Archive for Mathematical Logic

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 159–180 | Cite as

Does truth-table of linear norm reduce the one-query tautologies to a random oracle?

  • Masahiro Kumabe
  • Toshio SuzukiEmail author
  • Takeshi Yamazaki


In our former works, for a given concept of reduction, we study the following hypothesis: “For a random oracle A, with probability one, the degree of the one-query tautologies with respect to A is strictly higher than the degree of A.” In our former works (Suzuki in Kobe J. Math. 15, 91–102, 1998; in Inf. Comput. 176, 66–87, 2002; in Arch. Math. Logic 44, 751–762), the following three results are shown: The hypothesis for p-T (polynomial-time Turing) reduction is equivalent to the assertion that the probabilistic complexity class R is not equal to NP; The hypothesis for p-tt (polynomial-time truth-table) reduction implies that P is not NP; The hypothesis holds for each of the following: disjunctive reduction, conjunctive reduction, and p-btt (polynomial-time bounded-truth-table) reduction. In this paper, we show the following three results: (1) Let c be a positive real number. We consider a concept of truth-table reduction whose norm is at most c times size of input, where for a relativized propositional formula F, the size of F denotes the total number of occurrences of propositional variables, constants and propositional connectives. Then, our main result is that the hypothesis holds for such tt-reduction, provided that c is small enough. How small c can we take so that the above holds? It depends on our syntactic convention on one-query tautologies. In our setting, the statement holds for all c < 1. (2) The hypothesis holds for monotone truth-table reduction (also called positive reduction). (3) Dowd (in Inf. Comput. 96, 65–76, 1992) shows a polynomial upper bound for the minimum sizes of forcing conditions associated with a random oracle. We apply the above result (1), and get a linear lower bound for the sizes.


Truth-table reduction Computational complexity Random oracle Monotone Boolean formula Forcing complexity 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

68Q15 03D15 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allender E., Buhrman H., Koucký M.: What can be effectively reduced to the Kolmogorov-random strings?. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 138, 2–19 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambos-Spies K.: Randomness, relativizations, and polynomial reducibilities. In: Selman, A.L. (eds) Structure in Complexity Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, vol. 223, pp. 23–34. Springer, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambos-Spies K., Fleischhack H., Huwig H.: Diagonalizations over polynomial time computable sets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 51, 177–204 (1987)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ambos-Spies K., Mayordomo E.: Resource-bounded measure and randomness. In: Sorbi, A. (eds) Complexity, Logic, and Recursion Theory. Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 187, pp. 1–47. Marcel Dekker, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ambos-Spies K., Neis H., Terwijin S.A.: Genericity and measure for exponential time. Theor. Comput. Sci. 168, 3–19 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Balcázar J.L., Díaz J., Gabarró J.: Structural Complexity I. Springer, Berlin (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bennett C.H., Gill J.: Relative to a random oracle A, PA ≠ NPA ≠ co NPA with probability 1. SIAM J. Comput. 10, 96–113 (1981)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowd M.: Generic oracles, uniform machines, and codes. Inf. Comput. 96, 65–76 (1992)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downey R., Hirschfeldt D.R., Nies A., Terwijn S.A.: Calibrating randomness. Bull. Symb. Log. 12, 411–491 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jockusch, C.G.: Reducibilities in recursive function theory, Ph.D. thesis, MIT Press, Cambridge (1966)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ko K.-I.: Some observations on the probabilistic algorithms and NP-hard problems. Inform. Process. Lett. 14, 39–43 (1982)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumabe, M., Suzuki, T., Yamazaki, T.: Logarithmic truth-table reductions and minimum sizes of forcing conditions (preliminary draft). In: Proof Theory and Computation Theory, Kyoto, 2005, Sūrikaisekikenkyusho Kōkyuroku, no. 1442, pp. 42–47 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumabe, M., Suzuki, T., Yamazaki, T., Kumabe, M., Suzuki, T., Yamazaki, T.: Truth-table reductions and minimum sizes of forcing conditions (preliminary draft). In: Sūrikaisekikenkyusho Kōkyuroku, no. 1533, pp. 9–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ladner R.E., Lynch N.A., Selman A.L.: A comparison of polynomial time reducibilities. Theor. Comput. Sci. 1, 103–123 (1975)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Post E.L.: Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 50, 284–316 (1944)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, H. Jr.: Theory of recursive functions and effective computability. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1987) (Original edition: MacGraw-Hill, New York, 1967)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sacks G.E.: Degrees of Unsolvability, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 55. Princeton university press, Princeton (1963)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suzuki T.: Recognizing tautology by a deterministic algorithm whose while-loop’s execution time is bounded by forcing. Kobe J. Math. 15, 91–102 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suzuki, T.: Computational complexity of Boolean formulas with query symbols. Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Mathematics, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba-City, Japan (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suzuki T.: Complexity of the r-query tautologies in the presence of a generic oracle. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 41, 142–151 (2000)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suzuki T.: Forcing complexity: minimum sizes of forcing conditions. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 42, 117–120 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suzuki T.: Degrees of Dowd-type generic oracles. Inf. Comput. 176, 66–87 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suzuki T.: Bounded truth table does not reduce the one-query tautologies to a random oracle. Arch. Math. Logic 44, 751–762 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tang S., Book R.V.: Polynomial-time reducibilities and “almost all” oracle sets. Theor. Comput. Sci. 81, 35–47 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Masahiro Kumabe
    • 1
  • Toshio Suzuki
    • 2
    Email author
  • Takeshi Yamazaki
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Liberal ArtsThe Open University of JapanMinami-ku, YokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Information SciencesTokyo Metropolitan UniversityHachioji, TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations