There is some buzz about a new
construction of probabilistically
checkable proofs by Irit Dinur. The PCP theorem,
first proved by Arora, Lund, Motwani, Sudan and Szegedy in the early
90's, states that every language in NP has a proof that can be verified
randomly using O(log n) random bits and a constant number of
queries. The PCP theorem has had many applications to showing hardness
of approximation results and has had many improvements such as
Håstad's tight result that I highlighted
last year.
The previous proofs used considerable algebraic
techniques. Dinur takes a more combinatorial approach using a powering
and composition technique (inspired by Reingold and the zig-zag
product) to separate the gap in 3SAT without increasing
the number of variables.
An upcoming STOC paper
by Ben-Sasson and Sudan gives a PCP for SAT of only quasilinear size
but requiring polylogarithmic queries to verify the proof. Dinur, by
applying her construction to those PCPs, can now create
quasilinear-size proofs which only need a constant number of queries
for verification.
When reproving a known result TWO questions come to mind (maybe three, Maybe more)
1) Is the new proof DIFFERENT (in this case it seems to be yes)
2) Is the new proof EASIER (Can't tell. The abstract stresses that its combinatorial and self-contained but didn't say easier. Maybe thats one of those Pet Peeves someone has-- don't say its an easier proof, thats for the reader to decide.)
3) Does it yield NEW corollaries (in this case seems to be yes)
An EASIER proof of a known important result is VALUBALE, and I hope this is such. If so, I may finally get to teach the entire PCP theorem in my complexity class.
I don't see why (3) is so important. Simpler proofs are good for many reasons, including teaching. The faster we can pass knowledge to our students, the sooner they can start doing original work.