Weak Completeness Notions for Exponential Time
- 6 Downloads
Lutz (SIAM J. Comput. 24(6), 1170–1189, 1995) proposed the following generalization of hardness: While a problem A is hard for a complexity class C if all problems in C can be reduced to A, Lutz calls a problem weakly hard if a nonnegligible part of the problems in C can be reduced to A. For the linear exponential time class E = DTIME(2lin), Lutz formalized these ideas by introducing a resource-bounded (pseudo) measure on this class and by saying that a subclass of E is negligible if it has measure 0 in E. In this paper we introduce two new weak hardness notions for E – E-nontriviality and strongly E-nontriviality. They generalize Lutz’s weak hardness notion for E, but are much simpler conceptually. Namely, a set A is E-nontrivial if, for any k ≥ 1, there is a set Bk ∈E which can be reduced to A (by a polynomial time many-one reduction) and which cannot be computed in time O(2kn), and a set A is strongly E-nontrivial if the set Bk can be chosen to be almost everywhereO(2kn)-complex, i.e. if Bk can be chosen such that any algorithm that computes Bk runs for more than 2k|x| steps on all but finitely many inputs x.
KeywordsExponential time Completeness Weak completeness Resource-bounded measure Almost everywhere complexity
We thank the referees for their very helpful comments and suggestions.
- 1.Ambos-Spies, K.: Randomness relativizations, and polynomial reducibilities. Structure in complexity theory (Berkeley, Calif., 1986), 23–34, Lecture Notes in Comput Sci., vol. 223. Springer, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
- 2.Ambos-Spies, K.: Minimal pairs for polynomial time reducibilities. Computation theory and logic, 1–13, Lecture Notes in Comput Sci., vol. 270. Springer, Berlin (1987)Google Scholar
- 4.Ambos-Spies, K.: Resource-bounded genericity. Computability, enumerability, unsolvability, 1–59, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 224. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
- 5.Ambos-Spies, K.: Polynomial time reducibilities and degrees. Handbook of computability theory, 683–705, Stud. Logic Found. Math., 140, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
- 9.Ambos-Spies, K., Mayordomo, E., Zheng, X.: A comparison of weak completeness notions. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual IEEE conference on computational complexity, 171–178 (1996)Google Scholar
- 11.Balcázar, J., Díaz, J., Gabarró J.: Structural complexity. I. Second edition. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Berlin (1995)Google Scholar
- 12.Balcázar, J.L., Díaz, J., Gabarró, J.: Structural complexity. II. EATCS monographs on theoretical computer science, vol. 22. Springer, Berlin (1990)Google Scholar
- 14.Geske, J.G., Huỳnh, D.T., Selman, A.L.: A hierarchy theorem for almost everywhere complex sets with application to polynomial complexity degrees. STACS 87 (Passau, 1987), 125–135, Lecture Notes in Comput Sci., 247. Springer, Berlin (1987)Google Scholar
- 17.Li, M., Vitányi, P.: An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications Graduate texts in computer science. 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York (1997)Google Scholar