Advertisement

The shapes of trees

  • Ulrich Hertrampf
Session 12: Automata, Languages and Complexity
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1276)

Abstract

We investigate the power of regular leaf languages with respect to three different tree shapes: the first one is the case of arbitrary (and thus potentially non-regular) computation trees; the second one is the case of balanced computation trees (these trees are initial segments of full binary trees); and the third one is the case of fall binary computation trees.

Keywords

Tree Model Complexity Class Regular Language Computation Tree Computation Path 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D.A. Barrington, R. Beigel, S. Rudich: Representing boolean functions as polynomials modulo composite numbers. Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1992), pp. 455–461.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Borchert: On the acceptance power of regular languages. Proceedings of the 11th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (1994), LNCS 775, pp. 533–542.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Beigel, J. Gill, U. Hertrampf: Counting classes: thresholds, parity, mods, and fewness. Proceedings of the 7th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (1990), LNCS 415, pp. 49–57.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. P. Bovet, P. Crescenzi, R. Silvestri: A uniform approach to define complexity classes. Theoretical Computer Science 104 (1992), pp. 263–283.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Cai, L. Hemachandra: On the power of parity polynomial time. Proceedings of the 6th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science(1989), LNCS 349, pp. 229–239.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    U. Hertrampf: Locally definable acceptance types for polynomial time machines. Proceedings of the 9th Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science(1992), LNCS 577, pp. 199–207.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. Hertrampf: Über Komplexitätsklassen, die mit Hilfe k-wertiger Funktionen definiert werden (On complexity classes, which can be defined using k-valued functions). Habililtationsschrift, Universität Würzburg (1994).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. Hertrampf, C. Lautemann, T. Schwentick, H. Vollmer, K.W. Wagner: On the power of polynomial time bit-reductions. Proceedings of the 8th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference (1993), pp. 200–207.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Hertrampf, H. Vollmer, K.W. Wagner: On balanced vs. unbalanced computation trees. Mathematical Systems Theory 29 (1996), pp. 411–421.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Jenner, P. McKenzie, D. Thérien: Logspace and logtime leaf languages. Proceedings of the 9th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference (1994), pp. 242–254.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N.K. Vereshchagin: Relativizable and non-relativizable theorems in the polynomial theory of algorithms. Izvestija Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk 57 (1993), pp. 51–90. In Russian.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Hertrampf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations