Mathematical systems theory

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 13–27

Parity, circuits, and the polynomial-time hierarchy

  • Merrick Furst
  • James B. Saxe
  • Michael Sipser
Article

Abstract

A super-polynomial lower bound is given for the size of circuits of fixed depth computing the parity function. Introducing the notion of polynomial-size, constant-depth reduction, similar results are shown for the majority, multiplication, and transitive closure functions. Connections are given to the theory of programmable logic arrays and to the relativization of the polynomial-time hierarchy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Angluin, Counting problems and the polynomial-time hierarchy.Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Blum, A 2.75n lower bound for the combinational complexity of boolean functions. University of Saarbrucken, Technical Report.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Baker, J. Gill, and R. Solovay, Relativizations of theP =? NP question.SIAM Journal of Computing, 4, 4, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Baker and A. Selman, A second step toward the polynomial hierarchy.Theoretical Computer Science, 8, 2, 1979, pp. 177–187.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Chandra, D. Kozen, and L. Stockmeyer, Alternation.Journal of the ACM, 28, 1, January 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Digital Equipment Corporation,Decsystem 10 Assembly Language Handbook. Third Edition, 1973, pp. 51–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Furst, Bounded width computation DAG's. In preparation, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Furst, J. B. Saxe, M. Sipser, Parity, circuits and the polynomial-time hierarchy. 22NDSymposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 1981, pp. 260–270.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Furst, J. B. Saxe, M. Sipser, Depth 3 circuits require Ω(n clogn) gates to compute parity: a geometric argument. In preparation.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Krapchenko, Complexity of the realization of a linear function in the class of II-circuits. English translation inMath. Notes Acad. Sci., USSR, 1971, pp. 21–23; orig. inMat. Zamet, 9, 1, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Krapchenko, A method of obtaining lower bounds for the complexity of II-schemes. English translation inMath. Notes Acad. Sci USSR, 1972, pp. 474–479; orig. inMat. Zamet, 10, 1, pp. 83–92.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Lupanov, Implementing the algebra of logic functions in terms of constant-depth formulas in the basis +,*, -. English translation inSov. Phys.-Dokl., 6, 2, 1961; orig. inDokla. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 136, 5.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Ladner and N. Lynch, Relativization of questions about log space computability.Mathematical Systems Theory, 10, 1, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Mead and L. Conway,Introduction to VLSI Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Paul, A 2.5N lower bound for the combinational complexity of boolean functions. 7thAnnual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1975, pp. 27–36.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Savage,The Complexity of Computing. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1976, Sect. 2.4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. P. Schnorr, A 3n lower bound on the network complexity of boolean functions.Theoretical Computer Science, 10, 1, 1980, p. 83.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. J. Stockmeyer, The polynomial-time hierarchy.Theoretical Computer Science, 3, 1, 1976, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Skyum and L. G. Valiant, A complexity theory based on boolean algebra. 22ndSymposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 1981, pp. 244–253.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Sipser, On polynomial vs exponential growth. In preparation.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Stockmeyer and A. Meyer, Word problems requiring exponential time, preliminary report. 5thAnnual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merrick Furst
    • 1
  • James B. Saxe
    • 1
  • Michael Sipser
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations