We study two quite different approaches to understanding the complexity of fundamental problems in numerical analysis: • The Blum-Shub-Smale model of computation over the reals. • A problem we call the “Generic Task of Numerical Computation, ” which captures an aspect of doing numerical computation in floating point, similar to the “long exponent model ” that has been studied in the numerical computing community. We show that both of these approaches hinge on the question of understanding the complexity of the following problem, which we call PosSLP: Given a division-free straight-line program producing an integer N, decide whether N> 0. • In the Blum-Shub-Smale model, polynomial time computation over the reals (on discrete inputs) is polynomial-time equivalent to PosSLP, when there are only algebraic constants. We conjecture that using transcendental constants provides no additional power, beyond nonuniform reductions to PosSLP, and we present some preliminary results supporting this conjecture. • The Generic Task of Numerical Computation is also polynomial-time equivalent to PosSLP. We prove that PosSLP lies in the counting hierarchy. Combining this with work of Tiwari, we obtain that the Euclidean Traveling Salesman Problem lies in the counting hierarchy – the previous best upper bound for this important problem (in terms of classical complexity classes) being PSPACE. In the course of developing the context for our results on arithmetic circuits, we present some new observations on the complexity of ACIT: the Arithmetic Circuit Identity Testing problem. In particular, we show that if n! is not ultimately easy, then ACIT has subexponential complexity.

We define counting #P  classes #P ¡ and in the Blum-Shub-Smale setting of computations over the real or complex numbers, respectively. The problems of counting the number of solutions of systems of polynomial inequalities over ¢ , or of systems of polynomial equalities over £ , respectively, turn out to be natural complete problems in these classes. We investigate to what extent the new counting classes capture the complexity of computing basic topological invariants of semialgebraic sets (over ¢ ) and algebraic sets (over £). We prove that the problem to compute the (modified) Euler characteristic of semialgebraic sets is FP #P¤-complete, and that the problem to compute the geometric degree of complex algebraic sets is FP #P¥-complete. We also define new counting complexity classes GCR and GCC in the classical Turing model via taking Boolean parts of the classes above, and show that the problems to compute the Euler characteristic and the geometric degree of (semi)algebraic sets given by integer polynomials are complete in these classes. We complement the results in the Turing model by proving, for all k ¦ ∈ , the FPSPACE-hardness of the problem of computing the kth Betti number of the set of real zeros of a given integer polynomial. This holds with respect to the singular homology as well as for the Borel-Moore homology.

We develop probabilistic algorithms that solve problems of geometric elimination theory using small memory resources. These algorithms are obtained by means of the adaptation of a general transformation due to A. Borodin which converts uniform boolean circuit depth into sequential (Turing machine) space. The boolean circuits themselves are developed using techniques based on the computation of a primitive element of a suitable zero-dimensional algebra and diophantine considerations. Our algorithms improve...

Razborov and Rudich identified an imposing barrier that stands in the way of progress toward the goal of proving superpolynomial lower bounds on circuit size. Their work on “natural proofs” applies to a large class of arguments that have been used in complexity theory, and shows that no such argument can prove that a problem requires circuits of superpolynomial size, even for some very restricted classes of circuits (under reasonable cryptographic assumptions). This barrier is so daunting, that some researchers have decided to focus their attentions elsewhere. Yet the goal of proving circuit lower bounds is of such importance, that some in the community have proposed concrete strategies for surmounting the obstacle. This lecture will discuss some of these strategies, and will dwell at length on a recent approach proposed by Michal Koucky and the author.