520 likes | 646 Views
233-234. Sedgewick & Wayne (2004); Chazelle (2005). Linear-reduces: Cost of reduction is proportional to size of input. Traveling Salesman Problem. Best known algorithm takes exponential time!. P. Problems that can be solved in polynomial time. c.
E N D
233-234 Sedgewick & Wayne (2004); Chazelle (2005)
Linear-reduces: Cost of reduction is proportional to size of input
P Problems that can be solved in polynomial time c If input size = N, then time is O(N ) Suffices to look at Yes/No problems NP Problems that have polynomial time proofs
3-Coloring Not known to be in P
3-Coloring But is in NP
Don’t all problems have polynomial time proofs? No ! Piano mover’s problem Winning strategies
P Problems that can be solved in polynomial time NP Problems that have polynomial time proofs (Note that P is symmetric with yes/no but NP is not) COMPOSITE is in NP (easy); so is PRIME (hard)
P Problems that can be solved in polynomial time NP Problems that have polynomial time proofs NP-Complete: Any problem A in NP such that any problem in NP polynomial-reduces to it Over 10,000 known NP-complete problems !
FACTORING Given n-bit integer x and k, does x have a factor 1<x<k ? 3-COLOR Given graph G, can it be colored red, white, blue? FACTORING and 3-COLOR are in NP 3-COLOR is NP-complete 3-color efficiently and destroy ALL e-commerce!
Zero Knowledge Can I convince you I have a proof without revealing anything about it?
3-Coloring Prover interacts with Verifier
3-Coloring Prover hides coloring
3-Coloring Verifier checks an edge at random
3-Coloring Verifier spots a lie with probability 1/E
3-Coloring Verifier repeats 100E times
If Verifier spots no lies, she concludes the graph is 3-colorable Prover fools Verifier with negligible probability
Is it Zero-Knowledge? Verifier can color most of the graph!
Not Zero-Knowledge! Why do we require the Verifier to check randomly?
Repeat 100 E times: 1. Prover: shuffle colors 2. Verifier: Check any edge
Shuffle colors: what’s that? Random permutation (6 possibilities)
Why is it zero-knowledge? No matter what the Verifier does, she only sees a random pair of colors So, she can simulate the whole protocol by herself – no need for the prover.
Every problem in NP has a zero-knowledge proof
PCP (probabilistically checkable proofs) Can I convince you I have a proof of Riemann’s hypothesis by letting you look at only 2 lines picked at random? Yes, with probability of error 1/google
My proof of RH compiler Slightly longer proof of RH