sign in sign up
<<
Home , AC (complexity), CC (complexity), Complexity class, DSPACE, Juris Hartmanis, L (complexity)

arXiv:2106.11886v6 [cs.CC] 31 Aug 2021 opeiy a nrdcdb tan ta.[ al. et Stearns by introduced was , iepedbigthe being widespread [ class of definitions probabilistic new include which ( book, class a fill could alone h rtoebigtm opeiy ..AoaadBrk[ Barak and Arora complexity e.g. the see complexity, measuring time of being ways one widespread first most the two the of tance oedtiso pc opeiy e necletsre ae fM of paper survey excellent sp an or see complexity, time space as of notions details fundamental more such of formalizations equivalent opttoa opeiyter a eeoe ail nteps 4 past the in [ rapidly Barak developed and has theory complexity Computational Introduction 1 Pap1994 ∗ † opttoa opeiyitoue ayasrc oeso com of models abstract many introduced complexity Computational in complexity) time is (another subfields two of one complexity, Space urn drs:TeCnrlPoaad eatet China Department, Propaganda Central The address: Current -aladdress E-mail .53.I sawdsra eifthat belief widespread a is It 533). . [ see (Also, opih hsvashowing via this complishe hc seteeyipsil.I hssotwr,w assert we work, short this In that sult impossible. extremely is which rrh hoe)adtefc that fact the and theorem) erarchy ici-A is Circuit-SAT sult where ≤ IP log hr sacnetr on conjecture a is There e words: Key ,Spe [ Sipser ], = S ACE DSP k AB2009 PACE SP P eaieAse to Answer Negative A ∈ P N [email protected] : AB2009 lsl eae osqecsaesummarized. are consequences related Closely . 6= Sip2013 [ pc opeiy s SAE ici–A,Lgpc redu Logspace Circuit–SAT, PSPACE, vs. P complexity, Space .Tels fsrrsn n udmna eut rvdsne1990 since proved results fundamental and surprising of list The ]. ≤ n PACE SP P 1+ log uigmachine Turing [ c cmlt for – Sha1992 ,p 3 [ 83; p. ], ] ⊂ ]. S ACE DSP NP omte htotoei on is outcome what matter no P )adothers. and ]) etme ,2021 1, September = Pap1994 ? inogLin Tianrong 6= PACE SP P NP u ayo hs oesgv iet essentially to rise give models these of many but , [ PACE SP P n PACE SP P Abstract 2(1+ Circuit-SAT , ,p 4;[ 149; p. ], 1 c ) idctdb h pc opeiyhi- complexity space the by (indicated ] HSL1965 P ncmuainlcmlxt o [ zoo complexity computational in h ehdi ytersl that result the by is method The . 6= steuinsto of union the is P PACE SP P ∗† = ∈ ? Sip2013 n16.I stescn impor- second the is It 1965. in ] S ACE DSP PACE SP P otherwise , ,p 3;[ 336; p. ], P AB2009 udmna - fundamental a [ n = ? ,tekonre- known the ], ce [ ichel c opeiy For complexity. ace S ACE DSP NP uain h most the putation, er,seArora see years, 0 facomputation, a of ,Papadimitriou ], eac- We . P clcomplexity ical Computational KT2005 Mic1992 = ction NP [ A1 n k ], ] ] ]. For the classes , NL, P , NP and P SP ACE in complexity theory, there is a well- known tower of complexity classes inclusions stated below 1

L ⊆ NL ⊆ P ⊆ NP ⊆ P SP ACE.

Since the implies that L ⊂ P SP ACE (also NL ⊂ P SP ACE), we know that at least some of these inclusions are strict, but which ones is unknown cur- rently and, as far as we know, is an important open question in Complexity Theory, see, e.g. Arora and Barak [AB2009], Papadimitriou [Pap1994], and Sipser [Sip2013], also [A1]. One may ask Is P ⊂ P SP ACE or NL ⊂ P ? If P = P SP ACE, one can easily get that P = NP , leading to the most famous question in Theoretical Science being solved, which is extremely impossible. So one can naturally image that P ⊂ P SP ACE. But there is no proof available in the current textbooks in Complexity Theory and in Analysis of , see e.g. Arora and Barak [AB2009], Papadimitriou [Pap1994], Kleinberg and Tardos [KT2005], and Sipser [Sip2013]. If NL ⊂ P , then there exists problems in P cannot be (deterministically) decided in space O(log n) by deterministic , 2 where n is the length of input. We of course will ask that Is NP equal to P SP ACE? Book [Boo1981] showed in 1981 that NP = P SP ACE if and only if for every oracle set A, NP (A) is equal to the class NPQUERY (A) of languages accepted by nondeterministic space-bounded oracle machines that are allowed to query the oracle for A only a polynomial number of times. In this short work we will study some of those questions. Our main contribution and main objective here is to resolve the P vs. PSPACE question, to provide an alternative proof (there are may other proofs) of P =6 P SP ACE for the future books in Complexity Theory. Of course, the question is not important and hard as the P =? NP question, but it should be resolved before going to deeply understand P =? NP . In the following context, we will first show that NP ⊂ P SP ACE, i.e. the following

Theorem 1 NP =6 P SP ACE, in other words NP ⊂ P SP ACE.

In possibility, the reader may think of familiar games such as Chess, Go, and Check- ers and wondering whether complexity theory may help differentiate between them–for instance, to justify the common intuition that Go is more difficult than Chess. Unfortu- nately, as illustrated by Arora and Barak [AB2009], formalizing these issues in terms of asymptotic complexity (i.e. using an infinite language) is tricky because these are finite games, and as far as the existence of a winning strategy is concerned, there are at most three choices: Player 1 has a winning strategy, Player 2 does, or neither does (they can play to a draw). But, as pointed by Arora and Barak [AB2009], one can study general- izations of these games to an n × n board where n is arbitrarily large–this may involve stretching the rules of the game since the definition of chess is tailored to an 8 × 8 board. After generalizing this way, one gets an infinite sequence of game situations, and then one can show that for most common games, including chess, determining which player has a winning strategy in the n × n version is PSPACE-complete (see Garey and Johnson

1coNP is also contained in P SP ACE, see Kleinberg and Tardos [KT2005]. 2 We write log n to mean log2 n.

2 [GJ1979] or Papadimitriou [Pap1994]). Unfortunately, at this point, the reader can get that there is no short certificate for exhibiting that either player in such games has a winning strategy because of Theorem 1. Since from our proofs from Lemma 1 to Lemma 3 in the following context, we know that for any language L ∈ P , L is Logspace reducible to Circuit–SAT and Circuit–SAT can be decided by deterministic Turing machine in space O(n), we get that for any L ∈ P , it can be decided by deterministic Turing machine working in space O() where c is a suitable positive constant. 3 This leads to that no matter what result is on P =? NP , the following always becomes an important consequence of the above Theorem 1: Theorem 2 P =6 P SP ACE, or P ⊂ P SP ACE. In 1992, Shamir showed that the IP is equal to P SP ACE [Sha1992]. The above Theorem 2 immediately implies that Corollary 1 Not all problems in complexity class IP have polynomial-time algorithms, i.e. P =6 IP . The remainder of this work is organized as follows: For convenience of the reader, in the next Section we recall some notions and notation closely associated with our discussion appearing in Section 1. In Section 3 we will prove our main result of Theorem 1 (The proof of Theorem 2 is similar and sketched above, so the detailed illustration is omitted). Finally, a brief conclusion is drawn in the last Section and the future work is also planned.

2 Preliminaries

In this Section, we describe the nation and notions needed in the following context. The model we use is the Turing machine as it defined in standard textbooks such as [HU1969]. We do not intend to repeat the definition of a Turing machine here, and a reader who interests in such model is refer to [HU1969]. Additionally, in what follows DTM means deterministic Turing machine and NTM means nondeterministic Turing machine. A Turing machine M works in space L(n) (i.e. of L(n)) if for every input x of length n, every computation of M on x scanning at most L(n) tape cells. The notation DSP ACE[L(n)] (resp. NSP ACE[L(n)]) denotes the class of languages recognized by the deterministic (resp. nondeterministic) Turing machine of space com- plexity L(n). Classes such as DSP ACE[L(n)], NSP ACE[L(n)], L, NL are called space complexity classes. In particular, L is the class DSP ACE[log n] and NL is the class NSP ACE[log n], i.e. the class of languages can be recognized by deterministic Turing machine and nondeterministic Turing machine of space L(n) = log n, respectively. The class of P SP ACE and NPSPACE are given by

k P SP ACE = [ DSP ACE[n ] k∈N

3Another way to prove P ⊆ DSP ACE[nc] is that to show the Circuit Value Problem (CVP) [Lad1975] can be decided by deterministic Turing machine working in space O(n), since the CVP is ≤log–complete for P .

3 and

k NPSPACE = [ NSP ACE[n ]. k∈N

By Savitch’s Theorem [Sav1970] we know that P SP ACE = NPSPACE. A Turing machine M works in time T (n) if for every input x of length n, all computa- tions of M on x end in less than T (n) steps (moves). DTIME[T (n)] (resp. NTIME[T (n)]) is the class of languages recognized by the deterministic (resp. nondeterministic) Turing machine working in time T (n). The notation P and NP are defined to be the class of languages:

k P = [ DTIME[n ] k∈N and

k NP = [ NTIME[n ]. k∈N

The notation of IP is not our main discussion. Hence, it is enough that we know it representing a complexity class. Circuit–satisfiability denotes the Circuit satisfiability question (Circuit-SAT): Given a C, decide if C is satisfiable. I.e. whether there is some binary string y ∈{0, 1}n such that C(y)=1? Reducibility is a very important concept in Theory. Here, we only concern the Logspace which is denoted by “≤log”, whose definition is below: ′ ′ Formally, a language L is Logspace reducible to a language L , denoted L ≤log L , if there exists a deterministic Turing machine f of space complexity O(log n), 4 such that for any input x, x ∈L if and only if f(x) ∈L′. Also recall that a language L is complete for a class of languages C under ≤log re- ′ ′ ′ ductions if L ∈ C and for any L ∈ C , L ≤log L (i.e. L is Logspace reducible to L). Finally, P vs. PSPACE is to ask P =? P SP ACE, i.e. whether the classes of languages P and P SP ACE are equal.

3 Proof of Main Result

Recall that we intend to show NP ⊂ P SP ACE, a very important premise Lemma for our progress is the following

Lemma 1 [Cook-Levin Theorem] Circuit-SAT is ≤log-complete for NP, i.e. for any language L ∈ NP , L ≤log Circuit-SAT. 

4For every x, f can work in O(log |x|) space, where |x| is the length of x.

4 The proof of the above Lemma 1 is presented in Vadhan’s lecture in Computational Complexity [Vad2010] and Kabanets’ lecture of Complexity Theory [Kab2017], we do not intend to repeat it here. For the interested reader, we refer to Vadhan’s [Vad2010] or Kabanets’ [Kab2017].

Lemma 2 The Circuit-SAT is in DSP ACE[n].

Proof. To show Circuit-SAT is in DSP ACE[n], it is enough to present a deterministic Turing machine deciding Circuit-SAT and working in space O(n). We first present the 1, i.e. the modified version of Sipser’s machine [Sip2013] below:

Algorithm 1 Input: input hCi, where C is a Boolean circuit of length n; Output: accept or reject; m 1: for each binary string y ∈{0, 1} of C do 2: Evaluate C on y; 3: if C evaluated to 1 then 4: Return accept; 5: end if 6: end for 7: Return reject;

The machine needs to store only the current binary string y ∈{0, 1}m, and that can be done with O(m) space. The number of variables m is at most n, the length of input hCi, so this Turing machine runs in space O(n). 

Remark 1 Sipser’s excellent book [Sip2013] (See [Sip2013], p. 333) presents a deter- ministic Turing machine (DTM) of space complexity O(n) computing the Boolean satis- fiability. In fact, Sipser’s machine is also applicable for Circuit-SAT. So, we modify the Sipser’s machine (i.e. the above Algorithm 1) to illustrate the Lemma 2 which is useful in the following context.

Lemma 3 There exists a positive constant c and c < +∞ such that for any L ∈ NP , L can be decided by a deterministic Turing machine working in O(n1+c), i.e. L ∈ DSP ACE[n1+c] for any L ∈ NP .

Proof. By Lemma 1, for any L ∈ NP , L is Logspace reducible to Circuit–SAT, so we have

x ∈L ⇔ f(x) ∈ Circuit–SAT, and f is Logspace computable cL log |x| 1+cL ⇒ |f(x)| ≤ |x| × 2 = |x| where cL < +∞.

5 5 By Lemma 2 and the above analysis, we have

L ∈ DSP ACE[n1+cL ].

Now let the constant c to be 6:

c = max {cL : L ∈ NP } , since cL < +∞ for any cL, we get c< +∞ and

L ∈ DSP ACE[n1+c] for any L ∈ NP . 

Remark 2 An aRxiv user points out that the N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ···} is with no upper-bound, but for each n ∈ N, n < +∞, so he/she assert that Lemma 3 may not be correct. Here we claim that {cL : L ∈ NP } is with upper-bound, i.e. sup{cL : L ∈ NP } < +∞. Otherwise, suppose that there exists no such a constant B ′ ′ such that for any c ∈ {cL : L ∈ NP } satisfies that c ≤ B. Then for any M > 0, there ′′ ′′ is a c ∈ {cL : L ∈ NP } such that c ≥ M. Taking M = +∞ − ǫ where ǫ > 0, we have ′′ ′′ that c ≥ +∞ − ǫ. Let ǫ → 0 we obtain that c ≥ +∞. Then consider the corresponding ′′ reduction from L ∈ NP to Circuit-SAT,

′′ x ∈ L ⇔ f(x) ∈ Circuit-SAT |f(x)| ≤ |x| × 2+∞ log |x|

But by definition, this is not a Log-space reductions as the worktape uses +∞ log |x| tape cells but not O(log |x|) tape cells, which does not meet the premise that the Cook-Levin Theorem is Log-space reductions.

The following theorem is the space hierarchy for deterministic Turing machines, pre- sented in Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman’s book [AHU1974].

Lemma 4 ([AHU1974], p. 408, Theorem 11.1) Let S1(n) ≥ n and S2(n) ≥ n be two space-constructible functions with S (n) inf 1 =0. n →∞ S2(n)

7 Then there is a language L accepted by a DTM of space complexity S2(n) but by no DTM of space complexity S1(n).

5For a deterministic Turing machine working in O(log |x|) space, the number of total configurations is |x|× 2cL log |x|(= |x|1+cL ) where x is the input. So the number of total moves and the length of resulted string f(x) printed by this Turing machine can not exceed the number of total configurations. 6 Since 0 < cL < +∞ for any L ∈ NP , we can also let c = sup{cL : L ∈ NP } from which it immediately follows that c< +∞ and L ∈ DSP ACE[n1+c] for any L ∈ NP . 7 Let f(n) be any . Then infn→∞ f(n) is the limit as n goes to infinity of the greatest lower bound of f(n), f(n + 1), f(n + 2), ···

6 Proof. The proof techniques is by diagonalization. We refer the interested reader to the book [AHU1974] of Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman in which an elegant proof presented.  Now we can present the proof of Theorem 1 as follows:

Proof of Theorem 1. It is obvious (or by Savitch’s Theorem [Sav1970]) that DSP ACE[n1+c] ⊆ NSP ACE[n1+c] ⊆ DSP ACE[n2(1+c)]. 1+c 2(1+c) Let S1(n)= n , S2(n)= n , then

S (n) n1+c inf 1 = lim =0, n n 2(1+c) →∞ S2(n) →∞ n

since n1+c/n2(1+c) =1/n(1+c) is monotonically decreasing. By the space hierarchy the- orem (Lemma 4), there is a language L accepted by a DTM of space complexity O(n2(1+c)) but by no DTM of space complexity O(n1+c). We finally get DSP ACE[n(1+c)] ⊂ DSP ACE[n2(1+c)]. k Further note that P SP ACE = Sk∈N DSP ACE[n ], we have

1+c k DSP ACE[n ] ⊂ [ DSP ACE[n ]= P SP ACE. (1) k∈N By Lemma 3,

NP ⊆ DSP ACE[n1+c]. (2)

Combining (1) and (2), we obtain

NP ⊂ P SP ACE,

i.e. NP =6 P SP ACE. 

4 Conclusions

In summary, we have given a short proof of P =6 P SP ACE which is fundamental and our main purpose in this work is to supplement an alternative proof of P =6 P SP ACE for the future books in Complexity Theory. Our approach is natural and even simple, first to show Circuit–Satisfiability is ≤log–complete for NP . And then we prove that Circuit– Satisfiability can be deterministically decided in O(n) space. Further, we prove that for any language L ∈ NP , L can be decided by deterministic Turing machine working in O(n1+c) where c is a suitable positive constant, i.e. NP ⊆ DSP ACE[n1+c]. Finally, via space hierarchy theorem we prove that NP ⊆ DSP ACE[n1+c] ⊂ DSP ACE[n2(1+c)], hence giving the final proof of the main result of Theorem 1, which also implies P =6 P SP ACE (Theorem 2). Other consequence of our main result is also summarized in Section 1. Lastly, there are many open questions in Computer Science in [A1], for example, PH =? P SP ACE (in our language: PH vs. PSPACE) where PH is the [A2], which is hard and interesting, see references [A2].

7 References

[A1] Anonymity–1. List of unsolved problems in computer science. Available at: List of unsolved problems in computer science–www.wikipedia.org. (document), 1, 4

[A2] Anonymity–2. Polynomial hierarchy. Available at: Polynomial hierarchy–www.wikipedia.org. 4

[AHU1974] Alfred V. Aho, John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman. The Design And Analysis Of Computer Algorithms. Addison–Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., , 1974. 3, 4, 3

[AB2009] and Boaz Barak. Computational Complexity: A Modern Ap- proach. Cambridge University Press, 2009. (document), 1, 1

[Boo1981] Ronald V. Book. Bounded query machines: on NP and PSPACE. Theoret- ical Computer Science 15 (1981) 27–39. 1

[GJ1979] M. . Garey and D. S. Johnson. and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1979. 1

[KT2005] Jon Kleinberg and Eva´ Tardos. Introduction to . Addison–Wesley, 2005. (document), 1, 1

[Kab2017] Valentine Kabanets. CMPT 407–Complexity Theory Available at: kabanets/407/lectures/lec4.pdf 3

[Lad1975] Richard E. Ladner. The Circuit Value Problem is Log Space Complete for P. SIGACT News, 7 (1): 18–20, January 1975. 3

[Mic1992] Pascal Michel. A survey of space complexity. Theoretical Computer Science 101 (1992) 99–132. 1

[Pap1994] Christos H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison–Wesley, 1994. (document), 1, 1

[HU1969] John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Formal languages and their relation to automata. Reading: Addison–Wesley publishing company, 1969. 2

[Sha1992] . IP=PSPACE. Journal of the ACM, Volume 39, Issue 4, (Oc- tober 1992), . 869–877. 1, 1

[Sip2013] . Introduction to the . Third Edition, Cengage Learning, 2013. (document), 1, 3, 1

[Sav1970] Walter J. Savitch. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape . Journal of Computer and System Sciences: 4, 177–192 (1970). 2, 3

8 [HSL1965] R. E. Stearns, Juris Hartmanis and P. M. Lewis. Hierarchies of memory limited computations. IEEE 6th Annual Symposium on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, 1965, pp. 179–190. 1

[Vad2010] . CS 221: Computational Complexity–Lecture Notes 4. Avail- able at: salil/cs221/spring10/lec4.pdf 3

9