Reachability and the power of local ordering

  • Kousha Etessami
  • Neil Immerman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 775)

Abstract

The L \(L \mathop = \limits^? NL\) NL question remains one of the major unresolved problems in complexity theory. Both L and NL have logical characterizations as the sets of ordered structures expressible in first-order logic augmented with the appropriate Transitive Closure operator [I87]: Over ordered structures, (FO + DTC) captures L and (FO + TC) captures NL. On the other hand, in the absence of ordering, (FO + TC) is strictly more powerful than (FO + DTC) [GM92]. An apparently quite different “structured” model of logspace machines is the Jumping Automaton on Graphs (JAG), [CR80]. We show that the JAG model is intimately related to these logics on “locally ordered” structures. We argue that the usual JAG model is unreasonably weak and should be replaced, wherever possible, by the two-way JAG model, which we define. Furthermore, we have shown that the language (FO + DTC) over two-way locally ordered graphs is more robust than even the two-way JAG model, and yet lower bounds remain accessible. We prove an upper bound on the power of TC over locally ordered graphs, and three lower bounds on DTC.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AF90]
    M. Ajtai and R. Fagin, “Reachability is Harder for Directed than for Undirected Graphs,” J. Symb. Logic, 55 (1990), 113–150.Google Scholar
  2. [A-R79]
    R. Aleliunas, R.M. Karp, R.J. Lipton, L. Lovasz, and C. Rackoff, “Random Walks, Universal Traversal Sequences, and the Complexity of the Maze Problem,” Proceedings of the 20th annual IEEE Found. of Comp. Sci. Symp., pages 218–223, October 1979.Google Scholar
  3. [BB90]
    P. Beame, A. Borodin, P. Raghavan, W. Ruzzo, and M. Tompa, “Time-Space Tradeoffs for Undirected Graph Traversal,” Proceedings of the 31st Annual IEEE Found. of Comp. Sci. Symp., pages 429–438, St. Louis, MO, October 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [BK78]
    M. Blum and D. Kozen, “On the Power of the Compass,” Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Found. of Comp. Sci. Symp., pages 132–142, Ann Arbor, MI, October 1978.Google Scholar
  5. [BS77]
    M. Blum and W.J. Sakoda, “On the Capability of Finite Automata in 2 and 3 Dimensional Space,” Proceedings of the 18th Annual IEEE Found. of Comp. Sci. Symp., pages 147–161, October 1977.Google Scholar
  6. [CFI92]
    J. Cai, M. Fürer, N. Immerman, “An Optimal Lower Bound on the Number of Variables for Graph Identification,” Combinatorica 12 (4) (1992) 389–410.Google Scholar
  7. [CR80]
    S. A. Cook and C. W. Rackoff, “Space Lower Bounds for Maze Threadability of Restricted Machines,” SIAM J. Comput., 9(3):636–652, Aug 1980.Google Scholar
  8. [Ed93]
    J. Edmonds, “Time-Space Tradeoffs for Undirected ST-Connectivity on a JAG,” Proceeding of the 25th Annual ACM Symp. Theory Of Comput., pages 718–727, May 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [Ga81]
    H. Gaifman, “On Local and Non-Local Properties,” Proc. Herbrand Logic Colloq., Marseille, 1981, pages 105–135.Google Scholar
  10. [GM92]
    E. Grädel and G. McColm, “Deterministic vs. Nondeterministic Transitive Closure Logic,” In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE Conference on Logic in Computer Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [182]
    N. Immerman, “Upper and Lower Bounds for First Order Expressibility,” JCSS 25, No. 1 (1982), 76–98.Google Scholar
  12. [187]
    N. Immerman, “Languages that Capture Complexity Classes,” SIAM J. Comput.16:4 (1987), 760–778.Google Scholar
  13. [188]
    N. Immerman, “Nondeterministic Space is Closed Under Complementation,” SIAM J. Comput. 17:5 (1988), 935–938.Google Scholar
  14. [189]
    N. Immerman, “Descriptive and Computational Complexity,” in Computational Complexity Theory, ed. J. Hartmanis, Proc. Symp. in Applied Math., 38, American Mathematical Society (1989), 75–91.Google Scholar
  15. [I89a]
    N. Immerman, “Expressibility and Parallel Complexity,” SIAM J. of Comput 18 (1989), 625–638.Google Scholar
  16. [IL90]
    Neil Immerman and Eric S. Lander, “Describing Graphs: A First-Order Approach to Graph Canonization,” in Complexity Theory Retrospective, Alan Selman, ed., Springer-Verlag (1990), 59–81.Google Scholar
  17. [L92]
    Steven Lindell, “A Logspace Algorithm for Tree Canonization,” ACM Symp. Theory Of Comput.(1992), 400–404.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kousha Etessami
    • 1
  • Neil Immerman
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations