Results 1  10
of
56
Monotone Complexity
, 1990
"... We give a general complexity classification scheme for monotone computation, including monotone spacebounded and Turing machine models not previously considered. We propose monotone complexity classes including mAC i , mNC i , mLOGCFL, mBWBP , mL, mNL, mP , mBPP and mNP . We define a simple ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2855 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give a general complexity classification scheme for monotone computation, including monotone spacebounded and Turing machine models not previously considered. We propose monotone complexity classes including mAC i , mNC i , mLOGCFL, mBWBP , mL, mNL, mP , mBPP and mNP . We define a simple notion of monotone reducibility and exhibit complete problems. This provides a framework for stating existing results and asking new questions. We show that mNL (monotone nondeterministic logspace) is not closed under complementation, in contrast to Immerman's and Szelepcs 'enyi's nonmonotone result [Imm88, Sze87] that NL = coNL; this is a simple extension of the monotone circuit depth lower bound of Karchmer and Wigderson [KW90] for stconnectivity. We also consider mBWBP (monotone bounded width branching programs) and study the question of whether mBWBP is properly contained in mNC 1 , motivated by Barrington's result [Bar89] that BWBP = NC 1 . Although we cannot answer t...
Nondeterministic Space is Closed Under Complementation
, 1988
"... this paper we show that nondeterministic space s(n) is closed under complementation, for s(n) greater than or equal to log n. It immediately follows that the contextsensitive languages are closed under complementation, thus settling a question raised by Kuroda in 1964 [9]. See Hartmanis and Hunt [4 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 263 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we show that nondeterministic space s(n) is closed under complementation, for s(n) greater than or equal to log n. It immediately follows that the contextsensitive languages are closed under complementation, thus settling a question raised by Kuroda in 1964 [9]. See Hartmanis and Hunt [4] for a discussion of the history and importance of this problem, and Hopcroft and Ullman [5] for all relevant background material and definitions. The history behind the proof is as follows. In 1981 we showed that the set of firstorder inductive definitions over finite structures is closed under complementation [6]. This holds with or without an ordering relation on the structure. If an ordering is present the resulting class is P. Many people expected that the result was false in the absence of an ordering. In 1983 we studied firstorder logic, with ordering, with a transitive closure operator. We showed that NSPACE[log n] is equal to (FO + pos TC), i.e. firstorder logic with ordering, plus a transitive closure operation, in which the transitive closure operator does not appear within any negation symbols [7]. Now we have returned to the issue of complementation in the light of recent results on the collapse of the log space hierarchies [10, 2, 14]. We have shown that the class (FO + pos TC) is closed under complementation. Our
Lower Bounds for Deterministic and Nondeterministic Branching Programs
 in Proceedings of the FCT'91, Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, 1991
"... We survey lower bounds established for the complexity of computing explicitly given Boolean functions by switchingandrectifier networks, branching programs and switching networks. We first consider the unrestricted case and then proceed to various restricted models. Among these are monotone networ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 66 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We survey lower bounds established for the complexity of computing explicitly given Boolean functions by switchingandrectifier networks, branching programs and switching networks. We first consider the unrestricted case and then proceed to various restricted models. Among these are monotone networks, boundedwidth devices , oblivious devices and readk times only devices. 1 Introduction The main goal of the Boolean complexity theory is to prove lower bounds on the complexity of computing "explicitly given" Boolean functions in interesting computational models. By "explicitly given" researchers usually mean "belonging to the class NP ". This is a very plausible interpretation since on the one hand this class contains the overwhelming majority of interesting Boolean functions and on the other hand it is small enough to prevent us from the necessity to take into account counting arguments. To illustrate the second point, let me remind the reader that already the class \Delta p 2 ,...
Descriptive and Computational Complexity
 COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY, PROC. SYMP. APPLIED MATH
, 1989
"... Computational complexity began with the natural physical notions of time and space. Given a property, S, an important issue is the computational complexity of checking whether or not an input satisfies S. For a long time, the notion of complexity referred to the time or space used in the computatio ..."
Abstract

Cited by 48 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Computational complexity began with the natural physical notions of time and space. Given a property, S, an important issue is the computational complexity of checking whether or not an input satisfies S. For a long time, the notion of complexity referred to the time or space used in the computation. A mathematician might ask, "What is the complexity of expressing the property S?" It should not be surprising that these two questions  that of checking and that of expressing  are related. However it is startling how closely tied they are when the second question refers to expressing the property in firstorder logic. Many complexity classes originally defined in terms of time or space resources have precise definitions as classes in firstorder logic. In 1974 Fagin gave a characterization of nondeterministic polynomial time (NP) as the set of properties expressible in secondorder existential logic
The complexity of graph connectivity
, 1992
"... In this paper we survey the major developments in understanding the complexity of the graph connectivity problem in several computational models, and highlight some challenging open problems. 1 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we survey the major developments in understanding the complexity of the graph connectivity problem in several computational models, and highlight some challenging open problems. 1
Method Schemas
 Brown University
, 1992
"... A method schema is a simple programming formalism for objectoriented databases with features such as classes, methods, inheritance, name overloading, and late binding. An important problem is to check whether a given method schema can lead to an inconsistency in some interpretation. This consistenc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
A method schema is a simple programming formalism for objectoriented databases with features such as classes, methods, inheritance, name overloading, and late binding. An important problem is to check whether a given method schema can lead to an inconsistency in some interpretation. This consistency question is shown to be undecidable in general. Decidability is obtained for monadic and/or recursionfree method schemas. In particular, consistency of monadic method schemas is shown to be decidable in O(nc 3 ) time, where n is the size of the method definitions and c is the size of the class hierarchy; also, it is logspacecomplete in PTIME, even for monadic, recursionfree schemas. Method signature covariance is shown to simplify the computational complexity of key decidable cases. For example: one coded method in the context of base methods with covariant signatures can be tested for consistency in O(n+c) time for the monadic case (without covariance this problem is in O(nc 2 ) t...
The complexity of membership problems for circuits over sets of natural numbers
, 2007
"... The problem of testing membership in the subset of the natural numbers produced at the output gate of a {∪, ∩, − , +, ×} combinational circuit is shown to capture a wide range of complexity classes. Although the general problem remains open, the case {∪, ∩, +, ×} is shown NEXPTIMEcomplete, the cas ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The problem of testing membership in the subset of the natural numbers produced at the output gate of a {∪, ∩, − , +, ×} combinational circuit is shown to capture a wide range of complexity classes. Although the general problem remains open, the case {∪, ∩, +, ×} is shown NEXPTIMEcomplete, the cases {∪, ∩, − , ×}, {∪, ∩, ×}, {∪, ∩, +} are shown PSPACEcomplete, the case {∪, +} is shown NPcomplete, the case {∩, +} is shown C=Lcomplete, and several other cases are resolved. Interesting auxiliary problems are used, such as testing nonemptyness for unionintersectionconcatenation circuits, and expressing each integer, drawn from a set given as input, as powers of relatively prime integers of one’s choosing. Our results extend in nontrivial ways past work by
An Unambiguous Class Possessing a Complete Set
, 1996
"... In this work a complete problem for an unambiguous logspace class is presented. This is surprising since unambiguity is a `promise' or `semantic' concept. These usually lead to classes apparently without complete problems. 1 Introduction One of the most central questions of complexity th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this work a complete problem for an unambiguous logspace class is presented. This is surprising since unambiguity is a `promise' or `semantic' concept. These usually lead to classes apparently without complete problems. 1 Introduction One of the most central questions of complexity theory is to compare determinism with nondeterminism. Our inability to exhibit the precise relationship between these two features motivates the investigation of intermediate features such as symmetry or unambiguity. In this paper we will concentrate on the notion of unambiguity. Unfortunately, unambiguity of a device or of a language is in general an undecidable property. Unambiguous classes are not defined by a `syntactical' machine property but rather by a `semantical' restriction. A nasty consequence is the apparent lack of complete sets. In the case of time bounded computations there are relativizations of unambiguity which provably have no complete problem ([10]). For space bounded computations t...