in time to continue where we left off. Indeed, if CTCs exist then we’d probably have to revise the PECTT (though in this case I will simply travel back in time and edit these notes, so I can claim I never conjectured it in the first place…)**Humans.**Another computing system that has been proposed as a counterexample to the PECTT is a 3 pound computer of about 0.1m radius, namely the human brain. Humans can walk around, talk, feel, and do others things that are not commonly done by NAND-CIRC programs, but can they compute partial functions that NAND-CIRC programs cannot? There are certainly computational tasks that*at the moment*humans do better than computers (e.g., play some video games, at the moment), but based on our current understanding of the brain, humans (or other animals) have no*inherent*computational advantage over computers. The brain has about \(10^{11}\) neurons, each operating in a speed of about \(1000\) operations per seconds. Hence a rough first approximation is that a Boolean circuit of about \(10^{14}\) gates could simulate one second of a brain’s activity.^{15}Note that the fact that such a circuit (likely) exists does not mean it is easy to*find*it. After all, constructing this circuit took evolution billions of years. Much of the recent efforts in artificial intelligence research is focused on finding programs that replicate some of the brain’s capabilities and they take massive computational effort to discover, these programs often turn out to be much smaller than the pessimistic estimates above. For example, at the time of this writing, Google’s neural network for machine translation has about \(10^4\) nodes (and can be simulated by a NAND-CIRC program of comparable size). Philosophers, priests and many others have since time immemorial argued that there is something about humans that cannot be captured by mechanical devices such as computers; whether or not that is the case, the evidence is thin that humans can perform computational tasks that are inherently impossible to achieve by computers of similar complexity.^{16}**Quantum computation.**The most compelling attack on the Physical Extended Church Turing Thesis comes from the notion of*quantum computing*. The idea was initiated by the observation that systems with strong quantum effects are very hard to simulate on a computer. Turning this observation on its head, people have proposed using such systems to perform computations that we do not know how to do otherwise. At the time of this writing, Scalable quantum computers have not yet been built, but it is a fascinating possibility, and one that does not seem to contradict any known law of nature. We will discuss quantum computing in much more detail in Chapter 22. Modeling quantum computation involves extending the model of Boolean circuits into*Quantum circuits*that hvae one more (very special) gate. However, the main take away is that while quantum computing does suggest we need to amend the PECTT, it does*not*require a complete revision of our worldview. Indeed, almost all of the content of this course remains the same whether the underlying computational model is Boolean circuits or quantum circuits.

While even the precise phrasing of the PECTT, let alone understanding its correctness, is still a subject of research, some variant of it is already implicitly assumed in practice. A statement such as “this cryptosystem provides 128 bits of security” really means that **(a)** it is conjectured that there is no Boolean circuit (or, equivalently, a NAND gate) of size much smaller than \(2^{128}\) that can break the system,^{17} and **(b)** we assume that no other physical mechanism can do better, and hence it would take roughly a \(2^{128}\) amount of “resources” to break the system.

- We can think of programs both as describing a
*process*, as well as simply a list of symbols that can be considered as*data*that can be fed as input to other programs. - We can write a NAND-CIRC program that evaluates arbitrary NAND-CIRC programs (or equivalently a circuit that evaluates other circuits). Moreover, the efficiency loss in doing so is not too large.
- We can even write a NAND-CIRC program that evaluates programs in other programming languages such as Python, C, Lisp, Java, Go, etc.
- By a leap of faith, we could hypothesize that the number of gates in the smallest circuit that computes a function \(f\) captures roughly the amount of physical resources required to compute \(f\). This statement is known as the
*Physical Extended Church-Turing Thesis (PECTT)*. - Boolean circuits (or equivalently AON-CIRC or NAND-CIRC programs) capture a surprisingly wide array of computational models. The strongest currently known challenge to the PECTT comes from the potential for using quantum mechanical effects to speed-up computation, a model known as
*quantum computers*.

## Finite computation recap

The main take-aways from Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 are:

We can formally define the notion of a function \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}^m\) being computed using \(s\) basic operations. Whether these operations are AND/OR/NOT, NAND, or some other universal basis does not make much difference. We can describe such a computation either using a

*circuit*or using a*straight-line program*.*Every*function \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}^m\) can be computed using a circuit of*at most*\(O(m \cdot 2^n / n)\) gates.*Some*functions require*at least*\(\Omega(m \cdot 2^n /n)\) gates. We define \(\ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n,m}(s)\) to be the set of functions from \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}^m\) that can be computed using at most \(s\) gates.We can describe a circuit/program \(P\) as a string. For every \(s\), there is a

*universal*circuit/program \(U_s\) that can evaluate programs of length \(s\) given their description as strings. We use this representation also to prove that some functions cannot be computed by circuit of smaller-than-exponential size.If there is a circuit of \(s\) gates that computes a function \(f\), then we can build a physical device to compute \(f\) using about \(s\) components (such as transistors). If \(f\) is a function for which

*every*circuit requires at least \(s\) gates then the “Physical Extended Church-Turing Thesis” postulates that*every*physical device to compute \(f\) will require about \(s\) “physical resources”. The main challenge to the PECTT is*quantum computing*which we will discuss in Chapter 22.

## Exercises

Which one of the following statements is false:

There is an \(O(s^3)\) line NAND-CIRC program that given as input program \(P\) of \(s\) lines in the list-of-tuples representation computes the output of \(P\) when all its input are equal to \(1\).

There is an \(O(s^3)\) line NAND-CIRC program that given as input program \(P\) of \(s\) characters encoded as a string of \(7s\) bits using the ASCII encoding, computes the output of \(P\) when all its input are equal to \(1\).

There is an \(O(\sqrt{s})\) line NAND-CIRC program that given as input program \(P\) of \(s\) lines in the list-of-tuples representation computes the output of \(P\) when all its input are equal to \(1\).

For every \(k \in \N\), show that there is an \(O(k)\) line NAND-CIRC program that computes the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EQUALS}}_k:\{0,1\}^{2k} \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) where \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EQUALS}}(x,x')=1\) if and only if \(x=x'\).

For every \(k \in \N\) and \(x' \in \{0,1\}^k\), show that there is an \(O(k)\) line NAND-CIRC program that computes the function \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EQUALS}}_{x'} : \{0,1\}^k \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) that on input \(x\in \{0,1\}^k\) outputs \(1\) if and only if \(x=x'\).

Prove that there exist a number \(\epsilon>0\) such that for every \(n,m\) there exists a function \(f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}^m\) that requires at least \(\epsilon m \cdot 2^n / n\) NAND gates to compute. See footnote for hint.^{18}

Prove that there exists a number \(C\) such that for every \(n,m\) and \(s < m\cdot 2^n / (Cn)\) there exists a function \(f \in \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n,m}(C\cdot s) \setminus \ensuremath{\mathit{SIZE}}_{n,m}(s)\). See footnote for hint.^{19}

Suppose \(n>1000\) and that we choose a function \(F:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) at random, choosing for every \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\) the value \(F(x)\) to be the result of tossing an independent unbiased coin. Prove that the probability that there is a \(2^n/(1000n)\) line program that computes \(F\) is at most \(2^{-100}\).^{20}

The following is a tuple representing a NAND program: \((3, 1, ((3, 2, 2), (4, 1, 1), (5, 3, 4), (6, 2, 1), (7, 6, 6), (8, 0, 0), (9, 7, 8), (10, 5, 0), (11, 9, 10))\).

Write a table with the eight values \(P(000)\), \(P(001)\), \(P(010)\), \(P(011)\), \(P(100)\), \(P(101)\), \(P(110)\), \(P(111)\) in this order.

Describe what the programs does in words.

For every sufficiently large \(n\), let \(E_n:\{0,1\}^{n^2} \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) be the function that takes an \(n^2\)-length string that encodes a pair \((P,x)\) where \(x\in \{0,1\}^n\) and \(P\) is a NAND program of \(n\) inputs, a single output, and at most \(n^{1.1}\) lines, and returns the output of \(P\) on \(x\).^{21} That is, \(E_n(P,x)=P(x)\).

Prove that for every sufficiently large \(n\), there *does not exist* an XOR circuit \(C\) that computes the function \(E_n\), where a XOR circuit has the \(\ensuremath{\mathit{XOR}}\) gate as well as the constants \(0\) and \(1\) (see Exercise 3.3). That is, prove that there is some constant \(n_0\) such that for every \(n>n_0\) and XOR circuit \(C\) of \(n^2\) inputs and a single output, there exists a pair \((P,x)\) such that \(C(P,x) \neq E_n(P,x)\).

## Bibliographical notes

The \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}\) function is usually known as *universal circuit*. The implementation we describe is not the most efficient known. Valiant (Valiant, 1976) first showed a universal circuit of \(O(n \log n)\) size where \(n\) is the size of the input. Universal circuits have seen in recent years new motivations due to their applications for cryptography, see (Lipmaa, Mohassel, Sadeghian, 2016) (Günther, Kiss, Schneider, 2017) .

While we’ve seen that “most” functions mapping \(n\) bits to one bit require circuits of exponential size \(\Omega(2^n/n)\), we actually do not know of any *explicit* function for which we can *prove* that it requires, say, at least \(n^{100}\) or even \(100n\) size. At the moment, strongest such lower bound we know is that there are quite simple and explicit \(n\)-variable functions that require at least \((5-o(1))n\) lines to compute, see this paper of Iwama et al as well as this more recent work of Kulikov et al. Proving lower bounds for restricted models of circuits is an extremely interesting research area, for which Jukna’s book (Jukna, 2012) (see also Wegener (Wegener, 1987) ) provides very good introduction and overview.

Scott Aaronson’s blog post on how information is physical is a good discussion on issues related to the physical extended Church-Turing Physics. Aaronson’s survey on NP complete problems and physical reality is also a great source for some of these issues, though might be easier to read after we reach Chapter 14 on \(\mathbf{NP}\) and \(\mathbf{NP}\)-completeness.

If \(P \in \{0,1\}^S\) is a string that does not describe a valid program then we don’t care what \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}(P,x)\) is. For concreteness we can define \(\ensuremath{\mathit{EVAL}}_{s,n,m}(P,x)\) to equal \(0^m\) in such a case.

We will not use much about Python, and a reader that has familiarity with programming in any language should be able to follow along.

If you’re curious what these few lines are, see our GitHub repository.

The maximum value \(t\) can take is \(s+n\) and since every line touches at most two inputs, we can assume that \(s \geq n/2\) or \(n \leq 2s\) as otherwise there would be an input that is not used in any line of the program.

To keep things simple, we will not worry about the case that \(L\) does not represent a valid program of \(n\) inputs and \(m\) outputs. Also, there is nothing special about Python. We could have easily presented a corresponding function in JavaScript, C, OCaml, or any other programming language.

Python does not distinguish between lists and arrays, but allows constant time random access to an indexed elements to both of them. One could argue that if we allowed programs of truly unbounded length (e.g., larger than \(2^{64}\)) then the price would not be constant but logarithmic in the length of the array/lists, but the difference between \(O(s)\) and \(O(s \log s)\) will not be important for our discussions.

More concretely, if the Python program takes \(T(n)\) operations on inputs of length at most \(n\) then we can find a NAND-CIRC program of \(O(T(n) \log T(n))\) lines that agrees with the Python program on inputs of length \(n\).

ARM stands for “Advanced RISC Machine” where RISC in turn stands for “Reduced instruction set computer”.

By this we mean that for all sufficiently large \(s\), \(|Size(s)|\leq 2^{10s\log s}\).

Strictly speaking, the lists have length

*at most*\(s\), but we can always add “dummy instructions” to a program with smaller than \(s\) lines that would not modify its input/output behavior but ensure that its length is exactly \(s\).“Astronomical” here is an understatement: there are much fewer than \(2^{2^{10}}\) stars, or even particles, in the observable universe.

We can also consider variants where we use surface area instead of volume, or take \((Vt)\) to a different power than \(2\). However, none of these choices makes a qualitative difference to the discussion below.

There are of course several hurdles to refuting the PECTT in this way, one of which is that we can’t actually test the system on all possible inputs. However, it turns out that we can get around this issue using notions such as

*interactive proofs*and*program checking*that we might encounter later in this book. Another, perhaps more salient problem, is that while we know many hard functions exist, at the moment there is*no single explicit function*\(F:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\}\) for which we can*prove*an \(\omega(n)\) (let alone \(\Omega(2^n/n)\)) lower bound on the number of lines that a NAND-CIRC program needs to compute it.We were extremely conservative in the suggested parameters for the PECTT, having assumed that as many as \(\ell_P^{-2}10^{-6} \sim 10^{61}\) bits could potentially be stored in a milimeter radius region.

This is a very rough approximation that could be wrong to a few orders of magnitude in either direction. For one, there are other structures in the brain apart from neurons that one might need to simulate, hence requiring higher overhead. On the other hand, it is by no mean clear that we need to fully clone the brain in order to achieve the same computational tasks that it does.

There are some well known scientists that have advocated that humans have inherent computational advantages over computers. See also this.

We say “conjectured” and not “proved” because, while we can phrase such a statement as a precise mathematical conjecture, at the moment we are unable to

*prove*such a statement for any cryptosystem. This is related to the \(\mathbf{P}\) vs \(\mathbf{NP}\) question we will discuss in future chapters.How many functions from \(\{0,1\}^n\) to \(\{0,1\}^m\) exist?

Follow the proof of Theorem 5.11, replacing the use of the counting argument with Exercise 5.4.

**Hint:**An equivalent way to say this is that you need to prove that the set of functions that can be computed using at most \(2^n/(1000n)\) has fewer than \(2^{-100}2^{2^n}\) elements. Can you see why?Note that if \(n\) is big enough, then it is easy to represent such a pair using \(n^2\) bits, since we can represent the program using \(O(n^{1.1}\log n)\) bits, and we can always pad our representation to have exactly \(n^2\) length.

## Comments

Comments are posted on the GitHub repository using the utteranc.es app. A GitHub login is required to comment. If you don't want to authorize the app to post on your behalf, you can also comment directly on the GitHub issue for this page.

Compiled on 04/18/2019 14:47:44

Copyright 2019, Boaz Barak.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Produced using pandoc and panflute with templates derived from gitbook and bookdown.