Results 1 -
3 of
3
Lower bounds on the complexity of recognizing SAT by Turing machines
- Information Processing Letters
"... this paper are strengthenings of the results in [4] and [9] for Turing machines. The results in [4] and [9] hold for SAT but our results hold for 2-SAT also, since the formulae we reduce the language L to belong to 2-SAT. Therefore our techniques are less promising if the ultimate goal is to prove t ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 5 (1 self)
- Add to MetaCart
this paper are strengthenings of the results in [4] and [9] for Turing machines. The results in [4] and [9] hold for SAT but our results hold for 2-SAT also, since the formulae we reduce the language L to belong to 2-SAT. Therefore our techniques are less promising if the ultimate goal is to prove that SAT does not belong to P, since it is known that 2-SAT belongs to P. Moreover we obtain the same lower bounds for NTMs as for DTMs, which indicates that our techniques may not be useful in separating nondeterministic time and deterministic time
On Separators, Segregators and Time versus Space
"... We give the first extension of the result due to Paul, Pippenger, Szemeredi and Trotter [24] that deterministic linear time is distinct from nondeterministic linear time. We show that N T IM E(n ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 4 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
We give the first extension of the result due to Paul, Pippenger, Szemeredi and Trotter [24] that deterministic linear time is distinct from nondeterministic linear time. We show that N T IM E(n
