DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2106.11886V5 [Cs.CC] 23 Jul 2021 a Negative Answer to P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2106.11886V5 [Cs.CC] 23 Jul 2021 a Negative Answer to P A Negative Answer to P =? PSPACE Tianrong Lin∗† September 1, 2021 Abstract ? There is a conjecture on P = P SP ACE in computational complexity zoo [A1] (Also, see [AB2009], p. 83; [Pap1994], p. 149; [Sip2013], p. 336; [KT2005], p. 533). It is a widespread belief that P 6= P SP ACE, otherwise P = NP which is extremely impossible. In this short work, we assert a fundamental re- sult that P 6= P SP ACE no matter what outcome is on P =? NP . We ac- complishe this via showing NP 6= P SP ACE. The method is by the result that Circuit-SAT is ≤log–complete for NP , Circuit-SAT∈ DSP ACE[n], the known re- sult DSP ACE[n1+c] ⊂ DSP ACE[n2(1+c)] (indicated by the space complexity hi- erarchy theorem) and the fact that P SP ACE is the union set of all DSP ACE[nk] where k ∈ N. Closely related consequences are summarized. Key words: Space complexity, P vs. PSPACE, Circuit–SAT, Logspace reduction ≤log 1 Introduction Computational complexity theory has developed rapidly in the past 40 years, see Arora and Barak [AB2009]. The list of surprising and fundamental results proved since 1990 alone could fill a book, which include new probabilistic definitions of classical complexity arXiv:2106.11886v6 [cs.CC] 31 Aug 2021 class (IP = P SP ACE [Sha1992]) and others. Space complexity, one of two subfields (another is time complexity) in Computational complexity, was introduced by Stearns et al. [HSL1965] in 1965. It is the second impor- tance of the two most widespread ways of measuring the complexity of a computation, the first one being time complexity, see e.g. Arora and Barak [AB2009], Papadimitriou [Pap1994], Sipser [Sip2013]. Computational complexity introduced many abstract models of computation, the most widespread being the Turing machine, but many of these models give rise to essentially equivalent formalizations of such fundamental notions as time or space complexity. For more details of space complexity, see an excellent survey paper of Michel [Mic1992]. ∗E-mail address: [email protected] †Current address: The Central Propaganda Department, China 1 For the classes L, 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 space hierarchy theorem 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 Computer 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 Algorithms, 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 Turing machine, 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 polynomial 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 so 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(nc) 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 complexity class 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 space complexity 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 Boolean circuit C, decide if C is satisfiable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Database Theory
    DATABASE THEORY Lecture 4: Complexity of FO Query Answering Markus Krotzsch¨ TU Dresden, 21 April 2016 Overview 1. Introduction | Relational data model 2. First-order queries 3. Complexity of query answering 4. Complexity of FO query answering 5. Conjunctive queries 6. Tree-like conjunctive queries 7. Query optimisation 8. Conjunctive Query Optimisation / First-Order Expressiveness 9. First-Order Expressiveness / Introduction to Datalog 10. Expressive Power and Complexity of Datalog 11. Optimisation and Evaluation of Datalog 12. Evaluation of Datalog (2) 13. Graph Databases and Path Queries 14. Outlook: database theory in practice See course homepage [) link] for more information and materials Markus Krötzsch, 21 April 2016 Database Theory slide 2 of 41 How to Measure Query Answering Complexity Query answering as decision problem { consider Boolean queries Various notions of complexity: • Combined complexity (complexity w.r.t. size of query and database instance) • Data complexity (worst case complexity for any fixed query) • Query complexity (worst case complexity for any fixed database instance) Various common complexity classes: L ⊆ NL ⊆ P ⊆ NP ⊆ PSpace ⊆ ExpTime Markus Krötzsch, 21 April 2016 Database Theory slide 3 of 41 An Algorithm for Evaluating FO Queries function Eval(', I) 01 switch (') f I 02 case p(c1, ::: , cn): return hc1, ::: , cni 2 p 03 case : : return :Eval( , I) 04 case 1 ^ 2 : return Eval( 1, I) ^ Eval( 2, I) 05 case 9x. : 06 for c 2 ∆I f 07 if Eval( [x 7! c], I) then return true 08 g 09 return false 10 g Markus Krötzsch, 21 April 2016 Database Theory slide 4 of 41 FO Algorithm Worst-Case Runtime Let m be the size of ', and let n = jIj (total table sizes) • How many recursive calls of Eval are there? { one per subexpression: at most m • Maximum depth of recursion? { bounded by total number of calls: at most m • Maximum number of iterations of for loop? { j∆Ij ≤ n per recursion level { at most nm iterations I • Checking hc1, ::: , cni 2 p can be done in linear time w.r.t.
    [Show full text]
  • CS601 DTIME and DSPACE Lecture 5 Time and Space Functions: T, S
    CS601 DTIME and DSPACE Lecture 5 Time and Space functions: t, s : N → N+ Definition 5.1 A set A ⊆ U is in DTIME[t(n)] iff there exists a deterministic, multi-tape TM, M, and a constant c, such that, 1. A = L(M) ≡ w ∈ U M(w)=1 , and 2. ∀w ∈ U, M(w) halts within c · t(|w|) steps. Definition 5.2 A set A ⊆ U is in DSPACE[s(n)] iff there exists a deterministic, multi-tape TM, M, and a constant c, such that, 1. A = L(M), and 2. ∀w ∈ U, M(w) uses at most c · s(|w|) work-tape cells. (Input tape is “read-only” and not counted as space used.) Example: PALINDROMES ∈ DTIME[n], DSPACE[n]. In fact, PALINDROMES ∈ DSPACE[log n]. [Exercise] 1 CS601 F(DTIME) and F(DSPACE) Lecture 5 Definition 5.3 f : U → U is in F (DTIME[t(n)]) iff there exists a deterministic, multi-tape TM, M, and a constant c, such that, 1. f = M(·); 2. ∀w ∈ U, M(w) halts within c · t(|w|) steps; 3. |f(w)|≤|w|O(1), i.e., f is polynomially bounded. Definition 5.4 f : U → U is in F (DSPACE[s(n)]) iff there exists a deterministic, multi-tape TM, M, and a constant c, such that, 1. f = M(·); 2. ∀w ∈ U, M(w) uses at most c · s(|w|) work-tape cells; 3. |f(w)|≤|w|O(1), i.e., f is polynomially bounded. (Input tape is “read-only”; Output tape is “write-only”.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Proof Systems and Alternating Time-Space Complexity
    Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 55-73 55 Elsevier Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity Lance Fortnow” and Carsten Lund** Department of Computer Science, Unicersity of Chicago. 1100 E. 58th Street, Chicago, IL 40637, USA Abstract Fortnow, L. and C. Lund, Interactive proof systems and alternating time-space complexity, Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 55-73. We show a rough equivalence between alternating time-space complexity and a public-coin interactive proof system with the verifier having a polynomial-related time-space complexity. Special cases include the following: . All of NC has interactive proofs, with a log-space polynomial-time public-coin verifier vastly improving the best previous lower bound of LOGCFL for this model (Fortnow and Sipser, 1988). All languages in P have interactive proofs with a polynomial-time public-coin verifier using o(log’ n) space. l All exponential-time languages have interactive proof systems with public-coin polynomial-space exponential-time verifiers. To achieve better bounds, we show how to reduce a k-tape alternating Turing machine to a l-tape alternating Turing machine with only a constant factor increase in time and space. 1. Introduction In 1981, Chandra et al. [4] introduced alternating Turing machines, an extension of nondeterministic computation where the Turing machine can make both existential and universal moves. In 1985, Goldwasser et al. [lo] and Babai [l] introduced interactive proof systems, an extension of nondeterministic computation consisting of two players, an infinitely powerful prover and a probabilistic polynomial-time verifier. The prover will try to convince the verifier of the validity of some statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity Theory Lecture 9 Co-NP Co-NP-Complete
    Complexity Theory 1 Complexity Theory 2 co-NP Complexity Theory Lecture 9 As co-NP is the collection of complements of languages in NP, and P is closed under complementation, co-NP can also be characterised as the collection of languages of the form: ′ L = x y y <p( x ) R (x, y) { |∀ | | | | → } Anuj Dawar University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory NP – the collection of languages with succinct certificates of Easter Term 2010 membership. co-NP – the collection of languages with succinct certificates of http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/0910/Complexity/ disqualification. Anuj Dawar May 14, 2010 Anuj Dawar May 14, 2010 Complexity Theory 3 Complexity Theory 4 NP co-NP co-NP-complete P VAL – the collection of Boolean expressions that are valid is co-NP-complete. Any language L that is the complement of an NP-complete language is co-NP-complete. Any of the situations is consistent with our present state of ¯ knowledge: Any reduction of a language L1 to L2 is also a reduction of L1–the complement of L1–to L¯2–the complement of L2. P = NP = co-NP • There is an easy reduction from the complement of SAT to VAL, P = NP co-NP = NP = co-NP • ∩ namely the map that takes an expression to its negation. P = NP co-NP = NP = co-NP • ∩ VAL P P = NP = co-NP ∈ ⇒ P = NP co-NP = NP = co-NP • ∩ VAL NP NP = co-NP ∈ ⇒ Anuj Dawar May 14, 2010 Anuj Dawar May 14, 2010 Complexity Theory 5 Complexity Theory 6 Prime Numbers Primality Consider the decision problem PRIME: Another way of putting this is that Composite is in NP.
    [Show full text]
  • If Np Languages Are Hard on the Worst-Case, Then It Is Easy to Find Their Hard Instances
    IF NP LANGUAGES ARE HARD ON THE WORST-CASE, THEN IT IS EASY TO FIND THEIR HARD INSTANCES Dan Gutfreund, Ronen Shaltiel, and Amnon Ta-Shma Abstract. We prove that if NP 6⊆ BPP, i.e., if SAT is worst-case hard, then for every probabilistic polynomial-time algorithm trying to decide SAT, there exists some polynomially samplable distribution that is hard for it. That is, the algorithm often errs on inputs from this distribution. This is the ¯rst worst-case to average-case reduction for NP of any kind. We stress however, that this does not mean that there exists one ¯xed samplable distribution that is hard for all probabilistic polynomial-time algorithms, which is a pre-requisite assumption needed for one-way func- tions and cryptography (even if not a su±cient assumption). Neverthe- less, we do show that there is a ¯xed distribution on instances of NP- complete languages, that is samplable in quasi-polynomial time and is hard for all probabilistic polynomial-time algorithms (unless NP is easy in the worst case). Our results are based on the following lemma that may be of independent interest: Given the description of an e±cient (probabilistic) algorithm that fails to solve SAT in the worst case, we can e±ciently generate at most three Boolean formulae (of increasing lengths) such that the algorithm errs on at least one of them. Keywords. Average-case complexity, Worst-case to average-case re- ductions, Foundations of cryptography, Pseudo classes Subject classi¯cation. 68Q10 (Modes of computation (nondetermin- istic, parallel, interactive, probabilistic, etc.) 68Q15 Complexity classes (hierarchies, relations among complexity classes, etc.) 68Q17 Compu- tational di±culty of problems (lower bounds, completeness, di±culty of approximation, etc.) 94A60 Cryptography 2 Gutfreund, Shaltiel & Ta-Shma 1.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Randomness Complexity of Interactive Proofs and Statistical Zero-Knowledge Proofs*
    On the Randomness Complexity of Interactive Proofs and Statistical Zero-Knowledge Proofs* Benny Applebaum† Eyal Golombek* Abstract We study the randomness complexity of interactive proofs and zero-knowledge proofs. In particular, we ask whether it is possible to reduce the randomness complexity, R, of the verifier to be comparable with the number of bits, CV , that the verifier sends during the interaction. We show that such randomness sparsification is possible in several settings. Specifically, unconditional sparsification can be obtained in the non-uniform setting (where the verifier is modelled as a circuit), and in the uniform setting where the parties have access to a (reusable) common-random-string (CRS). We further show that constant-round uniform protocols can be sparsified without a CRS under a plausible worst-case complexity-theoretic assumption that was used previously in the context of derandomization. All the above sparsification results preserve statistical-zero knowledge provided that this property holds against a cheating verifier. We further show that randomness sparsification can be applied to honest-verifier statistical zero-knowledge (HVSZK) proofs at the expense of increasing the communica- tion from the prover by R−F bits, or, in the case of honest-verifier perfect zero-knowledge (HVPZK) by slowing down the simulation by a factor of 2R−F . Here F is a new measure of accessible bit complexity of an HVZK proof system that ranges from 0 to R, where a maximal grade of R is achieved when zero- knowledge holds against a “semi-malicious” verifier that maliciously selects its random tape and then plays honestly.
    [Show full text]
  • NP-Completeness: Reductions Tue, Nov 21, 2017
    CMSC 451 Dave Mount CMSC 451: Lecture 19 NP-Completeness: Reductions Tue, Nov 21, 2017 Reading: Chapt. 8 in KT and Chapt. 8 in DPV. Some of the reductions discussed here are not in either text. Recap: We have introduced a number of concepts on the way to defining NP-completeness: Decision Problems/Language recognition: are problems for which the answer is either yes or no. These can also be thought of as language recognition problems, assuming that the input has been encoded as a string. For example: HC = fG j G has a Hamiltonian cycleg MST = f(G; c) j G has a MST of cost at most cg: P: is the class of all decision problems which can be solved in polynomial time. While MST 2 P, we do not know whether HC 2 P (but we suspect not). Certificate: is a piece of evidence that allows us to verify in polynomial time that a string is in a given language. For example, the language HC above, a certificate could be a sequence of vertices along the cycle. (If the string is not in the language, the certificate can be anything.) NP: is defined to be the class of all languages that can be verified in polynomial time. (Formally, it stands for Nondeterministic Polynomial time.) Clearly, P ⊆ NP. It is widely believed that P 6= NP. To define NP-completeness, we need to introduce the concept of a reduction. Reductions: The class of NP-complete problems consists of a set of decision problems (languages) (a subset of the class NP) that no one knows how to solve efficiently, but if there were a polynomial time solution for even a single NP-complete problem, then every problem in NP would be solvable in polynomial time.
    [Show full text]
  • On the NP-Completeness of the Minimum Circuit Size Problem
    On the NP-Completeness of the Minimum Circuit Size Problem John M. Hitchcock∗ A. Pavany Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Wyoming Iowa State University Abstract We study the Minimum Circuit Size Problem (MCSP): given the truth-table of a Boolean function f and a number k, does there exist a Boolean circuit of size at most k computing f? This is a fundamental NP problem that is not known to be NP-complete. Previous work has studied consequences of the NP-completeness of MCSP. We extend this work and consider whether MCSP may be complete for NP under more powerful reductions. We also show that NP-completeness of MCSP allows for amplification of circuit complexity. We show the following results. • If MCSP is NP-complete via many-one reductions, the following circuit complexity amplifi- Ω(1) cation result holds: If NP\co-NP requires 2n -size circuits, then ENP requires 2Ω(n)-size circuits. • If MCSP is NP-complete under truth-table reductions, then EXP 6= NP \ SIZE(2n ) for some > 0 and EXP 6= ZPP. This result extends to polylog Turing reductions. 1 Introduction Many natural NP problems are known to be NP-complete. Ladner's theorem [14] tells us that if P is different from NP, then there are NP-intermediate problems: problems that are in NP, not in P, but also not NP-complete. The examples arising out of Ladner's theorem come from diagonalization and are not natural. A canonical candidate example of a natural NP-intermediate problem is the Graph Isomorphism (GI) problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Complexity: a Modern Approach
    i Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach Draft of a book: Dated January 2007 Comments welcome! Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak Princeton University [email protected] Not to be reproduced or distributed without the authors’ permission This is an Internet draft. Some chapters are more finished than others. References and attributions are very preliminary and we apologize in advance for any omissions (but hope you will nevertheless point them out to us). Please send us bugs, typos, missing references or general comments to [email protected] — Thank You!! DRAFT ii DRAFT Chapter 9 Complexity of counting “It is an empirical fact that for many combinatorial problems the detection of the existence of a solution is easy, yet no computationally efficient method is known for counting their number.... for a variety of problems this phenomenon can be explained.” L. Valiant 1979 The class NP captures the difficulty of finding certificates. However, in many contexts, one is interested not just in a single certificate, but actually counting the number of certificates. This chapter studies #P, (pronounced “sharp p”), a complexity class that captures this notion. Counting problems arise in diverse fields, often in situations having to do with estimations of probability. Examples include statistical estimation, statistical physics, network design, and more. Counting problems are also studied in a field of mathematics called enumerative combinatorics, which tries to obtain closed-form mathematical expressions for counting problems. To give an example, in the 19th century Kirchoff showed how to count the number of spanning trees in a graph using a simple determinant computation. Results in this chapter will show that for many natural counting problems, such efficiently computable expressions are unlikely to exist.
    [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]
  • University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St John's Road
    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Space Complexity of Integration of Computable Real
    Notes on space complexity of integration of computable real functions in Ko–Friedman model Sergey V. Yakhontov Abstract x In the present paper it is shown that real function g(x)= 0 f(t)dt is a linear-space computable real function on interval [0, 1] if f is a linear-space computable C2[0, 1] real function on interval R [0, 1], and this result does not depend on any open question in the computational complexity theory. The time complexity of computable real functions and integration of computable real functions is considered in the context of Ko–Friedman model which is based on the notion of Cauchy functions computable by Turing machines. 1 2 In addition, a real computable function f is given such that 0 f ∈ FDSPACE(n )C[a,b] but 1 f∈ / FP if FP 6= #P. 0 C[a,b] R RKeywords: Computable real functions, Cauchy function representation, polynomial-time com- putable real functions, linear-space computable real functions, C2[0, 1] real functions, integration of computable real functions. Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 CF computablerealnumbersandfunctions . ...... 2 1.2 Integration of FP computablerealfunctions. 2 2 Upper bound of the time complexity of integration 3 2 3 Function from FDSPACE(n )C[a,b] that not in FPC[a,b] if FP 6= #P 4 4 Conclusion 4 arXiv:1408.2364v3 [cs.CC] 17 Nov 2014 1 Introduction In the present paper, we consider computable real numbers and functions that are represented by Cauchy functions computable by Turing machines [1]. Main results regarding computable real numbers and functions can be found in [1–4]; main results regarding computational complexity of computations on Turing machines can be found in [5].
    [Show full text]