Measure, stochasticity, and the density of hard languages

  • Jack H. Lutz
  • Elvira Mayordomo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 665)


The main theorem of this paper is that, for every real number α<1 (e.g., α=0.99), only a measure 0 subset of the languages decidable in exponential time are \(\leqslant _{n^\alpha - tt}^P\)-reducible to languages that are not exponentially dense. Thus every\(\leqslant _{n^\alpha - tt}^P\)-hard language for E is exponentially dense. This strengthens Watanabe's 1987 result, that every ≤ O(log n)-tt P -hard language for E is exponentially dense. The combinatorial technique used here, the sequentially most frequent query selection, also gives a new, simpler proof of Watanabe's result.

The main theorem also has implications for the structure of NP under strong hypotheses. Ogiwara and Watanabe (1991) have shown that the hypothesis P ≠ NP implies that every ≤ btt P -hard language for NP is nonsparse (i.e., not polynomially sparse). Their technique does not appear to allow significant relaxation of either the query bound or the sparseness criterion. It is shown here that a stronger hypothesis—namely, that NP does not have measure 0 in exponential time—implies the stronger conclusion that, for every real α<1, every \(\leqslant _{n^\alpha - tt}^P\)-hard language for NP is exponentially dense. Evidence is presented that this stronger hypothesis is reasonable.

Also presented here (and used in proving the main theorem) is a weak stochasticity theorem, ensuring that almost every language in E is statistically unpredictable by feasible deterministic algorithms, even with linear nonuniform advice.


Complexity Class Exponential Time Kolmogorov Complexity Combinatorial Technique Strong Hypothesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N. Alon and J. H. Spencer, The Probabilistic Method, Wiley, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    V. Arvind, J. Köbler, and M. Mundhenk, Bounded truth-table and conjunctive reductions to sparse and tally sets, Technical report. University of Ulm, 1992. Technical Report Ulmer Informatik-Berichte 92-01.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. Berman and J. Hartmanis, On isomorphism and density of NP and other complete sets, SIAM Journal on Computing 6 (1977), pp. 305–322.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Erdös, Some remarks on the theory of graphs, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 53 (1947), pp. 292–294.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Erdös and J. Spencer, Probabilistic Methods in Combinatorics, Academic Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    B. Fu, With quasi-linear queries EXP is not polynomial time Turing reducible to sparse sets, manuscript, August 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. A. Hemachandra, M. Ogiwara, and O. Watanabe, How hard are sparse sets?, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, 1992, pp. 222–238. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. W. Juedes and J. H. Lutz, The complexity and distribution of hard problems, Technical Report 92-23, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 1992. Submitted.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. W. Juedes and J. H. Lutz, Kolmogorov complexity, complexity cores, and the distribution of hardness, In O. Watanabe, editor, Kolmogorov Complexity and Computational Complexity. Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. M. Karp and R. J. Lipton, Some connections between nonuniform and uniform complexity classes, Proceedings of the 12th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1980, pp. 302–309, also published as Turing machines that take advice, L'Enseignement Mathematique 28 (1982), pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. N. Kolmogorov and V. A. Uspenskii, Algorithms and randomness, translated in Theory of Probability and its Applications 32 (1987), pp. 389–412.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. H. Lutz, Intrinsically pseudorandom sequences, in preparation.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. H. Lutz, Resource-bounded measure, in preparation.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. H. Lutz, An upward measure separation theorem, Theoretical Computer Science 81 (1991), pp. 127–135.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. H. Lutz, Almost everywhere high nonuniform complexity, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 44 (1992), pp. 220–258.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. H. Lutz and E. Mayordomo. Measure, stochasticity, and the density of hard languages. Technical Report 92-11, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 1992. Submitted.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. H. Lutz and W. J. Schmidt, Circuit size relative to pseudorandom oracles, Theoretical Computer Science A 107 (1993), to appear.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. R. Mahaney, Sparse complete sets for NP: Solution of a conjecture of Berman and Hartmanis, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 25 (1982), pp. 130–143.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. Mayordomo, Almost every set in exponential time is P-bi-immune, Seventeenth International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, 1992. Springer-Verlag, to appear.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. R. Meyer, 1977, reported in [3].Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Ogiwara and O. Watanabe, On polynomial bounded truth-table reducibility of NP sets to sparse sets, SIAM Journal on Computing 20 (1991), pp. 471–483.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. L. Selman, 1992, personal communication.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27 (1948), pp. 379–423, 623–656.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    C. E. Shannon, The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits, Bell System Technical Journal 28 (1949), pp. 59–98.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. H. Spencer, Ten Lectures on the Probabilistic Method, SIAM, 1987.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    L. J. Stockmeyer, The polynomial-time hierarchy, Theoretical Computer Science 3 (1977), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    V. A. Uspenskii, A. L. Semenov, and A. Kh. Shen', Can an individual sequence of zeros and ones be random?, Russian Mathematical Surveys 45 (1990), pp. 121–189.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    O. Watanabe, On the Structure of Intractable Complexity Classes, PhD thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1987.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    O. Watanabe, Polynomial time reducibility to a set of small density, Proceedings of the Second Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, 1987, pp. 138–146.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    C. B. Wilson, Relativized circuit complexity, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 31 (1985), pp. 169–181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack H. Lutz
    • 1
  • Elvira Mayordomo
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Dept. LSIUniv. Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations