Results 1 
2 of
2
The Structure of Complete Degrees
, 1990
"... This paper surveys investigations into how strong these commonalities are. More concretely, we are concerned with: What do NPcomplete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NPcomplete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NPcomplete 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 NPcomplete sets look like? To what extent are the properties of particular NPcomplete sets, e.g., SAT, shared by all NPcomplete sets? If there are are structural differences between NPcomplete 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 NPcompleteness. There are a number of competing definitions of NPcompleteness. (See [Har78a, p. 7] for a discussion.) The most common, and the one we use, is based on the notion of mreduction, also known as polynomialtime manyone reduction and Karp reduction. A set A is mreducible to B if and only if there is a (total) polynomialtime computable function f such that for all x, x 2 A () f(x) 2 B: (1) 1
Vacillatory learning of nearly minimal size grammars
 Journal of Computer and System Sciences
, 1994
"... In Gold’s influential language learning paradigm a learning machine converges in the limit to one correct grammar. In an attempt to generalize Gold’s paradigm, Case considered the question whether people might converge to vacillating between up to (some integer) n> 1 distinct, but equivalent, correc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In Gold’s influential language learning paradigm a learning machine converges in the limit to one correct grammar. In an attempt to generalize Gold’s paradigm, Case considered the question whether people might converge to vacillating between up to (some integer) n> 1 distinct, but equivalent, correct grammars. He showed that larger classes of languages can be algorithmically learned (in the limit) by converging to up to n + 1 rather than up to n correct grammars. He also argued that, for “small ” n> 1, it is plausible that people might sometimes converge to vacillating between up to n grammars. The insistence on small n was motivated by the consideration that, for “large ” n, at least one of n grammars would be too large to fit in peoples ’ heads. Of course, even for Gold’s n = 1 case, the single grammar converged to in the limit may be infeasibly large. An interesting complexity restriction to make, then, on the final grammar(s) converged to in the limit is that they all have small size. In this paper we study some of the tradeoffs in learning power involved in making a welldefined version of this restriction. We show and exploit as a tool the desirable property that the learning power under our