Results 1 
4 of
4
Theories for Complexity Classes and their Propositional Translations
 Complexity of computations and proofs
, 2004
"... We present in a uniform manner simple twosorted theories corresponding to each of eight complexity classes between AC and P. We present simple translations between these theories and systems of the quanti ed propositional calculus. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present in a uniform manner simple twosorted theories corresponding to each of eight complexity classes between AC and P. We present simple translations between these theories and systems of the quanti ed propositional calculus.
Theory for TC 0 and Other Small Complexity Classes
 Logical Methods in Computer Science
, 2005
"... Abstract We present a general method for introducing finitely axiomatizable "minimal " secondorder theories for various subclasses of P. We show that our theory VTC 0 for the complexity class TC 0 is RSUV isomorphic to the firstorder theory \Delta b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract We present a general method for introducing finitely axiomatizable "minimal " secondorder theories for various subclasses of P. We show that our theory VTC 0 for the complexity class TC 0 is RSUV isomorphic to the firstorder theory \Delta b
A Propositional Proof System for Log Space
"... Abstract. The proof system G ∗ 0 of the quantified propositional calculus corresponds to NC 1, and G ∗ 1 corresponds to P, but no formulabased proof system that corresponds log space reasoning has ever been developed. This paper does this by developing GL ∗. We begin by defining a class ΣCNF (2) of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The proof system G ∗ 0 of the quantified propositional calculus corresponds to NC 1, and G ∗ 1 corresponds to P, but no formulabased proof system that corresponds log space reasoning has ever been developed. This paper does this by developing GL ∗. We begin by defining a class ΣCNF (2) of quantified formulas that can be evaluated in log space. Then GL ∗ is defined as G ∗ 1 with cuts restricted to ΣCNF (2) formulas and no cut formula that is not quantifier free contains a nonparameter free variable. To show that GL ∗ is strong enough to capture log space reasoning, we translate theorems of Σ B 0rec into a family of tautologies that have polynomial size GL ∗ proofs. Σ B 0rec is a theory of bounded arithmetic that is known to correspond to log space. To do the translation, we find an appropriate axiomatization of Σ B 0rec, and put Σ B 0rec proofs into a new normal form. To show that GL ∗ is not too strong, we prove the soundness of GL ∗ in such a way that it can be formalized in Σ B 0rec. This is done by giving a log space algorithm that witnesses GL ∗ proofs. 1
Quantified Propositional Logspace Reasoning
, 2008
"... In this paper, we develop a quantified propositional proof systems that corresponds to logarithmicspace reasoning. We begin by defining a class ΣCNF(2) of quantified formulas that can be evaluated in log space. Then our new proof system GL ∗ is defined as G ∗ 1 with cuts restricted to ΣCNF(2) formu ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we develop a quantified propositional proof systems that corresponds to logarithmicspace reasoning. We begin by defining a class ΣCNF(2) of quantified formulas that can be evaluated in log space. Then our new proof system GL ∗ is defined as G ∗ 1 with cuts restricted to ΣCNF(2) formulas and no cut formula that is not quantifier free contains a free variable that does not appear in the final formula. To show that GL ∗ is strong enough to capture log space reasoning, we translate theorems of V L into a family of tautologies that have polynomialsize GL ∗ proofs. V L is a theory of bounded arithmetic that is known to correspond to logarithmicspace reasoning. To do the translation, we find an appropriate axiomatization of V L, and put V L proofs into a new normal form. To show that GL ∗ is not too strong, we prove the soundness of GL ∗ in such a way that it can be formalized in V L. This is done by giving a logarithmicspace algorithm that witnesses GL ∗ proofs. 1