DOCSLIB.ORG

Nonrelativizing Separations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nonrelativizing Separations Nonrelativizing Separations y z Harry Buhrman Lance Fortnow Thomas Thierauf CWI Dept. of Computer Science Abt. Theoretische Informatik University of Chicago Universit¨at Ulm PO Box 94079 1100 E. 58th St. Oberer Eselsberg 1090 GB Amsterdam Chicago, IL 60637 89069 Ulm The Netherlands USA Germany Abstract helpus decide where andhow toput oureffortsintosolving We show that MAEXP, the exponential time version of problems in complexity theory. It is still true that virtually the Merlin-Arthurclass, does not have polynomial size cir- all of the theorems in computational complexity theory that cuits. This significantlyimproves the previous known result have reasonable relativizations do relativize (see [For94]). due to Kannan since we furthermore show that our result But we do have a small number of exceptions that arise does not relativize. This is the first separation result in com- from the area of interactive proofs. These results have pre- plexity theory that does not relativize. As a corollary to our viously always taken the form of collapses such as IP separation result we also obtain that PEXP, the exponen- PSPACE [LFKN92, Sha92], MIP NEXP [BFL91] and + O O log n tial time version of PP is not in Ppol y . PCP NP [ALM 92]. In this paper we give the first reasonable nonrel- 1 Introduction ativizing separation results. Namely, we show that Baker, Gill and Solovay [BGS75] noticed that the re- there exist languages in MAEXP, a one-round Merlin- sults proven in computational complexity theory relativize, Arthur game [BM88] with an exponential-time verifier, i.e. the proofs go through virtually unchanged if all of the that cannot have polynomial-size circuits, in other words, pol y machines involved have access to the same information via MAEXP P . On the other hand, we then cre- an oracle. They then developed relativized worlds where ate a relativized world where every MAEXP language has pol y P NP and P NP and thus argued that the current tech- polynomial-size circuits, i.e., MAEXP P . niques in complexity theory could not settle this question. Paul, Pippenger, Szemer´edi and Trotter [PPST83] show More than two decades later, relativization still plays a separation of nondeterministiclinear time from determin- in important role in complexity theory. Though no longer istic linear time where one can create a relativized world believed to be any form of an independence result, they do where these two classes coincide. However, both the sepa- ration and the oracle heavily depend on the machine model Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.cwi.nl/˜buhrman. Par- where our results are model independent. tially supported by the Dutch foundation for scientific research (NWO) by SION project 612-34-002, and by the European Union through Neu- We can strengthen our oracle to work for MIPEXP, the roCOLT ESPRIT Working Group Nr. 8556, and HC&M grant nr. languages accepted by multiple prover interactive proof ERB4050PL93-0516. systems [BGKW88] with an exponential-time verifier. In y Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/˜fortnow. Work done while on leave at fact, besides having small circuits, relative to our oracle NP CWI. Email: [email protected]. Supported in part by NSF grant MIPEXP languages can be accepted in P and in P. CCR 92-53582, the Dutch Foundationfor Scientific Research (NWO) and Since these classes are contained in MIPEXP, we get a rel- a Fulbright Scholar award. z Email: [email protected]. URL: http://hermes.informatik.uni-ulm.de/ti/Personen/tt.html. M x ativized world where Let represent the number of accepting compu- x tations of a nondeterministic Turing machine M , and NP pol y MIPEXP P P P M x M x R the number of rejecting computations of . A language L is in P if there exists a polynomial-time This contrasts greatly with the situation in the unrelativized x nondeterministic Turing machine M such that for all , world where we have L M x NP x is odd P P PSPACE EXPSPACE A language L is in PP if there exists a polynomial-time M x NEEXP nondeterministic Turing machine such that for all , MIPEXP x L M x M x R where NEEXP is nondeterministic double exponential PEXP is the exponential-time version of PP, i.e., the time. polynomial-time nondeterministic Turing machine in the Our proof that MAEXP does not lie in P pol y uses the definition of PP is nondeterministic exponential-time. result of Babai, Fortnow, Nisan and Wigderson [BFNW93] A language L is in MA if there exists a probabilistic that if EXP has polynomial-size circuits then EXP MA. q n polynomial time Turing machine M and a polynomial Since this is the only part of the proof that does not rel- such that ativize, our paper gives the first oracle where this Babai- q (jxj) x L y PrM x y Fortnow-Nisan-Wigderson result does not relativize. accepts , As a corollaryto our separation result we also obtainthe and separation between PEXP, the exponential time version of q (jxj) x L y Pr M x y accepts . PP, and P pol y . Finding nonrelativizing results like these allows us to better understand the importance and limita- This corresponds to the Merlin-Arthur games due to Babai tions of relativization and gives us new ideas on how to and Moran [BM88]. prove other nonrelativizing results. We also consider multiple-prover interactive proof sys- 2 Preliminaries tems as developed by Ben-Or, Goldwasser, Kilian and Wigderson [BGKW88]. In this model, the verifier can ask hx x i k We use 1 to be any polynomial-time com- questions of several provers that are unable to communi- putable and invertible tupling function. For a language A, cate with each other. Babai, Fortnow and Lund [BFL91] A we denote the characteristic function of A as . We assume the reader familiar with basic notations in show that the class, MIP, of languages provable by such complexity theory and classes such as P and NP. We let systems is equal to NEXP. O (1) O (1) n n We use MAEXP and MIPEXP to represent the Merlin- EXP DTIME and NEXP NTIME . Arthur games and multiple-prover interactive proof sys- The class Ppol y consists of languages accepted by k n a family of polynomial-size circuits or equivalently a tems where we allow the verifier to use time for some polynomial-time Turing machine given a polynomially- fixed k . In particular, the provers can send messages up to length advice that depends only on the length of the input. this length to the verifier. pol y A More formally, L P if there exist P and a 3 A Nonrelativizable Separation N polynomially length bounded function h such The computational power of polynomial-size circuits, that for all x Ppol y , is an interesting issue. In particular, whether one can solve all sets in NP within Ppol y is still an open ques- x L hx hjxji A tion, although there are strong indications that this is not jxj The value h is called the advice for strings of length possible: otherwise the polynomial hierarchy collapses to p xj j . [KL80]. 2 2 With respect to absolute separations, Kannan [Kan82] But this contradicts Theorem 3.1. 2 showed that there are sets in NEXPNP that cannot be com- The same proof works for MAEXP coMAEXP instead puted by polynomial-size circuits. of just MAEXP. Then we need the form of Kannan’s result Theorem 3.1 (Kannan) as stated in Theorem 3.1. NP NP pol y NEXP coNEXP P . pol y Corollary 3.5 MAEXP coMAEXP P . We improve Kannan’s result and show that there are sets Vereshchagin [Ver92] shows that MA is in PP. By in MA that cannot be computed by polynomial-sizecir- EXP padding analogously to the proof of Lemma 3.3 this im- cuits. We use the followingresult of Babai, Fortnow, Nisan plies that MAEXP PEXP. and Wigderson [BFNW93]. pol y Corollary 3.6 PEXP P . Theorem 3.2 (BFNW) pol y EXP P EXP MA. 4 Relativized Collapse In order to prove the separation result we will also need In this section we show that our separation result from the following lemma. the previous section does not relativize. This is the first known example of a non-relativizing separation result. Lemma 3.3 NP NP A NP MA NEXP MAEXP. Theorem 4.1 There exists an oracle such that A NP A pol y Proof: Let A be a set in NEXP , and let this be MAEXP P witnessed by an alternating Turing machine that runs in M Proof: Let i be an enumeration of potential verifiers, p(n) p time for some polynomial . Consider the following n i.e., probabilisticTuring machines, that run in time . Itis padded version of A: sufficient to encode just these machines: for verifiers that p(jxj) k 2 n fhx i j x Ag A use time we can use padding to reduce the language to n a verifier that uses time. NP It follows that A is in NP and by assumption is in MA. We first describe how to encode inputs of a single This however impliesthat removing the padding yields that length. Later we will show how to combine lengths. For 2 A MAEXP. inputsof length n, we will encode languages proven to ver- M We are now ready to prove our separation result. M n ifiers 1 . hr i xi The strings in our oracle A will be of the form , pol y Theorem 3.4 MAEXP P .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jonas Kvarnström Automated Planning Group Department of Computer and Information Science Linköping University
    Jonas Kvarnström Automated Planning Group Department of Computer and Information Science Linköping University What is the complexity of plan generation? . How much time and space (memory) do we need? Vague question – let’s try to be more specific… . Assume an infinite set of problem instances ▪ For example, “all classical planning problems” . Analyze all possible algorithms in terms of asymptotic worst case complexity . What is the lowest worst case complexity we can achieve? . What is asymptotic complexity? ▪ An algorithm is in O(f(n)) if there is an algorithm for which there exists a fixed constant c such that for all n, the time to solve an instance of size n is at most c * f(n) . Example: Sorting is in O(n log n), So sorting is also in O( ), ▪ We can find an algorithm in O( ), and so on. for which there is a fixed constant c such that for all n, If we can do it in “at most ”, the time to sort n elements we can do it in “at most ”. is at most c * n log n Some problem instances might be solved faster! If the list happens to be sorted already, we might finish in linear time: O(n) But for the entire set of problems, our guarantee is O(n log n) So what is “a planning problem of size n”? Real World + current problem Abstraction Language L Approximation Planning Problem Problem Statement Equivalence P = (, s0, Sg) P=(O,s0,g) The input to a planner Planner is a problem statement The size of the problem statement depends on the representation! Plan a1, a2, …, an PDDL: How many characters are there in the domain and problem files? Now: The complexity of PLAN-EXISTENCE .
    [Show full text]
  • EXPSPACE-Hardness of Behavioural Equivalences of Succinct One
    EXPSPACE-hardness of behavioural equivalences of succinct one-counter nets Petr Janˇcar1 Petr Osiˇcka1 Zdenˇek Sawa2 1Dept of Comp. Sci., Faculty of Science, Palack´yUniv. Olomouc, Czech Rep. [email protected], [email protected] 2Dept of Comp. Sci., FEI, Techn. Univ. Ostrava, Czech Rep. [email protected] Abstract We note that the remarkable EXPSPACE-hardness result in [G¨oller, Haase, Ouaknine, Worrell, ICALP 2010] ([GHOW10] for short) allows us to answer an open complexity ques- tion for simulation preorder of succinct one counter nets (i.e., one counter automata with no zero tests where counter increments and decrements are integers written in binary). This problem, as well as bisimulation equivalence, turn out to be EXPSPACE-complete. The technique of [GHOW10] was referred to by Hunter [RP 2015] for deriving EXPSPACE-hardness of reachability games on succinct one-counter nets. We first give a direct self-contained EXPSPACE-hardness proof for such reachability games (by adjust- ing a known PSPACE-hardness proof for emptiness of alternating finite automata with one-letter alphabet); then we reduce reachability games to (bi)simulation games by using a standard “defender-choice” technique. 1 Introduction arXiv:1801.01073v1 [cs.LO] 3 Jan 2018 We concentrate on our contribution, without giving a broader overview of the area here. A remarkable result by G¨oller, Haase, Ouaknine, Worrell [2] shows that model checking a fixed CTL formula on succinct one-counter automata (where counter increments and decre- ments are integers written in binary) is EXPSPACE-hard. Their proof is interesting and nontrivial, and uses two involved results from complexity theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity Zoo
    The Complexity Zoo Scott Aaronson www.ScottAaronson.com LATEX Translation by Chris Bourke [email protected] 417 classes and counting 1 Contents 1 About This Document 3 2 Introductory Essay 4 2.1 Recommended Further Reading ......................... 4 2.2 Other Theory Compendia ............................ 5 2.3 Errors? ....................................... 5 3 Pronunciation Guide 6 4 Complexity Classes 10 5 Special Zoo Exhibit: Classes of Quantum States and Probability Distribu- tions 110 6 Acknowledgements 116 7 Bibliography 117 2 1 About This Document What is this? Well its a PDF version of the website www.ComplexityZoo.com typeset in LATEX using the complexity package. Well, what’s that? The original Complexity Zoo is a website created by Scott Aaronson which contains a (more or less) comprehensive list of Complexity Classes studied in the area of theoretical computer science known as Computa- tional Complexity. I took on the (mostly painless, thank god for regular expressions) task of translating the Zoo’s HTML code to LATEX for two reasons. First, as a regular Zoo patron, I thought, “what better way to honor such an endeavor than to spruce up the cages a bit and typeset them all in beautiful LATEX.” Second, I thought it would be a perfect project to develop complexity, a LATEX pack- age I’ve created that defines commands to typeset (almost) all of the complexity classes you’ll find here (along with some handy options that allow you to conveniently change the fonts with a single option parameters). To get the package, visit my own home page at http://www.cse.unl.edu/~cbourke/.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.2 Intractable Problems -- NP Problems
    Algorithms for Data Processing Lecture VIII: Intractable Problems–NP Problems Alessandro Artale Free University of Bozen-Bolzano [email protected] of Computer Science http://www.inf.unibz.it/˜artale 2019/20 – First Semester MSc in Computational Data Science — UNIBZ Some material (text, figures) displayed in these slides is courtesy of: Alberto Montresor, Werner Nutt, Kevin Wayne, Jon Kleinberg, Eva Tardos. A. Artale Algorithms for Data Processing Definition. P = set of decision problems for which there exists a poly-time algorithm. Problems and Algorithms – Decision Problems The Complexity Theory considers so called Decision Problems. • s Decision• Problem. X Input encoded asX a finite“yes” binary string ; • Decision ProblemA : Is conceived asX a set of strings on whichs the answer to the decision problem is ; yes if s ∈ X Algorithm for a decision problemA s receives an input string , and no if s 6∈ X ( ) = A. Artale Algorithms for Data Processing Problems and Algorithms – Decision Problems The Complexity Theory considers so called Decision Problems. • s Decision• Problem. X Input encoded asX a finite“yes” binary string ; • Decision ProblemA : Is conceived asX a set of strings on whichs the answer to the decision problem is ; yes if s ∈ X Algorithm for a decision problemA s receives an input string , and no if s 6∈ X ( ) = Definition. P = set of decision problems for which there exists a poly-time algorithm. A. Artale Algorithms for Data Processing Towards NP — Efficient Verification • • The issue here is the3-SAT contrast between finding a solution Vs. checking a proposed solution.I ConsiderI for example : We do not know a polynomial-time algorithm to find solutions; but Checking a proposed solution can be easily done in polynomial time (just plug 0/1 and check if it is a solution).
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Complexity Theory
    500 COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY A. M. Turing, Collected Works: Mathematical Logic, R. O. Gandy and C. E. M. Yates (eds.), Amsterdam, The Nethrelands: Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 2001. S. BARRY COOPER University of Leeds Leeds, United Kingdom COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY Complexity theory is the part of theoretical computer science that attempts to prove that certain transformations from input to output are impossible to compute using a reasonable amount of resources. Theorem 1 below illus- trates the type of ‘‘impossibility’’ proof that can sometimes be obtained (1); it talks about the problem of determining whether a logic formula in a certain formalism (abbreviated WS1S) is true. Theorem 1. Any circuit of AND,OR, and NOT gates that takes as input a WS1S formula of 610 symbols and outputs a bit that says whether the formula is true must have at least 10125gates. This is a very compelling argument that no such circuit will ever be built; if the gates were each as small as a proton, such a circuit would fill a sphere having a diameter of 40 billion light years! Many people conjecture that somewhat similar intractability statements hold for the problem of factoring 1000-bit integers; many public-key cryptosys- tems are based on just such assumptions. It is important to point out that Theorem 1 is specific to a particular circuit technology; to prove that there is no efficient way to compute a function, it is necessary to be specific about what is performing the computation. Theorem 1 is a compelling proof of intractability precisely because every deterministic computer that can be pur- Yu.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Debate Checking
    Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity, Report No. 16 (2014) The Complexity of Debate Checking H. G¨okalp Demirci1, A. C. Cem Say2 and Abuzer Yakaryılmaz3,∗ 1University of Chicago, Department of Computer Science, Chicago, IL, USA 2Bo˘gazi¸ci University, Department of Computer Engineering, Bebek 34342 Istanbul,˙ Turkey 3University of Latvia, Faculty of Computing, Raina bulv. 19, R¯ıga, LV-1586 Latvia [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] Keywords: incomplete information debates, private alternation, games, probabilistic computation Abstract We study probabilistic debate checking, where a silent resource-bounded verifier reads a di- alogue about the membership of a given string in the language under consideration between a prover and a refuter. We consider debates of partial and zero information, where the prover is prevented from seeing some or all of the messages of the refuter, as well as those of com- plete information. This model combines and generalizes the concepts of one-way interactive proof systems, games of possibly incomplete information, and probabilistically checkable debate systems. We give full characterizations of the classes of languages with debates checkable by verifiers operating under simultaneous bounds of O(1) space and O(1) random bits. It turns out such verifiers are strictly more powerful than their deterministic counterparts, and allowing a logarithmic space bound does not add to this power. PSPACE and EXPTIME have zero- and partial-information debates, respectively, checkable by constant-space verifiers for any desired error bound when we omit the randomness bound. No amount of randomness can give a ver- ifier under only a fixed time bound a significant performance advantage over its deterministic counterpart.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Complexity Classes
    Introduction to Complexity Classes Marcin Sydow Introduction to Complexity Classes Marcin Sydow Introduction Denition to Complexity Classes TIME(f(n)) TIME(f(n)) denotes the set of languages decided by Marcin deterministic TM of TIME complexity f(n) Sydow Denition SPACE(f(n)) denotes the set of languages decided by deterministic TM of SPACE complexity f(n) Denition NTIME(f(n)) denotes the set of languages decided by non-deterministic TM of TIME complexity f(n) Denition NSPACE(f(n)) denotes the set of languages decided by non-deterministic TM of SPACE complexity f(n) Linear Speedup Theorem Introduction to Complexity Classes Marcin Sydow Theorem If L is recognised by machine M in time complexity f(n) then it can be recognised by a machine M' in time complexity f 0(n) = f (n) + (1 + )n, where > 0. Blum's theorem Introduction to Complexity Classes Marcin Sydow There exists a language for which there is no fastest algorithm! (Blum - a Turing Award laureate, 1995) Theorem There exists a language L such that if it is accepted by TM of time complexity f(n) then it is also accepted by some TM in time complexity log(f (n)). Basic complexity classes Introduction to Complexity Classes Marcin (the functions are asymptotic) Sydow P S TIME nj , the class of languages decided in = j>0 ( ) deterministic polynomial time NP S NTIME nj , the class of languages decided in = j>0 ( ) non-deterministic polynomial time EXP S TIME 2nj , the class of languages decided in = j>0 ( ) deterministic exponential time NEXP S NTIME 2nj , the class of languages decided
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Complexity
    Computational complexity Plan Complexity of a computation. Complexity classes DTIME(T (n)). Relations between complexity classes. Complete problems. Domino problems. NP-completeness. Complete problems for other classes Alternating machines. – p.1/17 Complexity of a computation A machine M is T (n) time bounded if for every n and word w of size n, every computation of M has length at most T (n). A machine M is S(n) space bounded if for every n and word w of size n, every computation of M uses at most S(n) cells of the working tape. Fact: If M is time or space bounded then L(M) is recursive. If L is recursive then there is a time and space bounded machine recognizing L. DTIME(T (n)) = fL(M) : M is det. and T (n) time boundedg NTIME(T (n)) = fL(M) : M is T (n) time boundedg DSPACE(S(n)) = fL(M) : M is det. and S(n) space boundedg NSPACE(S(n)) = fL(M) : M is S(n) space boundedg . – p.2/17 Hierarchy theorems A function S(n) is space constructible iff there is S(n)-bounded machine that given w writes aS(jwj) on the tape and stops. A function T (n) is time constructible iff there is a machine that on a word of size n makes exactly T (n) steps. Thm: Let S2(n) be a space-constructible function and let S1(n) ≥ log(n). If S1(n) lim infn!1 = 0 S2(n) then DSPACE(S2(n)) − DSPACE(S1(n)) is nonempty. Thm: Let T2(n) be a time-constructible function and let T1(n) log(T1(n)) lim infn!1 = 0 T2(n) then DTIME(T2(n)) − DTIME(T1(n)) is nonempty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Tiling Problems
    The Complexity of Tiling Problems Fran¸cois Schwarzentruber Univ Rennes, CNRS, IRISA, France August 22, 2019 Abstract In this document, we collected the most important complexity results of tilings. We also propose a definition of a so-called deterministic set of tile types, in order to capture deterministic classes without the notion of games. We also pinpoint tiling problems complete for respectively LOGSPACE and NLOGSPACE. 1 Introduction As advocated by van der Boas [15], tilings are convenient to prove lower complexity bounds. In this document, we show that tilings of finite rectangles with Wang tiles [16] enable to capture many standard complexity classes: FO (the class of decision problems defined by a first-order formula, see [9]), LOGSPACE, NLOGSPACE, P, NP, Pspace, Exptime, NExptime, k-Exptime and k-Expspace, for k ≥ 1. This document brings together many results of the literature. We recall some results from [15]. The setting is close to Tetravex [13], but the difference is that we allow a tile to be used several times. That is why we will the terminology tile types. We also recall the results by Chlebus [6] on tiling games, but we simplify the framework since we suppose that players alternate at each row (and not at each time they put a tile). The first contribution consists in capturing deterministic time classes with an existence of a tiling, and without any game notions. We identify a syntactic class of set of tiles, called deterministic set of tiles. For this, we have slightly adapted the definition of the encoding of executions of Turing machines given in [15].
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Computational Complexity Theory Fall 2015 Problem Set #2 V
    15-855: An Introduction to Computational Complexity Theory Fall 2015 Problem Set #2 V. Guruswami & M. Wootters Due on October 8, 2015 (in class, or by email to [email protected]). Instructions: Same as for problem set 1. Pick any 6 problems to solve out of the 8 problems. If you turn in solutions to more than 6 problems, we will take your top 6 scoring problems. 1. \Karp-Lipton variant." If EXP ⊆ P=poly, then EXP = Σ2. Hint: For any L 2 EXP with an exponential time TM M deciding L, using the hypothesis, guess a circuit that computes any cell of the computation tableau of M on input x, and use it to decide whether x 2 L in Σ2. 2. \Circuit lower bounds." S nc (a) Define EXPSPACE = c≥1 SPACE(2 ). Prove that EXPSPACE 6⊆ P=poly, i.e., exponen- tial space does not admit polynomial-sized circuits. (b) Prove that for every fixed integer k ≥ 1, PH 6⊆ SIZE(nk). P P k (c) Strengthen the above result to Σ2 \ Π2 6⊆ SIZE(n ) for any k ≥ 1. (Hint: Karp-Lipton Theorem.) 3. \PH big ) PH small.": Show that PH = PSPACE ) PH = Σk for some finite k 2 N. 4. \Easy decision, hard counting." A Boolean formula is \monotone" if it uses only ANDs and ORs: no negations. Show that #MONOTONE-SAT (counting the number of satisfying assignments to a given monotone formula) is #P-complete. 5. \Toda's theorem for NP via linear codes" Let K = 2n and N = 2n2 , and let us say that a K × NG(n) with 0-1 entries is nice if (n) O(1) • Given i; j, the entry Gi;j can be computed in n time.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity Theory
    Complexity Theory Jan Kretˇ ´ınsky´ Chair for Foundations of Software Reliability and Theoretical Computer Science Technical University of Munich Summer 2019 Partially based on slides by Jorg¨ Kreiker Lecture 1 Introduction Agenda • computational complexity and two problems • your background and expectations • organization • basic concepts • teaser • summary Computational Complexity • quantifying the efficiency of computations • not: computability, descriptive complexity, . • computation: computing a function f : f0; 1g∗ ! f0; 1g∗ • everything else matter of encoding • model of computation? • efficiency: how many resources used by computation • time: number of basic operations with respect to input size • space: memory usage person does not get along with • largest party? Jack James, John, Kate • naive computation James Jack, Hugo, Sayid • John Jack, Juliet, Sun check all sets of people for compatibility Kate Jack, Claire, Jin • number of subsets of n Hugo James, Claire, Sun element set is2 n Claire Hugo, Kate, Juliet • intractable Juliet John, Sayid, Claire • can we do better? Sun John, Hugo, Jin • observation: for a given set Sayid James, Juliet, Jin compatibility checking is easy Jin Sayid, Sun, Kate Dinner Party Example (Dinner Party) You want to throw a dinner party. You have a list of pairs of friends who do not get along. What is the largest party you can throw such that you do not invite any two who don’t get along? • largest party? • naive computation • check all sets of people for compatibility • number of subsets of n element set is2 n • intractable • can we do better? • observation: for a given set compatibility checking is easy Dinner Party Example (Dinner Party) You want to throw a dinner party.
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Complexity Classes Using Autoreducibility
    Separating Complexity Classes using Autoreducibility z y Dieter van Melkeb eek Lance Fortnow Harry Buhrman The University of Chicago The University of Chicago CWI x Leen Torenvliet University of Amsterdam Abstract A set is autoreducible if it can b e reduced to itself by a Turing machine that do es not ask its own input to the oracle We use autoreducibility to separate the p olynomialtime hi erarchy from p olynomial space by showing that all Turingcomplete sets for certain levels of the exp onentialtime hierarchy are autoreducible but there exists some Turingcomplete set for doubly exp onential space that is not Although we already knew how to separate these classes using diagonalization our pro ofs separate classes solely by showing they have dierent structural prop erties thus applying Posts Program to complexity theory We feel such techniques may prove unknown separations in the future In particular if we could settle the question as to whether all Turingcomplete sets for doubly exp onential time are autoreducible we would separate either p olynomial time from p olynomial space and nondeterministic logarithmic space from nondeterministic p olynomial time or else the p olynomialtime hierarchy from exp onential time We also lo ok at the autoreducibility of complete sets under nonadaptive b ounded query probabilistic and nonuniform reductions We show how settling some of these autoreducibility questions will also lead to new complexity class separations Key words complexity classes completeness autoreducibility coherence AMS classication
    [Show full text]