Results 1 
6 of
6
The History and Status of the P versus NP Question
, 1992
"... this article, I have attempted to organize and describe this literature, including an occasional opinion about the most fruitful directions, but no technical details. In the first half of this century, work on the power of formal systems led to the formalization of the notion of algorithm and the re ..."
Abstract

Cited by 52 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this article, I have attempted to organize and describe this literature, including an occasional opinion about the most fruitful directions, but no technical details. In the first half of this century, work on the power of formal systems led to the formalization of the notion of algorithm and the realization that certain problems are algorithmically unsolvable. At around this time, forerunners of the programmable computing machine were beginning to appear. As mathematicians contemplated the practical capabilities and limitations of such devices, computational complexity theory emerged from the theory of algorithmic unsolvability. Early on, a particular type of computational task became evident, where one is seeking an object which lies
Can Finite Samples Detect Singularities of RealValued Functions?
 Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computer Science
, 1992
"... Consider the following type of problem: There is an unknown function, f : R n ! R m , there is also a blackbox that on query x (2 R n ) returns f(x). Is there an algorithm that, using probes to the blackbox, can figure out analytic information about f? (For an example: "Is f a polynomia ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Consider the following type of problem: There is an unknown function, f : R n ! R m , there is also a blackbox that on query x (2 R n ) returns f(x). Is there an algorithm that, using probes to the blackbox, can figure out analytic information about f? (For an example: "Is f a polynomial? ", "Is f a second order differentiable at x = (0; 0; : : : ; 0)?" etc.). Clearly, for examples as these, if we bound the number of probes an algorithm has to settle for, no algorithm can carry the task. On the other hand, if one allows an infinite iteration of a `probe compute and guess' process, then, (quite surprisingly) for many such questions, there are algorithms that are guaranteed to be correct in all but finitely many of their guesses. We call such questions Decidable In the Limit, (DIL). We analyze the class of DIL problems and provide a necessary and sufficient condition for the membership of a decision problem in this class. We offer an algorithm for any DIL problem, and apply it to several types of learning tasks. We introduce a an extension of the usual Inductive Inference learning model  Inductive Inference with a Cheating Teacher. In this model the teacher may choose to present to the learner, not only a language belonging to the agreed  upon family of languages, but also an arbitrary language outside this family. In such a case we require that the learner will be able to eventually detect the faulty choice made by the teacher. We show that such strong type of learning is possible, and there exist learning algorithms that will fail only on arbitrarily small sets of faulty languages. Furthermore, if an apriori probability distribution P , according to which f is being chosen, is available to the algorithm, then it can be strengthened into a finite A prelimi...
Is P versus NP formally independent
 Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science
, 2003
"... I have moved back to the University of Chicago and so has the web page for this column. See above for new URL and contact informaion. This issue Scott Aaronson writes quite an interesting (and opinionated) column on whether the P = NP question is independent of the usual axiom systems. Enjoy! ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
I have moved back to the University of Chicago and so has the web page for this column. See above for new URL and contact informaion. This issue Scott Aaronson writes quite an interesting (and opinionated) column on whether the P = NP question is independent of the usual axiom systems. Enjoy!
Resource Bounded Unprovability of
, 2003
"... This paper shows that the proof complexity (minimum computational complexity of proving formally or asymptotically) of "P6=NP" is superpolynomialtime with respect to a theory T , which is a consistent extension of Peano Arithmetic (PA), and PTM!consistent, where the PTM!consistenc ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper shows that the proof complexity (minimum computational complexity of proving formally or asymptotically) of "P6=NP" is superpolynomialtime with respect to a theory T , which is a consistent extension of Peano Arithmetic (PA), and PTM!consistent, where the PTM!consistency is a polynomialtime Turing machine (PTM) version of ! consistency. In other words, to prove "P6=NP" (by any technique) requires superpolynomialtime computational power over T . This result is a kind of generalization of the result of "Natural Proofs" by Razborov and Rudich [20], who showed that to prove "P6=NP" by a class of techniques called "Natural" implies computational power that can break a typical cryptographic primitive, a pseudorandom generator. This result implies that P6=NP is formally unproven in PTM!consistent theory T . We also show that to prove the independence of P vs NP from T by proving the PTM!consistency of T requires superpolynomialtime computational power. This seems to be related to the results of BenDavid and Halevi [4] and Kurz, O'Donnell and Royer [16], who showed that to prove the independence of P vs NP from PA using any currently known mathematical paradigm implies an extremelyclosetopolynomial time algorithm that can solve NPcomplete problems. Based on this result, we show that the security of any computational cryptographic scheme is unprovable in the standard setting of modern cryptography, where an adversary is modeled as a polynomialtime Turing machine.
Resource . . . Computational Lower Bounds (Part 1)
, 2005
"... This paper introduces new notions of asymptotic proofs, PT(polynomialtime)extensions, PTM(polynomialtime Turing machine)!consistency, etc. on formal theories of arithmetic including PA (Peano Arithmetic). An asymptotic proof is a set of infinitely many formal proofs, which is introduced to def ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
This paper introduces new notions of asymptotic proofs, PT(polynomialtime)extensions, PTM(polynomialtime Turing machine)!consistency, etc. on formal theories of arithmetic including PA (Peano Arithmetic). An asymptotic proof is a set of infinitely many formal proofs, which is introduced to define and characterize a property, PTM!consistency, of a formal theory. Informally speaking, PTM!consistency is a polynomialtime bounded version (in asymptotic proofs) of !consistency, and characterized in two manners: (1) (in the light of the extension of PTM to TM) the resource unbounded version of PTM!consistency is equivalent to!consistency, and (2) (in the light of asymptotic proofs by PTM) aPTM!inconsistent theory includes an axiom that only a superpolynomialtime Turing machine can prove asymptotically over PA, under some assumptions. This paper shows that P6=NP (more generally, any superpolynomialtime lower bound in PSPACE) is unprovable in a PTM!consistent theory T, where T is a consistent PTextension of PA (although this paper does not show that P6=NP is unprovable in PA, since PA has not been proven to be PTM!consistent). This result implies that to prove P6=NP by any technique requires a PTM!inconsistent theory, which should include an axiom that only a superpolynomialtime machine can prove asymptotically over PA (or implies a superpolynomialtime computational