Acta Informatica

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 311–350 | Cite as

Sufficient-completeness, ground-reducibility and their complexity

  • Deepak Kapur
  • Paliath Narendran
  • Daniel J. Rosenkrantz
  • Hantao Zhang
Article

Summary

The sufficient-completeness property of equational algebraic specifications has been found useful in providing guidelines for designing abstract data type specifications as well as in proving inductive properties using the induction-less-induction method. The sufficient-completeness property is known to be undecidable in general. In an earlier paper, it was shown to be decidable for constructor-preserving, complete (canonical) term rewriting systems, even when there are relations among constructor symbols. In this paper, the complexity of the sufficient-completeness property is analyzed for different classes of term rewriting systems. A number of results about the complexity of the sufficient-completeness property for complete (canonical) term rewriting systems are proved: (i) The problem is co-NP-complete for term rewriting systems with free constructors (i.e., no relations among constructors are allowed), (ii) the problem remains co-NP-complete for term rewriting systems with unary and nullary constructors, even when there are relations among constructors, (iii) the problem is provably in “almost” exponential time for left-linear term rewriting systems with relations among constructors, and (iv) for left-linear complete constructor-preserving rewriting systems, the problem can be decided in steps exponential innlogn wheren is the size of the rewriting system. No better lower-bound for the complexity of the sufficient-completeness property for complete (canonical) term rewriting system with nonlinear left-hand sides is known. An algorithm for left-linear complete constructor-preserving rewriting systems is also discussed. Finally, the sufficient-completeness property is shown to be undecidable for non-linear complete term rewriting systems with associative functions. These complexity results also apply to the ground-reducibility property (also called inductive-reducibility) which is known to be directly related to the sufficient-completeness property.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Book, R.: Confluent and other types of Thue systems. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.29, 171–182 (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyer, R.S., Moore, J.S.: A computational logic. New York: Academic Press 1979Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Comon, H.: Sufficient-completeness, term rewriting systems, and “anti-unification”. Proc. of 8th Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction (Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 230, pp. 128–140). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1986Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook, S.A.: Characterizations of pushdown machines in terms of time-bounded computers. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.18, 4–18 (1971)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dershowitz, N.: Computing with rewrite systems. Inf. Control65, 122–157 (1985)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and intractability. W.H. Freeman 1979Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goguen, J.: How to prove algebraic inductive hypotheses without induction. Proc. of the 5th Conference on Automated Deduction, Les Arcs, France. (Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 87, pp. 356–373) Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1980Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guttag, J.: The specification and application to programming of abstract data types. Department of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Ph.D. Thesis, CSRG-59 (1975)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guttag, J., Horning, J.J.: The algebraic specification of abstract data types. Acta Inf.10, 27–52 (1978)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huet, G., Hullot, J.M.: Proofs by induction in equational theories with constructors. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.25, 239–266 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huet, G., Oppen, D.C.: Equations and rewrite rules: A survey. In: R. Book (ed.) Formal language theory: Perspectives and open problems, pp. 349–405. New York: Academic Press 1980Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunt, H.B., Rosenkrantz, D.J.: The complexity of monadic recursion schemes: Exponential time bounds. J. Comput. Syst. Sci.28, 395–419 (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jouannaud, J.-P., Kounalis, E.: Automatic proofs by induction in equational theories without constructors. Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 358–386, 1986Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kapur, D., Musser, D.R.: Proof by consistency. Artif. Intell. J.31, 125–157 (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kapur, D., Narendran, P., Zhang, H.: Proof by induction using test sets. Proc. of 8th Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction, Oxford England (Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 230, pp. 99–117) Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1986aGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kapur, D., Narendran, P., Zhang, H.: On sufficient-completeness and related properties of term rewriting systems. Acta Inf.24, 395–416 (1987)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kapur, D., Narendran, P., Zhang, H.: Complexity of sufficient-completeness. Proc. of 6th Conf. on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, New Delhi, India (Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 241, pp. 426–442) Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1986bGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knuth, D., Bendix, P.: Simple word problems in universal algebras. In: J. Leech (ed.). Computational problems in abstract algebra, pp. 263–297. Oxford: Pergamon Press (1970)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kounalis, E.: Completeness in data type specifications. Proc. EUROCAL'85, LNCS 204 (Bob F. Caviness, ed.), pp. 348–362. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1985Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lankford, D.S., Ballantyne, A.M.: Decision procedures for simple equational theories with commutative-associative axioms: Complete sets of commutative-associative reductions. Technical Report ATP-39, Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Texas, 1977Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lankford, D.S.: A simple explanation of inductionless induction. Memo MTP-14, Dept. of Mathematics, Louisiana Tech. University, Ruston, Louisiana, 1981Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lassez, J.-L., Marriott, K.: Explicit representation of terms defined by counter-examples. J Automat. Reasoning3, 301–318 (1987)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis, H.: Complexity results for classes of quantificational formulas. J. Comput. System Sci.21, 317–353 (1980)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marriott, K.: A note on the complexity of determining the reasonability and the existence of an explicit representation for an implicit generalization. Draft manuscript. Computer Science Dept. University of Melbourne, Australia, 1988Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minsky, M.L.: Recursive unsolvability of Post's problem of “Tag” and other topics in theory of Turing machines. Ann. Math.74, 437–455 (1961)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Musser, D.R.: On proving inductive properties of abstract data types. Proc. 7th Principles of Programming Languages, Las Vegas, Nevada 1980Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nipkow, T., Weikum, G.: A decidability result about sufficient-completeness of axiomatically specified abstract data types. Proc. of the 6th GI Conf. on Theoretical Computer Science, (Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 145, pp. 257–268) Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer 1982Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peterson, G.L., Stickel, M.E.: Complete set of reductions for some equational theoris. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.28, 233–264 (1981)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plaisted, D.: Complete problems in the first-order predicate calculalus. J. Comput. System Sci.29, 8–35 (1984)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Plaisted, D.: Semantic confluence tests and completion methods. Inf. Control65, 182–215 (1985)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thiel, J.J.: Stop loosing sleep over incomplete data type specifications. Proc. of Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Salt Lake City, Utah 1984Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepak Kapur
    • 1
  • Paliath Narendran
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Rosenkrantz
    • 1
  • Hantao Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceState University of New York at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations