Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper establishes that syntactic separation leads to computational indistinguishability by demonstrating that local syntactic systems can enforce significant derivation-length lower bounds when Skolem functions are syntactically separated. Specifically, it shows that proving the equivalence of such functions requires at least Omega(n) steps, which can be improved to Omega(2^n) under certain encoding conditions. These findings not only introduce new bounds in the context of Skolemization and saturation proving but also connect to broader implications in cryptography and complexity theory, particularly regarding barriers like Natural Proofs and AC^0.
Syntactic separation not only guarantees computational indistinguishability but also reveals new, exponential lower bounds on derivation lengths that challenge existing paradigms in cryptography and complexity theory.
We prove that syntactic separation implies computational indistinguishability. A local syntactic system R acts on terms within radius r0 without consulting any model; when two Skolem functions are syntactically separated in R, no derivation can prove their equivalence (Case 1), and any sound local extension requires Omega(n) steps, improving to Omega(2^n) under clause-per-configuration encoding (Case 2). Both bounds are new: the derivation-length lower bound does not appear in prior work on Skolemization or saturation proving, and the cryptographic reading, syntactic separation as ciphertext indistinguishability, derivation cost as negligible advantage, is original. The same obstruction, as formal instances of Case 1 and Case 2, governs the Natural Proofs barrier of Razborov and Rudich, the Type Omitting Theorem, and the unconditional AC^0 barrier of Loff et al. (2026).
