Advertisement

P-selective sets, tally languages, and the behavior of polynomial time reducibilities on NP

Preliminary report
  • Alan L. Selman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 71)

Abstract

The notion of p-selective sets, and tally languages, are used to study polynomial time reducibilities on NP. P-selectivity has the property that a set A belongs to the class P if and only if both Ā ≤ m P A and A is p-selective. We prove that for every tally language set in NP there exists a polynomial time equivalent set in NP that is p-selective. From this result it follows that if NEXT ≠ DEXT, then polynomial time Turing and many-one reducibilities differ on NP.

Keywords

Polynomial Time Turing Machine Conjunctive Normal Form Polynomial Time Reducibility Polynomial Time Computable Function 
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.
    P. Berman, Relationships between density and deterministic complexity of NP-complete languages, Fifth International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 62(1978), 63–71.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Book, On languages accepted in polynomial time, SIAM J. Comput. 1(1972), 281–287.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Book, Tally languages and complexity classes, Information and Control 26(1974), 186–193.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Book, Comparing complexity classes, J. Computer System Sci. 9(1974), 213–229.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Book, C. Wrathall, A. Selman, and D. Dobkin, Inclusion complete tally languages and the Hartmanis-Berman conjecture, Math. Systems Theory 11(1977), 1–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Cook, The complexity of theorem-proving procedures, Third annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1971), 151–158.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Cook, Characterizations of pushdown machines in terms of time-bounded computers, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 18(1971), 4–18.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Jockusch, Semirecursive sets and positive reducibility, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 131(1968), 420–436.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Jones and A. Selman, Turing machines and the spectra of first-order formulas, J. Symbolic Logic 29(1974), 139–150.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Karp, Reducibility among combinatorial problems, Complexity of Computer Computations, R. Miller and J. Thatcher, (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 1972, 85–103.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Karp, Combinatories = ? linear programming + number theory, Project MAC Workshop on Complexity Computations, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Ladner, On the structure of polynomial time reducibility, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 22 (1975), 155–171.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Ladner, N. Lynch, and A. Selman, A comparison of polynomial time reducibilities, Theoretical Computer Sci. 1(1975), 103–123.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Pratt, Every prime has a succinct certificate, SIAM J. Comput. 4 (1975), 214–220.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Simon and J. Gill, Polynomial reducibilities and upward diagonalizations, Ninth annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1977), 186–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan L. Selman
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentIowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations