Results 1 -
3 of
3
An oracle builder’s toolkit
, 2002
"... We show how to use various notions of genericity as tools in oracle creation. In particular, 1. we give an abstract definition of genericity that encompasses a large collection of different generic notions; 2. we consider a new complexity class AWPP, which contains BQP (quantum polynomial time), and ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 47 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We show how to use various notions of genericity as tools in oracle creation. In particular, 1. we give an abstract definition of genericity that encompasses a large collection of different generic notions; 2. we consider a new complexity class AWPP, which contains BQP (quantum polynomial time), and infer several strong collapses relative to SP-generics; 3. we show that under additional assumptions these collapses also occur relative to Cohen generics; 4. we show that relative to SP-generics, ULIN ∩ co-ULIN ̸ ⊆ DTIME(n k) for any k, where ULIN is unambiguous linear time, despite the fact that UP ∪ (NP ∩ co-NP) ⊆ P relative to these generics; 5. we show that there is an oracle relative to which NP/1∩co-NP/1 ̸ ⊆ (NP∩co-NP)/poly; and 6. we use a specialized notion of genericity to create an oracle relative to which NP BPP ̸ ⊇ MA.
The Structure of Complete Degrees
, 1990
"... This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NP-complete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NP-complete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NP-complete sets? If there are are structural differences ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 29 (3 self)
- Add to MetaCart
This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NP-complete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NP-complete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NP-complete sets? If there are are structural differences between NP-complete sets, what are they and what explains the differences? We make these questions, and the analogous questions for other complexity classes, more precise below. We need first to formalize NP-completeness. There are a number of competing definitions of NP-completeness. (See [Har78a, p. 7] for a discussion.) The most common, and the one we use, is based on the notion of m-reduction, also known as polynomial-time manyone reduction and Karp reduction. A set A is m-reducible to B if and only if there is a (total) polynomial-time computable function f such that for all x, x 2 A () f(x) 2 B: (1) 1
The Isomorphism Conjecture Holds Relative to an Oracle
, 1996
"... We introduce symmetric perfect generic sets. These sets vary from the usual generic sets by allowing limited infinite encoding into the oracle. We then show that the Berman-Hartmanis isomorphism conjecture [BH77] holds relative to any sp-generic oracle, i.e., for any symmetric perfect generic set A, ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 26 (11 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We introduce symmetric perfect generic sets. These sets vary from the usual generic sets by allowing limited infinite encoding into the oracle. We then show that the Berman-Hartmanis isomorphism conjecture [BH77] holds relative to any sp-generic oracle, i.e., for any symmetric perfect generic set A, all NP^A-complete sets are polynomial-time isomorphic relative to A. Prior to this work there were no known oracles relative to which the isomorphism conjecture held. As part of our proof that the isomorphism conjecture holds relative to symmetric perfect generic sets we also show that P A = FewP A for any symmetric perfect generic A.

