While this submission is a draft, it cannot be used by other submissions.

Agreement among many decoded tables

Lax253009.ManyTableConsistency · concepts/Lax253009/ManyTableConsistency.lean · lax-253009

proven

Loading review…

Sign in with ORCID

Community review

Flags

Each flag is tied to a public ORCID identity and explains why this concept may be incorrect.

No flags have been submitted.

    Community review

    Flag this concept

    State precisely what appears incorrect. This explanation will be public under your ORCID name.

    No source line selected.

    Natural Language Statement

    Theorem

    The finite counting argument behind Lemmas 5.7 and 5.8. Each independently sampled table supplies at most BB projected assignments, and each fixed assignment occurs with probability at most pp. A selection with at most kk distinct assignments forces all remaining tables to meet the union of at most kk representative tables. Random Boolean functions are unlikely to be constant on a selection with many distinct assignments.

    These bounds concern finite probability spaces. They do not assert a PCP construction or its computational complexity.

    Concept map
    2 concepts; 7 descendants hidden
    100%
    Proven claimThis conceptRelated conceptA → B: B builds on A
    Evidence

    This concept declares 2 statements. Each proof establishes one of them relative to its assumptions.

    Lean source view on GitHub

    1import Lax253009.FiniteProbability
    2import Mathlib.Data.Fintype.Pi
    3import Mathlib.Data.Finset.Powerset
    4
    5/-!
    6---
    7title: Agreement among many decoded tables
    8type: theorem
    9---
    10The finite counting argument behind Lemmas 5.7 and 5.8. Each independently
    11sampled table supplies at most BB projected assignments, and each fixed
    12assignment occurs with probability at most pp. A selection with at most
    13kk distinct assignments forces all remaining tables to meet the union
    14of at most kk representative tables. Random Boolean functions are unlikely
    15to be constant on a selection with many distinct assignments.
    16
    17These bounds concern finite probability spaces. They do not assert a PCP
    18construction or its computational complexity.
    19-/
    20
    21namespace Lax253009.ManyTableConsistency
    22
    23open FiniteProbability
    24
    25def LowDiversity {ι Ω X : Type} [Fintype ι] [DecidableEq X]
    26 (S : Ω → Finset X) (k : ℕ) (w : ι → Ω) : Prop :=
    27 ∃ y : ι → X, (∀ i, y i ∈ S (w i)) ∧ (Finset.univ.image y).card ≤ k
    28
    29def Agreement {ι Ω X : Type} (S : Ω → Finset X) (q : ℕ)
    30 (w : ι → Ω) (g : Fin q → X → Bool) : Prop :=
    31 ∃ y : ι → X, (∀ i, y i ∈ S (w i)) ∧ ∀ j, ∃ b, ∀ i, g j (y i) = b
    32
    33axiom low_diversity_bound {ι Ω X : Type} [Fintype ι] [DecidableEq ι]
    34 [Fintype Ω] [Nonempty Ω] [Fintype X] [DecidableEq X]
    35 (S : Ω → Finset X) (B k : ℕ) (p : ℝ) (hp : 0 ≤ p)
    36 (hB : ∀ w, (S w).card ≤ B)
    37 (hpoint : ∀ x, probability (fun w ↦ x ∈ S w) ≤ p)
    38 (hsmall : (Fintype.card ι : ℝ) * B * p ≤ 1) :
    39 probability (LowDiversity (ι := ι) S k) ≤
    40 (2 : ℝ) ^ Fintype.card ι * ((Fintype.card ι : ℝ) * B * p) ^ (Fintype.card ι - k)
    41
    42axiom agreement_bound {ι Ω X : Type} [Fintype ι] [DecidableEq ι]
    43 [Fintype Ω] [Nonempty Ω] [Fintype X] [DecidableEq X]
    44 (S : Ω → Finset X) (B k q : ℕ) (p : ℝ) (hp : 0 ≤ p)
    45 (hB : ∀ w, (S w).card ≤ B)
    46 (hpoint : ∀ x, probability (fun w ↦ x ∈ S w) ≤ p)
    47 (hsmall : (Fintype.card ι : ℝ) * B * p ≤ 1) :
    48 probability (fun z : (ι → Ω) × (Fin q → X → Bool) ↦ Agreement S q z.1 z.2) ≤
    49 (2 : ℝ) ^ Fintype.card ι * ((Fintype.card ι : ℝ) * B * p) ^ (Fintype.card ι - k) +
    50 (B : ℝ) ^ Fintype.card ι * (2 * (1 / 2 : ℝ) ^ (k + 1)) ^ q
    51
    52end Lax253009.ManyTableConsistency
    53
    Show ProofShow Proof

    Discussion

    Ask a question or add context. Endorsements and structured flags are kept in the review panel above.

    Loading discussion…