• Edith Hemaspaandra
  • Lane A. Hemaspaandra
Part of the Studies in Economic Design book series (DESI)


We believe that economic design and computational complexity—while already important to each other—should become even more important to each other with each passing year. But for that to happen, experts in on the one hand such areas as social choice, economics, and political science and on the other hand computational complexity will have to better understand each other’s worldviews. This article, written by two complexity theorists who also work in computational social choice theory, focuses on one direction of that process by presenting a brief overview of how most computational complexity theorists view the world. Although our immediate motivation is to make the lens through which complexity theorists see the world be better understood by those in the social sciences, we also feel that even within computer science it is very important for nontheoreticians to understand how theoreticians think, just as it is equally important within computer science for theoreticians to understand how nontheoreticians think.



We thank William S. Zwicker for helpful comments and suggestions. This work was done in part while on a sabbatical stay at ETH Zürich’s Department of Computer Science, generously supported by that department.


  1. Appel, A. (1992). Is POPL mathematics or science? SIGPLAN Notices, 27(4), 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora, S., Lund, C., Motwani, R., Sudan, M., & Szegedy, M. (1998). Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems. Journal of the ACM, 45(3), 501–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrington, D. (1989). Bounded-width polynomial-size branching programs recognize exactly those languages in NC\({}^1\). Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 38(1), 150–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai, J.-Y., & Furst, M. (1991). PSPACE survives constant-width bottlenecks. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 2(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fortnow, L. (2009). Time for computer science to grow up. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gasarch, W. (2012). The second P \(=\)? NP poll. SIGACT News, 43(2), 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenlaw, R., Hoover, H., & Ruzzo, W. (1995). Limits to parallel computation: P-completeness theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gurevich, Y. (1983). Algebras of feasible functions. In Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (pp. 210–214). IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  9. Haines, M. (1993). Distributed runtime support for task and data management. Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Colins, CO, August 1993. Available as Colordo State Univeristy Department of Computer Science Technical Report CS-93-110.Google Scholar
  10. Harel, D. (1987). Algorithmics: The spirit of computing. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Hartmanis, J., & Hemachandra, L. (1988). Complexity classes without machines: On complete languages for UP. Theoretical Computer Science, 58(1–3), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartmanis, J., & Hopcroft, J. (1976). Independence results in computer science. SIGACT News, 8(4), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartmanis, J., & Yesha, Y. (1984). Computation times of NP sets of different densities. Theoretical Computer Science, 34(1–2), 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hemaspaandra, L. (2018). Computational social choice and computational complexity: BFFs? In Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 7971–7977). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hemaspaandra, L., Jain, S., & Vereshchagin, N. (1993). Banishing robust Turing completeness. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 4(3), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hemaspaandra, L., & Williams, R. (2012). An atypical survey of typical-case heuristic algorithms. SIGACT News, 43(4), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Immerman, N. (1988). Nondeterministic space is closed under complementation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(5), 935–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Impagliazzo, R., & Wigderson, A. (1997). \(\rm {P}={BPP}\) if E requires exponential circuits: Derandomizing the XOR lemma. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 220–229). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Knuth, D. (1997). Algorithms in modern mathematics and computer science. In A. Ershov & D. Knuth (Eds.), Algorithms in modern mathematics and computer science (pp. 82–99). Lecture Notes in Computer Science #122. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Kurtz, S., Mahaney, S., & Royer, J. (1995). The isomorphism conjecture fails relative to a random oracle. Journal of the ACM, 42(2), 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lund, C., Fortnow, L., Karloff, H., & Nisan, N. (1992). Algebraic methods for interactive proof systems. Journal of the ACM, 39(4), 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lutz, J., & Mayordomo, E. (1996). Cook versus Karp-Levin: Separating completeness notions if NP is not small. Theoretical Computer Science, 164(1–2), 123–140.Google Scholar
  23. Nisan, N., & Wigderson, A. (1994). Hardness vs. randomness. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 49(2), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patterson, D., Snyder, L., & Ullman, J. (1999). Best practices memo: Evaluating computer scientists and engineers for promotion and tenure. Computing Research News, 11(3), A–B (special insert).Google Scholar
  25. Patterson, D., Snyder, L., & Ullman, J. (2017). Evaluating computer scientists and engineers for promotion and tenure., URL verified October 31, 2017.
  26. Shamir, A. (1992). \({\rm {IP}} ={\rm {PSPACE}}\). Journal of the ACM, 39(4), 869–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sipser, M. (1982). On relativization and the existence of complete sets. In Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (pp. 523–531). Lecture Notes in Computer Science #140. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Storer, J. (1983). On the complexity of chess. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 27(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szelepcsényi, R. (1988). The method of forced enumeration for nondeterministic automata. Acta Informatica, 26(3), 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Toda, S. (1991). PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(5), 865–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vardi M. (2009). Conferences vs. journals in computing research. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edith Hemaspaandra
    • 1
  • Lane A. Hemaspaandra
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations