|
PSPACE (complexity)
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(''t''(''n'')), the set of all problems that can be solved by Turing machines using ''O''(''t''(''n'')) space for some function ''t'' of the input size ''n'', then we can define PSPACE formally asArora & Barak (2009) p.81 :\mathsf = \bigcup_ \mathsf(n^k). PSPACE is a strict superset of the set of context-sensitive languages. 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 non-deterministic 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 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Computational Complexity Theory
In theoretical computer science and mathematics, computational complexity theory focuses on classifying computational problems according to their resource usage, and relating these classes to each other. A computational problem is a task solved by a computer. A computation problem is solvable by mechanical application of mathematical steps, such as an algorithm. A problem is regarded as inherently difficult if its solution requires significant resources, whatever the algorithm used. The theory formalizes this intuition, by introducing mathematical models of computation to study these problems and quantifying their computational complexity, i.e., the amount of resources needed to solve them, such as time and storage. Other measures of complexity are also used, such as the amount of communication (used in communication complexity), the number of gates in a circuit (used in circuit complexity) and the number of processors (used in parallel computing). One of the roles of computationa ... [...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. Furthemore, by the time hierarchy theorem and the space hierarchy the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
QIP (complexity)
In computational complexity theory, the class QIP (which stands for Quantum Interactive Polynomial time) 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 pro ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
IP (complexity)
In computational complexity theory, the class IP (interactive polynomial time) 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 bit string w ... [...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 possesses 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, except with some ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Transitive Closure
In mathematics, the transitive closure of a binary relation on a set is the smallest relation on that contains and is transitive. For finite sets, "smallest" can be taken in its usual sense, of having the fewest related pairs; for infinite sets it is the unique 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". Informally, the ''transitive closure'' gives you the set of all places you can get to from any starting place. More formally, the transitive closure of a binary relation on a set is the transitive relation on set such that contains and is minimal; see . If the binary relation itself is transitive, then the transitive closure is that same binary relation; otherwise, the transitive closure is a different relation. Conversely, transitive ... [...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, also 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, bu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Descriptive Complexity
''Descriptive Complexity'' is a book in mathematical logic and computational complexity theory by Neil Immerman. It concerns descriptive complexity theory, an area in which the expressibility of mathematical properties using different types of logic is shown to be equivalent to their computability in different types of resource-bounded models of computation. It was published in 1999 by Springer-Verlag in their book series Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Topics The book has 15 chapters, roughly grouped into five chapters on first-order logic, three on second-order logic, and seven independent chapters on advanced topics. The first two chapters provide background material in first-order logic (including first-order arithmetic, the BIT predicate, and the notion of a first-order query) and complexity theory (including formal languages, resource-bounded complexity classes, and complete problems). Chapter three begins the connection between logic and complexity, with a proof that th ... [...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 states ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Kleene Star
In mathematical logic and computer science, the Kleene star (or Kleene operator or Kleene closure) is a unary operation, either on sets of strings or on sets of symbols or characters. In mathematics, it is more commonly known as the free monoid construction. The application of the Kleene star to a set V is written as ''V^*''. It is widely used for regular expressions, which is the context in which it was introduced by Stephen Kleene to characterize certain automata, where it means "zero or more repetitions". # If V is a set of strings, then ''V^*'' is defined as the smallest superset of V that contains the empty string \varepsilon and is closed under the string concatenation operation. # If V is a set of symbols or characters, then ''V^*'' is the set of all strings over symbols in V, including the empty string \varepsilon. The set ''V^*'' can also be described as the set containing the empty string and all finite-length strings that can be generated by concatenating arbitrary e ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Complement (set Theory)
In set theory, the complement of a set , often denoted by (or ), is the set of elements not in . When all sets in the universe, i.e. all sets under consideration, are considered to be 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 : A^\complement = U \setminus A. Or formally: A^\complement = \. The absolute complement of is u ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Union (set Theory)
In set theory, the union (denoted by ∪) of a collection of sets is the set of all 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 (0) sets and it is by definition equal to the empty set. For explanation of the symbols used in this article, refer to the table of mathematical symbols. Union of two sets 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 have duplicate elements, so the union of the sets and is . Multip ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> IP (complexity)")
