A Formalization of Polytime Functions
We present a deep embedding of Bellantoni and Cook’s syntactic characterization of polytime functions. We prove formally that it is correct and complete with respect to the original characterization by Cobham that required a bound to be proved manually. Compared to the paper proof by Bellantoni and Cook, we have been careful in making our proof fully contructive so that we obtain more precise bounding polynomials and more efficient translations between the two characterizations. Another difference is that we consider functions on bitstrings instead of functions on positive integers. This latter change is motivated by the application of our formalization in the context of formal security proofs in cryptography. Based on our core formalization, we have started developing a library of polytime functions that can be reused to build more complex ones.
Keywordsimplicit computational complexity cryptography
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Arai, T., Eguchi, N.: A new function algebra of EXPTIME functions by safe nested recursion. In: ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, vol. 10(4). ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 4.Barthe, G., Grégoire, B., Zanella Béguelin, S.: Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs. In: Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN- SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2009), pp. 90–101. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Bellantoni, S.: Predicative Recursion and Computational Complexity. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto (1992)Google Scholar
- 8.Cobham, A.: The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions. In: Proceedings of the 1964 International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, pp. 24–30. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1964)Google Scholar
- 11.Halevi, S.: A plausible approach to computer-aided cryptographic proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2005/181 (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Mitchell, J.C., Mitchell, M., Scedrov, A.: A linguistic characterization of bounded oracle computation and probabilistic polynomial time. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1998), pp. 725–733. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
- 17.Rose, H.E.: Subrecursion: functions and hierarchies. Oxford Logic Guides 9. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1984)Google Scholar
- 18.Shoup, V.: Sequences of games: A tool for taming complexity in security proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/332 (2004)Google Scholar
- 19.Schürmann, C., Shah, J.: Representing reductions of NP-complete problems in logical frameworks: A case study. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, Workshop on Mechanized reasoning about languages with variable binding (MERLIN 2003). ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
- 21.Tourlakis, G.J.: Computability, Reston (1984)Google Scholar
- 22.Zhang, Y.: The computational SLR: a logic for reasoning about computational indistinguishability. In: Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 20, pp. 951–975. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar