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.