|
PSPACE-hard
In computational complexity theory, PSPACE is the set of all decision problems that can be solved by a Turing machine using a polynomial amount of space. Formal definition If we denote by SPACE(''f''(''n'')), the set of all problems that can be solved by Turing machines using ''O''(''f''(''n'')) space for some function ''f'' of the input size ''n'', then we can define PSPACE formally asArora & Barak (2009) p.81 :\mathsf = \bigcup_ \mathsf(n^k). It turns out that allowing the Turing machine to be nondeterministic does not add any extra power. Because of Savitch's theorem,Arora & Barak (2009) p.85 NPSPACE is equivalent to PSPACE, essentially because a deterministic Turing machine can simulate a nondeterministic Turing machine without needing much more space (even though it may use much more time).Arora & Barak (2009) p.86 Also, the complements of all problems in PSPACE are also in PSPACE, meaning that co-PSPACE PSPACE. Relation among other classes The following rel ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
EXPTIME
In computational complexity theory, the complexity class EXPTIME (sometimes called EXP or DEXPTIME) is the set of all decision problems that are solvable by a deterministic Turing machine in exponential time, i.e., in O(2''p''(''n'')) time, where ''p''(''n'') is a polynomial function of ''n''. EXPTIME is one intuitive class in an exponential hierarchy of complexity classes with increasingly more complex oracles or quantifier alternations. For example, the class 2-EXPTIME is defined similarly to EXPTIME but with a doubly exponential time bound. This can be generalized to higher and higher time bounds. EXPTIME can also be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an alternating Turing machine in polynomial space. EXPTIME relates to the other basic time and space complexity classes in the following way: P ⊆ NP ⊆ PSPACE ⊆ EXPTIME ⊆ NEXPTIME ⊆ EXPSPACE. Furthermore, by the time hierarchy theorem and the space hiera ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
QIP (complexity)
In computational complexity theory, the class QIP (which stands for Quantum Interactive Proof) is the quantum computing analogue of the classical complexity class IP, which is the set of problems solvable by an interactive proof system with a polynomial-time verifier and one computationally unbounded prover. Informally, IP is the set of languages for which a computationally unbounded prover can convince a polynomial-time verifier to accept when the input is in the language (with high probability) and cannot convince the verifier to accept when the input is not in the language (again, with high probability). In other words, the prover and verifier may interact for polynomially many rounds, and if the input is in the language the verifier should accept with probability greater than 2/3, and if the input is not in the language, the verifier should be reject with probability greater than 2/3. In IP, the verifier is like a BPP machine. In QIP, the communication between the prover and ve ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
IP (complexity)
In computational complexity theory, the class IP (which stands for interactive proof) is the class of problems solvable by an interactive proof system. It is equal to the class PSPACE. The result was established in a series of papers: the first by Lund, Karloff, Fortnow, and Nisan showed that co-NP had multiple prover interactive proofs; and the second, by Shamir, employed their technique to establish that IP=PSPACE. The result is a famous example where the proof does not relativize. The concept of an interactive proof system was first introduced by Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, and Charles Rackoff in 1985. An interactive proof system consists of two machines, a prover, ''P'', which presents a proof that a given string ''n'' is a member of some language, and a verifier, ''V'', that checks that the presented proof is correct. The prover is assumed to be infinite in computation and storage, while the verifier is a probabilistic polynomial-time machine with access to a random ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Interactive Proof System
In computational complexity theory, an interactive proof system is an abstract machine that models computation as the exchange of messages between two parties: a ''prover'' and a ''verifier''. The parties interact by exchanging messages in order to ascertain whether a given string belongs to a language or not. The prover is assumed to possess unlimited computational resources but cannot be trusted, while the verifier has bounded computation power but is assumed to be always honest. Messages are sent between the verifier and prover until the verifier has an answer to the problem and has "convinced" itself that it is correct. All interactive proof systems have two requirements: * Completeness: if the statement is true, the honest prover (that is, one following the protocol properly) can convince the honest verifier that it is indeed true. * Soundness: if the statement is false, no prover, even if it doesn't follow the protocol, can convince the honest verifier that it is true, excep ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Transitive Closure
In mathematics, the transitive closure of a homogeneous binary relation on a set (mathematics), set is the smallest Relation (mathematics), relation on that contains and is Transitive relation, transitive. For finite sets, "smallest" can be taken in its usual sense, of having the fewest related pairs; for infinite sets is the unique minimal element, minimal transitive superset of . For example, if is a set of airports and means "there is a direct flight from airport to airport " (for and in ), then the transitive closure of on is the relation such that means "it is possible to fly from to in one or more flights". More formally, the transitive closure of a binary relation on a set is the smallest (w.r.t. ⊆) transitive relation on such that ⊆ ; see . We have = if, and only if, itself is transitive. Conversely, transitive reduction adduces a minimal relation from a given relation such that they have the same closure, that is, ; however, many differen ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Second-order Logic
In logic and mathematics, second-order logic is an extension of first-order logic, which itself is an extension of propositional logic. Second-order logic is in turn extended by higher-order logic and type theory. First-order logic quantifies only variables that range over individuals (elements of the domain of discourse); second-order logic, in addition, quantifies over relations. For example, the second-order sentence \forall P\,\forall x (Px \lor \neg Px) says that for every formula ''P'', and every individual ''x'', either ''Px'' is true or not(''Px'') is true (this is the law of excluded middle). Second-order logic also includes quantification over sets, functions, and other variables (see section below). Both first-order and second-order logic use the idea of a domain of discourse (often called simply the "domain" or the "universe"). The domain is a set over which individual elements may be quantified. Examples First-order logic can quantify over individuals, but no ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Descriptive Complexity
Descriptive complexity is a branch of computational complexity theory and of finite model theory that characterizes complexity classes by the type of logic needed to express the formal language, languages in them. For example, PH (complexity), PH, the union of all complexity classes in the polynomial hierarchy, is precisely the class of languages expressible by statements of second-order logic. This connection between complexity and the logic of finite structures allows results to be transferred easily from one area to the other, facilitating new proof methods and providing additional evidence that the main complexity classes are somehow "natural" and not tied to the specific abstract machines used to define them. Specifically, each logical system produces a set of query (complexity), queries expressible in it. The queries – when restricted to finite structures – correspond to the computational problems of traditional complexity theory. The first main result of descriptive com ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Alternating Turing Machine
In computational complexity theory, an alternating Turing machine (ATM) is a non-deterministic Turing machine (NTM) with a rule for accepting computations that generalizes the rules used in the definition of the complexity classes NP and co-NP. The concept of an ATM was set forth by Chandra and Stockmeyer and independently by Kozen in 1976, with a joint journal publication in 1981. Definitions Informal description The definition of NP uses the ''existential mode'' of computation: if ''any'' choice leads to an accepting state, then the whole computation accepts. The definition of co-NP uses the ''universal mode'' of computation: only if ''all'' choices lead to an accepting state does the whole computation accept. An alternating Turing machine (or to be more precise, the definition of acceptance for such a machine) alternates between these modes. An alternating Turing machine is a non-deterministic Turing machine whose states are divided into two sets: existential state ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Kleene Star
In mathematical logic and theoretical computer science, the Kleene star (or Kleene operator or Kleene closure) is a unary operation on a Set (mathematics), set to generate a set of all finite-length strings that are composed of zero or more repetitions of members from . It was named after American mathematician Stephen Cole Kleene, who first introduced and widely used it to characterize Automata theory, automata for regular expressions. In mathematics, it is more commonly known as the free monoid construction. Definition Given a set V, define :V^=\ (the set consists only of the empty string), :V^=V, and define recursively the set :V^=\ for each i>0. V^i is called the i-th power of V, it is a shorthand for the Concatenation#Concatenation of sets of strings, concatenation of V by itself i times. That is, ''V^i'' can be understood to be the set of all strings that can be represented as the concatenation of i members from V. The definition of Kleene star on V is : V^*=\bigcup_V^i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Complement (set Theory)
In set theory, the complement of a Set (mathematics), set , often denoted by A^c (or ), is the set of Element (mathematics), elements not in . When all elements in the Universe (set theory), universe, i.e. all elements under consideration, are considered to be Element (mathematics), members of a given set , the absolute complement of is the set of elements in that are not in . The relative complement of with respect to a set , also termed the set difference of and , written B \setminus A, is the set of elements in that are not in . Absolute complement Definition If is a set, then the absolute complement of (or simply the complement of ) is the set of elements not in (within a larger set that is implicitly defined). In other words, let be a set that contains all the elements under study; if there is no need to mention , either because it has been previously specified, or it is obvious and unique, then the absolute complement of is the relative complement of in : ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Union (set Theory)
In set theory, the union (denoted by ∪) of a collection of Set (mathematics), sets is the set of all element (set theory), elements in the collection. It is one of the fundamental operations through which sets can be combined and related to each other. A refers to a union of Zero, zero () sets and it is by definition equal to the empty set. For explanation of the symbols used in this article, refer to the List of mathematical symbols, table of mathematical symbols. Binary union The union of two sets ''A'' and ''B'' is the set of elements which are in ''A'', in ''B'', or in both ''A'' and ''B''. In set-builder notation, : A \cup B = \. For example, if ''A'' = and ''B'' = then ''A'' ∪ ''B'' = . A more elaborate example (involving two infinite sets) is: : ''A'' = : ''B'' = : A \cup B = \ As another example, the number 9 is ''not'' contained in the union of the set of prime numbers and the set of even numbers , because 9 is neither prime nor even. Sets cannot ha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
