computational complexity

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 97–110 | Cite as

A new recursion-theoretic characterization of the polytime functions

  • Spephen Bellantoni
  • Stephen Cook


We give a recursion-theoretic characterization of FP which describes polynomial time computation independently of any externally imposed resource bounds. In particular, this syntactic characterization avoids the explicit size bounds on recursion (and the initial function 2|x|·|y|) of Cobham.

Key words

Recursion theory Cobham Polynomial Time 

Subject classifications

68Q15 03D20 68Q05 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    B. Allen, “Arithmetizing Uniform NC”,Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, p. 1–50, v. 53 (1991).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Bellantoni, “Predicative Recursion and Computational Complexity”, PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, 1992 (to appear).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Bellantoni and S. Cook, “A New Recursion-Theoretic Characterization of the Polytime Functions (Extended Abstract)”, inProc. 24th Symposium on the Theory Of Computing, ACM, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Bloch, “Functional Charaterizations of Uniform Log-depth and Polylogdepth Circuit Families”, inProc., Structure in Complexity Theory, to appear, IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Buss, “Bounded Arithmetic”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1985; reprinted Bibliopolis, Naples, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [7]
    P. Clote, “Sequential, machine-independent characterizations of the parallel complexity classesAlog TIME, AC k, NCk and NC.” MSI Workshop on Feasible Mathematics, p. 49–70, Birkhauser, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [8]
    P. Clote, G. Takeuti, “Exponential Time and Bounded Arithmetic“, inAnnual Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, v. 1, p. 125–143, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [9]
    A. Cobham, “The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions”. In Y. Bar-Hillel ed.,Proc. of the 1964 International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, p. 24–30, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
  9. [10]
    S. Cook, “Feasibly constructive proofs and the propositional calculus”,Proc. 7th Symposium on the Theory Of Computing, p. 83–97, ACM, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. [11]
    S. Cook, “Computability and complexity of higher type functions.”Proc. MSRI Workshop on Logic from Computer Science, p. 51–72, Y. Moschovakis, ed., Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [12]
    S. Cook and B. Kapron, “Characterizations of the Basic Feasible Functionals of Finite Type”,Feasible Mathematics, p. 71–95, S. R. Buss and P. J. Scott eds., Birkhauser, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [13]
    S. Cook and A. Urquhart, “Functional interpretations of feasibly constructive arthmetic”,Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (to appear). Extended abstract appears inProc. 21st Symposium on the Theory of Computing, p. 107–112, ACM, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [14]
    L. Fegaras, T. Sheard, D. Stemple, “Uniform Traversal Combinators: Definition, Use and Properties”, in11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, June 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [15]
    Y. Gurevich, “Algebras of Feasible Functions”,Proc. 24th IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, p. 210–214, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. [16]
    N. Immerman, “Languages That Capture Complexity Classes”,SIAM Journal of Computing, p. 760–778, v. 16 (1987).Google Scholar
  16. [17]
    D. Leivant, “A foundational delineation of computational feasibility”, inProc. Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, p. 2–11, IEEE, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [18]
    D. Leivant, “Subrecursion and lambda representation over free algebras (Preliminary summary)”,Feasible Mathematics, p. 281–292, S. Buss and P. Scott, eds., Birkhauser 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [19]
    D. Leivant, J-Y. Marion, “Purely applicative characterization of complexity classes (Extended Abstract)”, typescript, Department of Computer Science, Indiana University, April 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [20]
    D. Leivant, J-Y. Marion, “Capturing poly-time in a typed λ-calculus”, typescript, Department of Computer Science, Indiana University, April 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [21]
    E. Nelson,Predicative Arithmetic, Princeton Unversity Press, Princeton, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. [22]
    J. Otto, “Categorical Characterization of Ptime I”, manuscript, Dept. of Mathematics, McGill University, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [23]
    H. E. Rose,Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies, Oxford Logic Guides 9, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. [24]
    R. W. Ritchie, “Classes of Predictably Computable Functions”,Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, p. 139–173, v. 106 (1963).Google Scholar
  24. [25]
    A. Seth, “There is no Recursive Axiomatization for Feasible Functionals of Type 2” inProc. Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, to appear, IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. [26]
    G. J. Tourlakis,Computability, Reston, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spephen Bellantoni
    • 1
  • Stephen Cook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations