P versus NP: Approaches, Rebuttals, and Does It Matter?
|
|
- Clyde Alan Evans
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 versus N: Approaches, Rebuttals, and Does It Matter? immerman
2 Spike of attention to vs. N problem, Aug Deolalikar claimed that he had tamed the wildness of algorithms and shown that indeed doesnt equal N. Within a few hours of his , the paper got an impressive endorsement: This appears to be a relatively serious claim to have solved versus N, ed Stephen Cook of the University of Toronto, the scientist who had initially formulated the question. That evening, a blogger posted Deolalikar s paper. And the next day, long before researchers had had time to examine the 103-page paper in detail, the recommendation site Slashdot picked it up, sending a fire hose of tens of thousands of readers and dozens of journalists to the paper. Julie Rehmeyer, Science News, Sept. 9, 2010
3 co r.e. co r.e. r.e. r.e. = Recursive DTIME[n k ] k=1 co N co N N N N "truly feasible" co N is a good mathematical wrapper for truly feasible. FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR)
4 NTIME[t(n)]: a mathematical fiction 0 input w w = n s t(n) t(n) 2 b 1 b 2 b 3 b t(n)
5 co r.e. co r.e. r.e. r.e. N = Recursive NTIME[n k ] k=1 co N co N N N N "truly feasible" co N Many optimization problems we want to solve are N. FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR)
6 co r.e. co r.e. r.e. r.e. N = Recursive NTIME[n k ] k=1 co N co N SACE N N N "truly feasible" co N Many optimization problems we want to solve are N. FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR) FO
7 co r.e. co r.e. r.e. r.e. N = Recursive NTIME[n k ] k=1 co N co N EXTIME SACE N N N "truly feasible" co N Many optimization problems we want to solve are N. FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR) FO
8 Descriptive Complexity Query q 1 q 2 q n Computation Answer a 1 a 2 a i a m
9 Descriptive Complexity Query q 1 q 2 q n Computation Answer a 1 a 2 a i a m Restrict attention to the complexity of computing individual bits of the output, i.e., decision problems.
10 Descriptive Complexity Query q 1 q 2 q n Computation Answer a 1 a 2 a i a m S i Restrict attention to the complexity of computing individual bits of the output, i.e., decision problems. How hard is it to check if input has property S?
11 Descriptive Complexity Query q 1 q 2 q n Computation Answer a 1 a 2 a i a m S i Restrict attention to the complexity of computing individual bits of the output, i.e., decision problems. How hard is it to check if input has property S? How rich a language do we need to express property S?
12 Descriptive Complexity Query q 1 q 2 q n Computation Answer a 1 a 2 a i a m S i Restrict attention to the complexity of computing individual bits of the output, i.e., decision problems. How hard is it to check if input has property S? How rich a language do we need to express property S? There is a constructive isomorphism between these two approaches.
13 Interpret Input as Finite Logical Structure Graph G = ({v 1,...,v n },E,s,t) s t Binary A w = ({p 1,...,p 8 },S) String S = {p 2,p 5,p 7,p 8 } w = Vocabularies: τ g = (E 2,s,t), τ s = (S 1 )
14 First-Order Logic input symbols: from τ variables: x,y,z,... boolean connectives:,, quantifiers:, numeric symbols: =,, +,, min, max α x y(e(x,y)) L(τ g ) β x y(x y S(x)) L(τ s ) β S(min) L(τ s )
15 Second-Order Logic Φ 3 color R 1 G 1 B 1 x y ((R(x) G(x) B(x)) (E(x,y) ( (R(x) R(y)) (G(x) G(y)) (B(x) B(y))))) s d t b a c f g e
16 Second-Order Logic Fagin s Theorem: N = SO Φ 3 color R 1 G 1 B 1 x y ((R(x) G(x) B(x)) (E(x,y) ( (R(x) R(y)) (G(x) G(y)) (B(x) B(y))))) s d t b a c f g e
17 co r.e. FO A (N) Arithmetic Hierarchy r.e. co r.e. FO(N) r.e. Recursive FO (N) E co N SO A EXTIME SACE olynomial Time Hierarchy SO co N N N "truly feasible" co N SO E N FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR) FO
18 Addition is First-Order Q + : STRUC[τ AB ] STRUC[τ s ] A a 1 a 2... a n 1 a n B + b 1 b 2... b n 1 b n S s 1 s 2... s n 1 s n
19 Addition is First-Order Q + : STRUC[τ AB ] STRUC[τ s ] A a 1 a 2... a n 1 a n B + b 1 b 2... b n 1 b n S s 1 s 2... s n 1 s n ( C(i) ( j > i) A(j) B(j) ) ( k.j > k > i)(a(k) B(k))
20 Addition is First-Order Q + : STRUC[τ AB ] STRUC[τ s ] A a 1 a 2... a n 1 a n B + b 1 b 2... b n 1 b n S s 1 s 2... s n 1 s n ( C(i) ( j > i) A(j) B(j) ) ( k.j > k > i)(a(k) B(k)) Q + (i) A(i) B(i) C(i)
21 arallel Machines: CRAM[t(n)] = CRCW-RAM-TIME[t(n)]-HARD[n O(1) ] r 1 Global 2 Memory 3 4 5
22 arallel Machines: Quantifiers are arallel CRAM[t(n)] = CRCW-RAM-TIME[t(n)]-HARD[n O(1) ] Assume array A[x] : x = 1,...,r in memory. r 1 Global 2 Memory 3 4 5
23 arallel Machines: Quantifiers are arallel CRAM[t(n)] = CRCW-RAM-TIME[t(n)]-HARD[n O(1) ] Assume array A[x] : x = 1,...,r in memory. x(a(x)) write(1); proc p i : if (A[i] = 0) then write(0) r 1 Global 2 Memory 3 4 5
24 co r.e. FO A (N) Arithmetic Hierarchy r.e. co r.e. FO(N) r.e. Recursive FO (N) E FO = EXTIME SACE CRAM[1] = AC 0 co N SO A olynomial Time Hierarchy SO co N N N "truly feasible" co N SO E N = Logarithmic-Time Hierarchy FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR) FO Logarithmic Time Hierarchy 0 AC
25 Inductive Definitions E (x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(e (x,z) E (z,y)) s t
26 Inductive Definitions E (x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(e (x,z) E (z,y)) ϕ tc (R,x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(r(x,z) R(z,y)) s t
27 Inductive Definitions E (x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(e (x,z) E (z,y)) ϕ tc (R,x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(r(x,z) R(z,y)) G REACH G = (LFϕ tc )(s,t) s t
28 Inductive Definitions E (x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(e (x,z) E (z,y)) ϕ tc (R,x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(r(x,z) R(z,y)) G REACH G = (LFϕ tc )(s,t) Thus, REACH IND[log n]. s t
29 Inductive Definitions E (x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(e (x,z) E (z,y)) ϕ tc (R,x,y) x = y E(x,y) z(r(x,z) R(z,y)) G REACH G = (LFϕ tc )(s,t) Thus, REACH IND[log n]. s t Next, we ll show that REACH FO[log n].
30 ϕ tc (R, x, y) x = y E(x, y) z (R(x, z) R(z, y)) 1. Dummy universal quantification for base case: ϕ tc (R,x,y) ( z.m 1 )( z)(r(x,z) R(z,y)) M 1 (x = y E(x,y))
31 ϕ tc (R, x, y) x = y E(x, y) z (R(x, z) R(z, y)) 1. Dummy universal quantification for base case: ϕ tc (R,x,y) ( z.m 1 )( z)(r(x,z) R(z,y)) M 1 (x = y E(x,y)) 2. Using, replace two occurrences of R with one: ϕ tc (R,x,y) ( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )R(u,v) M 2 (u = x v = z) (u = z v = y)
32 ϕ tc (R, x, y) x = y E(x, y) z (R(x, z) R(z, y)) 1. Dummy universal quantification for base case: ϕ tc (R,x,y) ( z.m 1 )( z)(r(x,z) R(z,y)) M 1 (x = y E(x,y)) 2. Using, replace two occurrences of R with one: ϕ tc (R,x,y) ( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )R(u,v) M 2 (u = x v = z) (u = z v = y) 3. Requantify x and y. M 3 (x = u y = v) ϕ tc (R,x,y) [ ( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 ) ] R(x,y) Every FO inductive definition is equivalent to a quantifier block.
33 QB tc [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )] ϕ tc (R,x,y) [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )]R(x,y)
34 QB tc [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )] ϕ tc (R,x,y) ϕ tc (R,x,y) [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )]R(x,y) [QB tc ]R(x,y)
35 QB tc [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )] ϕ tc (R,x,y) ϕ tc (R,x,y) ϕ r tc ( ) [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )]R(x,y) [QB tc ]R(x,y) [QB tc] r (false)
36 QB tc [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )] ϕ tc (R,x,y) ϕ tc (R,x,y) ϕ r tc ( ) [( z.m 1 )( z)( uv.m 2 )( xy.m 3 )]R(x,y) [QB tc ]R(x,y) [QB tc] r (false) Thus, for any structure A STRUC[τ g ], A REACH A = (LFϕ tc )(s,t) A = ([QB tc ] 1+log A false)(s,t)
37 CRAM[t(n)] = concurrent parallel random access machine; polynomial hardware, parallel time O(t(n)) IND[t(n)] = first-order, depth t(n) inductive definitions FO[t(n)] = t(n) repetitions of a block of restricted quantifiers: QB = [(Q 1 x 1.M 1 ) (Q k x k.m k )]; M i quantifier-free ϕ n = [QB][QB] [QB] }{{} t(n) M 0
38 parallel time = inductive depth = QB iteration Thm: For all constructible, polynomially bounded t(n), CRAM[t(n)] = IND[t(n)] = FO[t(n)] Thm: For all t(n), even beyond polynomial, CRAM[t(n)] = FO[t(n)]
39 co r.e. FO A (N) co r.e. Arithmetic Hierarchy FO(N) Recursive r.e. FO (N) E r.e. For t(n) poly bdd, CRAM[t(n)] = IND[t(n)] = FO[t(n)] co N SO A O(1) FO[n ] FO(LF) O(1) FO[(log n) ] FO[log n] FO(CFL) FO(TC) FO(REGULAR) olynomial Time Hierarchy SO co N N rimitive Recursive N SACE "truly feasible" co N SO E N NC AC 1 NSACE[log n] FO(DTC) DSACE[log n] 1 NC FO Logarithmic Time Hierarchy 0 AC
40 co r.e. FO A (N) Arithmetic Hierarchy r.e. co r.e. FO(N) r.e. Recursive FO (N) E rimitive Recursive For all t(n), CRAM[t(n)] = O(1) n FO[2 ] co N SO A FO(LF) SACE FO(F) olynomial Time Hierarchy SO co N N N co N O(1) FO[n ] "truly feasible" O(1) FO[(log n) ] NC SO E N FO[t(n)] FO[log n] FO(CFL) FO(TC) FO(DTC) FO(REGULAR) 1 AC NSACE[log n] DSACE[log n] 1 NC FO Logarithmic Time Hierarchy 0 AC
41 Thm: For v = 1,2,..., DSACE[n v ] = VAR[v + 1] Number of variables corresponds to amount of hardware. Since variables range over a universe of size n, a constant number of variables can specify a polynomial number of gates: A bounded number of variables corresponds to polynomially much hardware.
42 Key Issue: arallel Time versus Amount of Hardware
43 Key Issue: arallel Time versus Amount of Hardware We would love to understand this tradeoff.
44 Key Issue: arallel Time versus Amount of Hardware We would love to understand this tradeoff. Is there such a thing as an inherently sequential problem? No one knows.
45 Key Issue: arallel Time versus Amount of Hardware We would love to understand this tradeoff. Is there such a thing as an inherently sequential problem? No one knows. Same tradeoff as number of variables vs. number of iterations of a quantifier block.
46 Key Issue: arallel Time versus Amount of Hardware We would love to understand this tradeoff. Is there such a thing as an inherently sequential problem? No one knows. Same tradeoff as number of variables vs. number of iterations of a quantifier block. One second-order variable can name 2 n gates.
47 Key Issue: arallel Time versus Amount of Hardware We would love to understand this tradeoff. Is there such a thing as an inherently sequential problem? No one knows. Same tradeoff as number of variables vs. number of iterations of a quantifier block. One second-order variable can name 2 n gates. Thus, SO[t(n)] = CRAM-HARD[t(n),2 no(1) ].
48 co r.e. FO A (N) Arithmetic Hierarchy r.e. co r.e. FO(N) r.e. Recursive FO (N) E rimitive Recursive SO[t(n)] = CRAM-HARD [t(n),2 no(1) ] O(1) n FO[2 ] co N FO[log n] FO(TC) FO(DTC) FO(M) FO SO O(1) n SO[2 ] A FO(LF) O(1) SO[n ] EXTIME SACE olynomial Time Hierarchy SO co N N SO Horn O(1) FO[(log n) ] NC SO Krom N co N FO(F) Logarithmic Time Hierarchy SO(LF) SO SO(TC) O(1) FO[n ] FO(CFL) FO(REGULAR) "truly feasible" E N 1 AC sac 1 NSACE[log n] DSACE[log n] 1 NC 0 ThC 0 AC
49 Recent Breakthroughs in Descriptive Complexity Theorem [Ben Rossman] Any first-order formula with any numeric relations (,+,,...) that means I have a clique of size k must have at least k/4 variables. Creative new proof idea using Håstad s Switching Lemma gives the essentially optimal bound. This lower bound is for a fixed formula, if it were for a sequence of polynomially-sized formulas, i.e., a fixed-point formula, it would follow that CLIQUE and thus N. Best previous bounds: k variables necessary and sufficient without ordering or other numeric relations [I 1980]. Nothing was known with ordering except for the trivial fact that 2 variables are not enough.
50 Recent Breakthroughs in Descriptive Complexity Theorem [Martin Grohe] Fixed-oint Logic with Counting captures olynomial Time on all classes of graphs with excluded minors. Grohe proves that for every class of graphs with excluded minors, there is a constant k such that two graphs of the class are isomorphic iff they agree on all k-variable formulas in fixed-point logic with counting. Using Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games, this can be checked in polynomial time, (O(n k (log n))). In the same time we can give a canonical description of the isomorphism type of any graph in the class. Thus every class of graphs with excluded minors admits the same general polynomial time canonization algorithm: we re isomorphic iff we agree on all formulas in C k and in particular, you are isomorphic to me iff your C k canonical description is equal to mine.
51 What We Know Diagonalization: more of the same resource gives us more: DTIME[n] = DTIME[n 2 ], same for DSACE, NTIME, NSACE,...
52 What We Know Diagonalization: more of the same resource gives us more: DTIME[n] = DTIME[n 2 ], same for DSACE, NTIME, NSACE,... Natural Complexity Classes have Natural Complete roblems SAT for N, CVAL for, QSAT for SACE,...
53 What We Know Diagonalization: more of the same resource gives us more: DTIME[n] = DTIME[n 2 ], same for DSACE, NTIME, NSACE,... Natural Complexity Classes have Natural Complete roblems SAT for N, CVAL for, QSAT for SACE,... Major Missing Idea: concept of work or conservation of energy in computation, i.e, in order to solve SAT or other hard problem we must do a certain amount of computational work.
54 Strong Lower Bounds on FO[t(n)] for small t(n) [Sipser]: strict first-order alternation hierarchy: FO.
55 Strong Lower Bounds on FO[t(n)] for small t(n) [Sipser]: strict first-order alternation hierarchy: FO. [Beame-Håstad]: hierarchy remains strict up to FO[log n/log log n].
56 Strong Lower Bounds on FO[t(n)] for small t(n) [Sipser]: strict first-order alternation hierarchy: FO. [Beame-Håstad]: hierarchy remains strict up to FO[log n/log log n]. NC 1 FO[log n/log log n] and this is tight.
57 Strong Lower Bounds on FO[t(n)] for small t(n) [Sipser]: strict first-order alternation hierarchy: FO. [Beame-Håstad]: hierarchy remains strict up to FO[log n/log log n]. NC 1 FO[log n/log log n] and this is tight. Does REACH require FO[log n]? This would imply NC 1 NL.
58 Does It Matter? How important is N? Much is known about approximation, e.g., some N problems, e.g., Knapsack, Euclidean TS, can be approximated as closely as we want, others, e.g., Clique, can t be.
59 Does It Matter? How important is N? Much is known about approximation, e.g., some N problems, e.g., Knapsack, Euclidean TS, can be approximated as closely as we want, others, e.g., Clique, can t be. We conjecture that SAT requires DTIME[Ω(2 ǫn )] for some ǫ > 0, but no one has yet proved that it requires more than DTIME[n].
60 Does It Matter? How important is N? Much is known about approximation, e.g., some N problems, e.g., Knapsack, Euclidean TS, can be approximated as closely as we want, others, e.g., Clique, can t be. We conjecture that SAT requires DTIME[Ω(2 ǫn )] for some ǫ > 0, but no one has yet proved that it requires more than DTIME[n]. Basic trade-offs are not understood, e.g., trade-off between time and number of processors. Are any problems inherently sequential? How can we best use mulitcores?
61 Does It Matter? How important is N? Much is known about approximation, e.g., some N problems, e.g., Knapsack, Euclidean TS, can be approximated as closely as we want, others, e.g., Clique, can t be. We conjecture that SAT requires DTIME[Ω(2 ǫn )] for some ǫ > 0, but no one has yet proved that it requires more than DTIME[n]. Basic trade-offs are not understood, e.g., trade-off between time and number of processors. Are any problems inherently sequential? How can we best use mulitcores? SAT solvers are impressive new general purpose problem solvers, e.g., used in model checking, AI planning, code synthesis. How good are current SAT solvers? How much can they be improved?
62 Descriptive Complexity Fact: For constructible t(n), FO[t(n)] = CRAM[t(n)] Fact: For k = 1,2,..., VAR[k + 1] = DSACE[n k ] The complexity of computing a query is closely tied to the complexity of describing the query. = N ThC 0 = N = SACE FO(LF) = SO FO(MAJ) = SO FO(LF) = SO(TC)
63 co r.e. FO A (N) Arithmetic Hierarchy r.e. co r.e. FO(N) r.e. Recursive FO (N) E O(1) n FO[2 ] co N SO O(1) n SO[2 ] A FO(LF) O(1) SO[n ] rimitive Recursive EXTIME SACE FO(F) olynomial Time Hierarchy SO co N N SO Horn N co N SO(LF) SO(TC) O(1) FO[n ] "truly feasible" O(1) FO[(log n) ] NC SO E N FO[log n] FO(CFL) FO(TC) SO Krom FO(DTC) FO(REGULAR) FO(M) FO Logarithmic Time Hierarchy 1 AC sac 1 NSACE[log n] DSACE[log n] 1 NC 0 ThC 0 AC
Descriptive Complexity
Descriptive Complexity and Nested Words 1/46 Descriptive Complexity and Nested Words Neil Immerman www.cs.umass.edu/ immerman I decided to start with a survey of Descriptive Complexity, and end with a
More informationLecture 9: PSPACE. PSPACE = DSPACE[n O(1) ] = NSPACE[n O(1) ] = ATIME[n O(1) ]
Lecture 9: PSPACE PSPACE = DSPACE[n O(1) ] = NSPACE[n O(1) ] = ATIME[n O(1) ] PSPACE consists of what we could compute with a feasible amount of hardware, but with no time limit. PSPACE is a large and
More informationDefinition: Alternating time and space Game Semantics: State of machine determines who
CMPSCI 601: Recall From Last Time Lecture Definition: Alternating time and space Game Semantics: State of machine determines who controls, White wants it to accept, Black wants it to reject. White wins
More informationDefinition: Alternating time and space Game Semantics: State of machine determines who
CMPSCI 601: Recall From Last Time Lecture 3 Definition: Alternating time and space Game Semantics: State of machine determines who controls, White wants it to accept, Black wants it to reject. White wins
More informationCS601 DTIME and DSPACE Lecture 5. Time and Space functions: t,s : N N +
CS61 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 constantc, such that, 1. A = L(M)
More informationAlgorithmic Model Theory SS 2016
Algorithmic Model Theory SS 2016 Prof. Dr. Erich Grädel and Dr. Wied Pakusa Mathematische Grundlagen der Informatik RWTH Aachen cbnd This work is licensed under: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/de/
More informationINAPPROX APPROX PTAS. FPTAS Knapsack P
CMPSCI 61: Recall From Last Time Lecture 22 Clique TSP INAPPROX exists P approx alg for no ε < 1 VertexCover MAX SAT APPROX TSP some but not all ε< 1 PTAS all ε < 1 ETSP FPTAS Knapsack P poly in n, 1/ε
More informationLimits of Feasibility. Example. Complexity Relationships among Models. 1. Complexity Relationships among Models
Limits of Feasibility Wolfgang Schreiner Wolfgang.Schreiner@risc.jku.at Research Institute for Symbolic Computation (RISC) Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria http://www.risc.jku.at 1. Complexity
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Fall 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/fa16/cse105-abc/ Logistics HW7 due tonight Thursday's class: REVIEW Final exam on Thursday Dec 8, 8am-11am, LEDDN AUD Note card allowed
More informationDescriptive Complexity: An overview of the field, key results, techniques, and applications.
Descriptive Complexity: An overview of the field, key results, techniques, and applications. Ryan Flannery http://cs.uc.edu/~flannert 22 May 2009 Abstract In 1974 Ronald Fagin proved that problems in the
More informationPolynomial Time Computation. Topics in Logic and Complexity Handout 2. Nondeterministic Polynomial Time. Succinct Certificates.
1 2 Topics in Logic and Complexity Handout 2 Anuj Dawar MPhil Advanced Computer Science, Lent 2010 Polynomial Time Computation P = TIME(n k ) k=1 The class of languages decidable in polynomial time. The
More informationMTAT Complexity Theory October 20th-21st, Lecture 7
MTAT.07.004 Complexity Theory October 20th-21st, 2011 Lecturer: Peeter Laud Lecture 7 Scribe(s): Riivo Talviste Polynomial hierarchy 1 Turing reducibility From the algorithmics course, we know the notion
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp16/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 7.2, 7.3 Distinguish between polynomial and exponential DTIME Define nondeterministic
More informationFinite and Algorithmic Model Theory II: Automata-Based Methods
Finite and Algorithmic Model Theory II: Automata-Based Methods Anuj Dawar University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Simons Institute, 30 August 2016 Review We aim to develop tools for studying the expressive
More informationComplete problems for classes in PH, The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy (PH) oracle is like a subroutine, or function in
Oracle Turing Machines Nondeterministic OTM defined in the same way (transition relation, rather than function) oracle is like a subroutine, or function in your favorite PL but each call counts as single
More informationInfinite and Finite Model Theory Part II
Infinite and Finite Model Theory Part II Anuj Dawar Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge Lent 2002 3/2002 0 Finite Model Theory Finite Model Theory motivated by computational issues; relationship
More informationLecture 16: Time Complexity and P vs NP
6.045 Lecture 16: Time Complexity and P vs NP 1 Time-Bounded Complexity Classes Definition: TIME(t(n)) = { L there is a Turing machine M with time complexity O(t(n)) so that L = L(M) } = { L L is a language
More informationR ij = 2. Using all of these facts together, you can solve problem number 9.
Help for Homework Problem #9 Let G(V,E) be any undirected graph We want to calculate the travel time across the graph. Think of each edge as one resistor of 1 Ohm. Say we have two nodes: i and j Let the
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION "Winter" 2018 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi18/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 7 Distinguish between computability and complexity Articulate motivation questions
More informationFinish K-Complexity, Start Time Complexity
6.045 Finish K-Complexity, Start Time Complexity 1 Kolmogorov Complexity Definition: The shortest description of x, denoted as d(x), is the lexicographically shortest string such that M(w) halts
More informationTime Complexity. Definition. Let t : n n be a function. NTIME(t(n)) = {L L is a language decidable by a O(t(n)) deterministic TM}
Time Complexity Definition Let t : n n be a function. TIME(t(n)) = {L L is a language decidable by a O(t(n)) deterministic TM} NTIME(t(n)) = {L L is a language decidable by a O(t(n)) non-deterministic
More informationOverview of Topics. Finite Model Theory. Finite Model Theory. Connections to Database Theory. Qing Wang
Overview of Topics Finite Model Theory Part 1: Introduction 1 What is finite model theory? 2 Connections to some areas in CS Qing Wang qing.wang@anu.edu.au Database theory Complexity theory 3 Basic definitions
More informationFORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
15-453 FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY THURSDAY APRIL 3 REVIEW for Midterm TUESDAY April 8 Definition: A Turing Machine is a 7-tuple T = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q, q accept, q reject ), where: Q is a
More informationAdleman Theorem and Sipser Gács Lautemann Theorem. CS422 Computation Theory CS422 Complexity Theory
Adleman Theorem and Sipser Gács Lautemann Theorem CS422 Computation Theory CS422 Complexity Theory Complexity classes, N, co N, SACE, EXTIME, H, R, RE, ALL, Complexity theorists: "Which is contained in
More informationU.C. Berkeley CS278: Computational Complexity Professor Luca Trevisan August 30, Notes for Lecture 1
U.C. Berkeley CS278: Computational Complexity Handout N1 Professor Luca Trevisan August 30, 2004 Notes for Lecture 1 This course assumes CS170, or equivalent, as a prerequisite. We will assume that the
More informationLecture 3: Reductions and Completeness
CS 710: Complexity Theory 9/13/2011 Lecture 3: Reductions and Completeness Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: Brian Nixon Last lecture we introduced the notion of a universal Turing machine for deterministic
More informationFinal exam study sheet for CS3719 Turing machines and decidability.
Final exam study sheet for CS3719 Turing machines and decidability. A Turing machine is a finite automaton with an infinite memory (tape). Formally, a Turing machine is a 6-tuple M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q 0,
More informationPreliminaries. Introduction to EF-games. Inexpressivity results for first-order logic. Normal forms for first-order logic
Introduction to EF-games Inexpressivity results for first-order logic Normal forms for first-order logic Algorithms and complexity for specific classes of structures General complexity bounds Preliminaries
More informationAbout the relationship between formal logic and complexity classes
About the relationship between formal logic and complexity classes Working paper Comments welcome; my email: armandobcm@yahoo.com Armando B. Matos October 20, 2013 1 Introduction We analyze a particular
More informationEhrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games
Chapter 6 Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games We introduce combinatorial games that are useful for determining what can be expressed in various logics. Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games offer a semantics for firstorder
More informationCS154, Lecture 15: Cook-Levin Theorem SAT, 3SAT
CS154, Lecture 15: Cook-Levin Theorem SAT, 3SAT Definition: A language B is NP-complete if: 1. B NP 2. Every A in NP is poly-time reducible to B That is, A P B When this is true, we say B is NP-hard On
More informationLecture 12: Interactive Proofs
princeton university cos 522: computational complexity Lecture 12: Interactive Proofs Lecturer: Sanjeev Arora Scribe:Carl Kingsford Recall the certificate definition of NP. We can think of this characterization
More informationFoundations of Query Languages
Foundations of Query Languages SS 2011 2. 2. Foundations of Query Languages Dr. Fang Wei Lehrstuhl für Datenbanken und Informationssysteme Universität Freiburg SS 2011 Dr. Fang Wei 30. Mai 2011 Seite 1
More informationTheory of Computation CS3102 Spring 2015 A tale of computers, math, problem solving, life, love and tragic death
Theory of Computation CS3102 Spring 2015 A tale of computers, math, problem solving, life, love and tragic death Robbie Hott www.cs.virginia.edu/~jh2jf Department of Computer Science University of Virginia
More informationAlgorithms & Complexity II Avarikioti Zeta
Algorithms & Complexity II Avarikioti Zeta March 17, 2014 Alternating Computation Alternation: generalizes non-determinism, where each state is either existential or universal : Old: existential states
More informationComplexity (Pre Lecture)
Complexity (Pre Lecture) Dr. Neil T. Dantam CSCI-561, Colorado School of Mines Fall 2018 Dantam (Mines CSCI-561) Complexity (Pre Lecture) Fall 2018 1 / 70 Why? What can we always compute efficiently? What
More informationCS 154, Lecture 4: Limitations on DFAs (I), Pumping Lemma, Minimizing DFAs
CS 154, Lecture 4: Limitations on FAs (I), Pumping Lemma, Minimizing FAs Regular or Not? Non-Regular Languages = { w w has equal number of occurrences of 01 and 10 } REGULAR! C = { w w has equal number
More informationNotes on Computer Theory Last updated: November, Circuits
Notes on Computer Theory Last updated: November, 2015 Circuits Notes by Jonathan Katz, lightly edited by Dov Gordon. 1 Circuits Boolean circuits offer an alternate model of computation: a non-uniform one
More informationTechnische Universität München Summer term 2010 Theoretische Informatik August 2, 2010 Dr. J. Kreiker / Dr. M. Luttenberger, J. Kretinsky SOLUTION
Technische Universität München Summer term 2010 Theoretische Informatik August 2, 2010 Dr. J. Kreiker / Dr. M. Luttenberger, J. Kretinsky SOLUTION Complexity Theory Final Exam Please note : If not stated
More informationLecture 24: Approximate Counting
CS 710: Complexity Theory 12/1/2011 Lecture 24: Approximate Counting Instructor: Dieter van Melkebeek Scribe: David Guild and Gautam Prakriya Last time we introduced counting problems and defined the class
More informationCS151 Complexity Theory. Lecture 6 April 19, 2017
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 6 Shannon s counting argument frustrating fact: almost all functions require huge circuits Theorem (Shannon): With probability at least 1 o(1), a random function f:{0,1}
More information1 Circuit Complexity. CS 6743 Lecture 15 1 Fall Definitions
CS 6743 Lecture 15 1 Fall 2007 1 Circuit Complexity 1.1 Definitions A Boolean circuit C on n inputs x 1,..., x n is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with n nodes of in-degree 0 (the inputs x 1,..., x n ),
More informationBetter Time-Space Lower Bounds for SAT and Related Problems
Better Time-Space Lower Bounds for SAT and Related Problems Ryan Williams Carnegie Mellon University June 12, 2005 0-0 Introduction Few super-linear time lower bounds known for natural problems in NP (Existing
More informationCS151 Complexity Theory
Introduction CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 5 April 13, 2004 Power from an unexpected source? we know PEXP, which implies no polytime algorithm for Succinct CVAL poly-size Boolean circuits for Succinct
More informationCS154, Lecture 13: P vs NP
CS154, Lecture 13: P vs NP The EXTENDED Church-Turing Thesis Everyone s Intuitive Notion of Efficient Algorithms Polynomial-Time Turing Machines More generally: TM can simulate every reasonable model of
More informationCould we potentially place A in a smaller complexity class if we consider other computational models?
Introduction to Complexity Theory Big O Notation Review Linear function: r(n) =O(n). Polynomial function: r(n) =2 O(1) Exponential function: r(n) =2 no(1) Logarithmic function: r(n) = O(log n) Poly-log
More informationThe Polynomial Hierarchy
The Polynomial Hierarchy Slides based on S.Aurora, B.Barak. Complexity Theory: A Modern Approach. Ahto Buldas Ahto.Buldas@ut.ee Motivation..synthesizing circuits is exceedingly difficulty. It is even
More informationAlgorithms as Lower Bounds
Algorithms as Lower Bounds Lecture 3 Part 1: Solving QBF and NC1 Lower Bounds (Joint work with Rahul Santhanam, U. Edinburgh) Part 2: Time-Space Tradeoffs for SAT Ryan Williams Stanford University Quantified
More informationNP, polynomial-time mapping reductions, and NP-completeness
NP, polynomial-time mapping reductions, and NP-completeness In the previous lecture we discussed deterministic time complexity, along with the time-hierarchy theorem, and introduced two complexity classes:
More informationA.Antonopoulos 18/1/2010
Class DP Basic orems 18/1/2010 Class DP Basic orems 1 Class DP 2 Basic orems Class DP Basic orems TSP Versions 1 TSP (D) 2 EXACT TSP 3 TSP COST 4 TSP (1) P (2) P (3) P (4) DP Class Class DP Basic orems
More informationIntroduction. 1 Partially supported by a grant from The John Templeton Foundation
Nisan-Wigderson generators in proof systems with forms of interpolation Ján Pich 1 Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Charles University in Prague March, 2010 We prove that the Nisan-Wigderson generators
More informationLecture 3: Nondeterminism, NP, and NP-completeness
CSE 531: Computational Complexity I Winter 2016 Lecture 3: Nondeterminism, NP, and NP-completeness January 13, 2016 Lecturer: Paul Beame Scribe: Paul Beame 1 Nondeterminism and NP Recall the definition
More informationLecture 8: Complete Problems for Other Complexity Classes
IAS/PCMI Summer Session 2000 Clay Mathematics Undergraduate Program Basic Course on Computational Complexity Lecture 8: Complete Problems for Other Complexity Classes David Mix Barrington and Alexis Maciel
More informationStructure Theorem and Strict Alternation Hierarchy for FO 2 on Words
Structure Theorem and Strict Alternation Hierarchy for FO 2 on Words Philipp Weis Neil Immerman Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts, Amherst 140 Governors Drive Amherst, MA 01003,
More informationGeometric Steiner Trees
Geometric Steiner Trees From the book: Optimal Interconnection Trees in the Plane By Marcus Brazil and Martin Zachariasen Part 3: Computational Complexity and the Steiner Tree Problem Marcus Brazil 2015
More informationMTAT Complexity Theory October 13th-14th, Lecture 6
MTAT.07.004 Complexity Theory October 13th-14th, 2011 Lecturer: Peeter Laud Lecture 6 Scribe(s): Riivo Talviste 1 Logarithmic memory Turing machines working in logarithmic space become interesting when
More information9. PSPACE 9. PSPACE. PSPACE complexity class quantified satisfiability planning problem PSPACE-complete
Geography game Geography. Alice names capital city c of country she is in. Bob names a capital city c' that starts with the letter on which c ends. Alice and Bob repeat this game until one player is unable
More information9. PSPACE. PSPACE complexity class quantified satisfiability planning problem PSPACE-complete
9. PSPACE PSPACE complexity class quantified satisfiability planning problem PSPACE-complete Lecture slides by Kevin Wayne Copyright 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley Copyright 2013 Kevin Wayne http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~wayne/kleinberg-tardos
More informationLecture 6: Oracle TMs, Diagonalization Limits, Space Complexity
CSE 531: Computational Complexity I Winter 2016 Lecture 6: Oracle TMs, Diagonalization Limits, Space Complexity January 22, 2016 Lecturer: Paul Beame Scribe: Paul Beame Diagonalization enabled us to separate
More informationCSE 105 Theory of Computation
CSE 105 Theory of Computation http://www.jflap.org/jflaptmp/ Professor Jeanne Ferrante 1 Today s Agenda P and NP (7.2, 7.3) Next class: Review Reminders and announcements: CAPE & TA evals are open: Please
More informationTime Complexity. CS60001: Foundations of Computing Science
Time Complexity CS60001: Foundations of Computing Science Professor, Dept. of Computer Sc. & Engg., Measuring Complexity Definition Let M be a deterministic Turing machine that halts on all inputs. The
More informationUmans Complexity Theory Lectures
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 12: The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy Oracle Turing Machines Oracle Turing Machine (OTM): Deterministic multitape TM M with special query tape special states q?, q
More informationDRAFT. Diagonalization. Chapter 4
Chapter 4 Diagonalization..the relativized P =?NP question has a positive answer for some oracles and a negative answer for other oracles. We feel that this is further evidence of the difficulty of the
More informationCS154, Lecture 13: P vs NP
CS154, Lecture 13: P vs NP The EXTENDED Church-Turing Thesis Everyone s Intuitive Notion of Efficient Algorithms Polynomial-Time Turing Machines More generally: TM can simulate every reasonable model of
More informationParallelism. Chapter 5
Chapter 5 Parallelism Descriptive complexity is inherently parallel in nature. This is a particularly delightful dividend of applying this form of logic to computer science. The time to compute a query
More informationFinite Model Theory: First-Order Logic on the Class of Finite Models
1 Finite Model Theory: First-Order Logic on the Class of Finite Models Anuj Dawar University of Cambridge Modnet Tutorial, La Roche, 21 April 2008 2 Finite Model Theory In the 1980s, the term finite model
More informationComplexity: Some examples
Algorithms and Architectures III: Distributed Systems H-P Schwefel, Jens M. Pedersen Mm6 Distributed storage and access (jmp) Mm7 Introduction to security aspects (hps) Mm8 Parallel complexity (hps) Mm9
More informationNotes for Lecture Notes 2
Stanford University CS254: Computational Complexity Notes 2 Luca Trevisan January 11, 2012 Notes for Lecture Notes 2 In this lecture we define NP, we state the P versus NP problem, we prove that its formulation
More informationOverview. Discrete Event Systems Verification of Finite Automata. What can finite automata be used for? What can finite automata be used for?
Computer Engineering and Networks Overview Discrete Event Systems Verification of Finite Automata Lothar Thiele Introduction Binary Decision Diagrams Representation of Boolean Functions Comparing two circuits
More informationChapter 9. PSPACE: A Class of Problems Beyond NP. Slides by Kevin Wayne Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved.
Chapter 9 PSPACE: A Class of Problems Beyond NP Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright @ 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights reserved. 1 Geography Game Geography. Alice names capital city c of country she
More informationChapter 7: Time Complexity
Chapter 7: Time Complexity 1 Time complexity Let M be a deterministic Turing machine that halts on all inputs. The running time or time complexity of M is the function f: N N, where f(n) is the maximum
More informationComputational complexity measures how much time and/or memory space is needed as a function of the input size. Let TIME[t(n)] be the set of problems t
Descriptive Complexity: a Logician's Approach to Computation Neil Immerman Computer Science Dept. University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 immerman@cs.umass.edu Appeared in Notices of the American
More informationReview of Basic Computational Complexity
Lecture 1 Review of Basic Computational Complexity March 30, 2004 Lecturer: Paul Beame Notes: Daniel Lowd 1.1 Preliminaries 1.1.1 Texts There is no one textbook that covers everything in this course. Some
More informationLecture 9: Polynomial-Time Hierarchy, Time-Space Tradeoffs
CSE 531: Computational Complexity I Winter 2016 Lecture 9: Polynomial-Time Hierarchy, Time-Space Tradeoffs Feb 3, 2016 Lecturer: Paul Beame Scribe: Paul Beame 1 The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy Last time
More informationComplexity Theory VU , SS The Polynomial Hierarchy. Reinhard Pichler
Complexity Theory Complexity Theory VU 181.142, SS 2018 6. The Polynomial Hierarchy Reinhard Pichler Institut für Informationssysteme Arbeitsbereich DBAI Technische Universität Wien 15 May, 2018 Reinhard
More informationOutline. Complexity Theory EXACT TSP. The Class DP. Definition. Problem EXACT TSP. Complexity of EXACT TSP. Proposition VU 181.
Complexity Theory Complexity Theory Outline Complexity Theory VU 181.142, SS 2018 6. The Polynomial Hierarchy Reinhard Pichler Institut für Informationssysteme Arbeitsbereich DBAI Technische Universität
More informationStructure Theorem and Strict Alternation Hierarchy for FO 2 on Words
Id: FO2_on_words.tex d6eb3e813af0 2010-02-09 14:35-0500 pweis Structure Theorem and Strict Alternation Hierarchy for FO 2 on Words Philipp Weis Neil Immerman Department of Computer Science University of
More informationCSCI3390-Lecture 18: Why is the P =?NP Problem Such a Big Deal?
CSCI3390-Lecture 18: Why is the P =?NP Problem Such a Big Deal? The conjecture that P is different from NP made its way on to several lists of the most important unsolved problems in Mathematics (never
More informationAlternation Trading Proofs and Their Limitations
and Their Limitations Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS) IST Austria, Klosterneuburg August 27, 2013 NP and Satisfiability Lower bounds Fundamental problems for computer science include
More informationJASS 06 Report Summary. Circuit Complexity. Konstantin S. Ushakov. May 14, 2006
JASS 06 Report Summary Circuit Complexity Konstantin S. Ushakov May 14, 2006 Abstract Computer science deals with many computational models. In real life we have normal computers that are constructed using,
More informationEssential facts about NP-completeness:
CMPSCI611: NP Completeness Lecture 17 Essential facts about NP-completeness: Any NP-complete problem can be solved by a simple, but exponentially slow algorithm. We don t have polynomial-time solutions
More informationWhat we have done so far
What we have done so far DFAs and regular languages NFAs and their equivalence to DFAs Regular expressions. Regular expressions capture exactly regular languages: Construct a NFA from a regular expression.
More information1 Computational Problems
Stanford University CS254: Computational Complexity Handout 2 Luca Trevisan March 31, 2010 Last revised 4/29/2010 In this lecture we define NP, we state the P versus NP problem, we prove that its formulation
More informationLecture 20: conp and Friends, Oracles in Complexity Theory
6.045 Lecture 20: conp and Friends, Oracles in Complexity Theory 1 Definition: conp = { L L NP } What does a conp computation look like? In NP algorithms, we can use a guess instruction in pseudocode:
More informationComplexity, P and NP
Complexity, P and NP EECS 477 Lecture 21, 11/26/2002 Last week Lower bound arguments Information theoretic (12.2) Decision trees (sorting) Adversary arguments (12.3) Maximum of an array Graph connectivity
More informationComputational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Draft of a book: Dated January 2007 Comments welcome!
i Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach Draft of a book: Dated January 2007 Comments welcome! Sanjeev Arora and Boaz Barak Princeton University complexitybook@gmail.com Not to be reproduced or distributed
More informationCS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis. Jeremiah Blocki Purdue University Spring 2018
CS 580: Algorithm Design and Analysis Jeremiah Blocki Purdue University Spring 2018 Chapter 9 PSPACE: A Class of Problems Beyond NP Slides by Kevin Wayne. Copyright @ 2005 Pearson-Addison Wesley. All rights
More informationBBM402-Lecture 11: The Class NP
BBM402-Lecture 11: The Class NP Lecturer: Lale Özkahya Resources for the presentation: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-andcomputer-science/6-045j-automata-computability-andcomplexity-spring-2011/syllabus/
More informationNotes on Satisfiability-Based Problem Solving. First Order Logic. David Mitchell October 23, 2013
Notes on Satisfiability-Based Problem Solving First Order Logic David Mitchell mitchell@cs.sfu.ca October 23, 2013 Preliminary draft. Please do not distribute. Corrections and suggestions welcome. In this
More informationNotes for Lecture 3... x 4
Stanford University CS254: Computational Complexity Notes 3 Luca Trevisan January 14, 2014 Notes for Lecture 3 In this lecture we introduce the computational model of boolean circuits and prove that polynomial
More informationDatabase Theory VU , SS Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games. Reinhard Pichler
Database Theory Database Theory VU 181.140, SS 2018 7. Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé Games Reinhard Pichler Institut für Informationssysteme Arbeitsbereich DBAI Technische Universität Wien 15 May, 2018 Pichler 15
More informationCS151 Complexity Theory. Lecture 1 April 3, 2017
CS151 Complexity Theory Lecture 1 April 3, 2017 Complexity Theory Classify problems according to the computational resources required running time storage space parallelism randomness rounds of interaction,
More informationTime-Space Tradeoffs for SAT
Lecture 8 Time-Space Tradeoffs for SAT April 22, 2004 Lecturer: Paul Beame Notes: Definition 8.1. TIMESPACE(T (n), S(n)) = {L {0, 1} offline, multitape TM M such that L = L(M) and M uses time O(T (n))
More information-bit integers are all in ThC. Th The following problems are complete for PSPACE NPSPACE ATIME QSAT, GEOGRAPHY, SUCCINCT REACH.
CMPSCI 601: Recall From Last Time Lecture 26 Theorem: All CFL s are in sac. Facts: ITADD, MULT, ITMULT and DIVISION on -bit integers are all in ThC. Th The following problems are complete for PSPACE NPSPACE
More informationGames and Isomorphism in Finite Model Theory. Part 1
1 Games and Isomorphism in Finite Model Theory Part 1 Anuj Dawar University of Cambridge Games Winter School, Champéry, 6 February 2013 2 Model Comparison Games Games in Finite Model Theory are generally
More informationCOMP 409: Logic Homework 5
COMP 409: Logic Homework 5 Note: The pages below refer to the text from the book by Enderton. 1. Exercises 1-6 on p. 78. 1. Translate into this language the English sentences listed below. If the English
More informationComplexity Theory Final Exam
Technische Universität München Summer term 2010 Theoretische Informatik August 2, 2010 Dr. J. Kreiker / Dr. M. Luttenberger, J. Kretinsky Complexity Theory Final Exam Please note : If not stated otherwise,
More informationThe Complexity and Proof Complexity of the Comparator Circuit Value Problem
The Complexity and Proof Complexity of the Comparator Circuit Value Problem Stephen Cook Joint work with Yuval Filmus, Dai Tri Man Lê, and Yuli Ye Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Canada
More informationFirst-Order Logic. 1 Syntax. Domain of Discourse. FO Vocabulary. Terms
First-Order Logic 1 Syntax Domain of Discourse The domain of discourse for first order logic is FO structures or models. A FO structure contains Relations Functions Constants (functions of arity 0) FO
More information