1 / 16

Complexity

Complexity. 13-1. Hierarchy Theorem. Complexity Andrei Bulatov. Complexity. For a language L over an alphabet , we denote the complement of L , the language * - L. Definition The class of languages L such that can be solved by a

issac
Download Presentation

Complexity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Complexity 13-1 Hierarchy Theorem Complexity Andrei Bulatov

  2. Complexity For a language L over an alphabet , we denote the complement of L, the language * -L Definition The class of languages L such that can be solved by a non-deterministic log-space Turing machine verifier is called coNL 13-2 NL and coNL Theorem (Immerman) NL=coNL

  3. Complexity • if L is NL-complete then is coNL-complete 13-3 Proof The properties of NL and coNL are similar to those of NP and coNP: • if a coNL-complete problem belongs to NL then NL = coNL Reachability is NL-complete. Therefore it is enough to show that No-Reachability is in NL. In order to do this, we have to find a non-deterministic algorithm that proves in log-space that there is a path between two specified vertices in a graph

  4. Complexity Let be the set of all vertices connected to s with a path of length at most i, and Clearly, , and We compute the numbers inductively 13-4 Counting the number of reachable vertices Given a graph G andtwo its vertices s and t; let n be the number of vertices of G First, we count the number c of vertices reachable from s

  5. Complexity Suppose is known. The following algorithm non-deterministically either compute or reject • set • set - check whether or not using non-deterministic walk - if there is the edge (w,v) then set and leave the loop • output 13-5 • for every vertex v from G do • for every vertex w from G non-deterministically do or not do - if not then reject - if yes then set m = m – 1 • if m 0reject

  6. Complexity • set 13-6 Checking Reachability Given G, s, t and c • for every vertex v from G non-deterministically do or not do - check whether or not v is reachable from s using non-deterministic walk - if not then reject - if yes then set m = m – 1 - if v = t then reject • if m 0reject • accept

  7. Complexity 13-7 Complexity Classes We know a number of complexity classes and we how they relate each other L NL  P  NP , coNP  PSPACE However, we do not know if any of them are different Questions P NP and L  NL concern the (possible) difference between determinism and nondeterminism and known to be extremely difficult Complexity classes can be distinguished using another parameter: The amount of time/space available

  8. Complexity Definition A function f:N N, where f(n)  log n, is called space constructable, if the function that maps to the binary representation of f(n) is computable in space O(f(n)). • polynomials • n log n •  13-8 Space Constructable Functions Examples

  9. Complexity 13-9 Hierarchy Theorem Theorem For any space constructable function f:N N, there exists a language L that is decidable in space O(f(n)), but not in space o(f(n)). Corollary If f(n) and g(n) are space constructable functions, and f(n) = o(g(n)), then SPACE[f] SPACE[g] Corollary LPSPACE Corollary NLPSPACE

  10. Complexity 13-10 Proof Idea Diagonalization Method: • apply a Turing Machine to its own description • revert the answer • get a contradiction In our case, a contradiction can be with the claim that something is computable within o(f(n)) Let L = {“M” | M does not accept “M” in f(n) space}

  11. Computability and Complexity • what we can assume about a decider for L is that it works in • O(f(n)); but this means the decider uses fewer than cf(n) cells • for inputs longer than some . What if “M” is shorter than that? 13-11 If M decides L in space f(n) then what can we say about M(“M”)? • if M(“M”) accepts then “M does not accept M in space f(n)” • if M(“M”) rejects then “M accepts M in space f(n)” There are problems • we showed that L cannot be decided in space f(n), while what • need is to show that it is not decidable in space o(f(n))

  12. Complexity L = {“M ” | simulation ofM on a UTM does not accept “M ” in f(n) space} • If x is not of the form M for some M, reject • Simulate M on x while counting the number of steps used in the • simulation. If the count ever exceeds , accept 13-12 Proof In order to kick in asymptotics, change the language The following algorithm decides L in O(f(n)) On input x • Let n be the length of x • Compute f(n) and mark off this much tape. If later stages ever • attempt to use more space, reject • If M accepts, reject. If M rejects, accept

  13. Complexity 13-13 Clearly, this algorithm works in O(f(n)) space The key stage is the simulation of M Our algorithm simulates M with some loss of efficiency, because the alphabet of M can be arbitrary. If M works in g(n) space then our algorithm simulates M using bg(n) space, where b is a constant factor depending on M Thus, bg(n) f(n)

  14. Complexity There is such that for all inputs x with we have Consider Since , the simulation of M either accepts or rejects on this input in space f(n) • If the simulation accepts then does not accept • If the simulation rejects then accepts 13-14 Suppose that there exists a TM M deciding L in space g(n) =o(f(n)) We can simulate M using bg(n) space

  15. Complexity Theorem For any time constructable function f:N N, there exists a language L that is decidable in time O(f(n)), but not in time . Corollary If f(n) and g(n) are space constructable functions, and , then TIME[f] TIME[g] 13-15 Time Hierarchy Theorem

  16. Complexity Definition 16-16 The Class EXPTIME Corollary PEXPTIME

More Related