In my experience this exponential expression blow-up is less the result of the approach of decomposing into a minimum of primitives, but rather a result from repetition in expression trees:

If we make the analogy from Bertrand Russel's Principia Mathematica, he derived fully expanded expressions, i.e. trees where the leaves only may refer to the same literals, everyone claimed this madness underscored how formal verification of natural mathematics was a fools errand, but nevertheless we see successful projects like metamath (us.metamath.org) where this exponential blow-up does not occur. It is easy to see why: instead of representing proofs as full trees, the proofs are represented as DAG's. The same optimization would be required for EML to prevent exponential blow-up.

Put differently: if we allow extra buttons besides {1, EML} for example to capture unary functions the authors mentally add an 'x' button so now the RPN calculator has {1, EML, x}; but wait if you want multivariate functions it becomes an RPN calculator with extra buttons {1, EML, x,y,z} for example.

But why stop there? in metamath proofs are compressed: if an expression or wff was proven before in the same proof, it first subproof is given a number, and any subsequent invocations of this N'th subproof refers to this number. Why only recall input parameters x,y,z but not recall earlier computed values/functions?

In fact every proof in metamath set.mm that uses this DAG compressibility, could be split into the main proof and the repeatedly used substatements could be automatically converted to explicitly separate lemma proofs, in which case metamath could dispose of the single-proof DAG compression (but it would force proofs to split up into lemma's + main proof.

None of the proven theorems in metamath's set.mm displays the feared exponential blowup.

> Multiplication alone requires depth-8 trees with 41+ leaves i.e. minimal operator vocabulary trades off against expression length.

That is sort of comparable to how NAND simplify scaling.

Division is hell on gates.

The single component was the reason scaling went like it did.

There was only one gate structure which had to improve to make chips smaller - if a chip used 3 different kinds, then the scaling would've required more than one parallel innovation to go (sort of like how LED lighting had to wait for blue).

If you need two or more components, then you have to keep switching tools instead of hammer, hammer, hammer.

Link to your work?

The Cray 1 was built 100% from NOR gates and SRAM.

They are done with transistors though. Transistors form an efficient, single element, universal digital basis.

And are a much less arbitrary choice than NAND, vs. NOR, XOR, etc.

Using transistors as conceptual digital logic primitives, where power dissipation isn't a thing, Pass Logic is "The Way".

consider how a wavefunction might be stored for numerically searching the ground state of a molecule, or a crystal lattice, humans appreciate 2D imagery that is about 1 kilopixel x 1 kilopixel; so expanding this to 3 dimensions that means the wavefunction would have to store 10 ^ 9 complex numbers (easily 4 GB at 16 bit precision for real and imaginary compnents so 4 bytes per complex number), do we really believe that a DAG variant of the EML construction would consume a bigger value to represent the analytically correct solution? do we really believe that the 4GB DAG variant of EML would produce a less accurate representation (i.e. less fidelity with the schroedinger equation?) If the ground state hydrogen atom is any indication, my money is on EML-style constructions, not naive 3D arrays modelling the wavefunction by brute force.

This also re-opens a lot of "party pooper" results in mathematics: impossibility of representing solutions to general quintic (fine print: if we restrict ourselves to arithmetic and roots/radicals). In mathematics and physics there have been a lot of "party pooper" results which later found more profound and interesting positive results by properly rephrasing the question. A negative result for a myopic question isn't very informative on its own.

The URL is already pointing at v2, which apparently is the newest one requested by the comment above.

> Submitted on 23 Mar 2026 (v1), last revised 4 Apr 2026 (this version, v2)

IMO arxiv links should pretty much always be to the abstract (ie .../abs/...) as opposed to particular versions of the html or pdf.