Structure in Complexity Theory pp 272-290 | Cite as

# Parallel computation with threshold functions

## Abstract

We study two classes of unbounded fan-in parallel computation, the standard one, based on unbounded fan-in ANDs and ORs, and a new class based on unbounded fan-in threshold functions. The latter is motivated by a connectionist model of the brain used in Artificial Intelligence. We are interested in the resources of time and address complexity. Intuitively, the address complexity of a parallel machine is the number of bits needed to describe an individual piece of hardware. We demonstrate that (for WRAMs and uniform unbounded fan-in circuits) parallel time and address complexity is simultaneously equivalent to alternations and time on an alternating Turing machine (the former to within a constant multiple, and the latter a polynomial). In particular, for constant parallel time, the latter equivalence holds to within a constant multiple. Thus, for example, polynomial-processor, constant-time WRAMs recognize exactly the languages in the logarithmic time hierarchy, and polynomial-word-size, constant-time WRAMs recognize exactly the languages in the polynomial time hierarchy. As a corollary, we provide improved simulations of deterministic Turing machines by constant-time shared-memory machines. Furthermore, in the threshold model, the same results hold if we replace the alternating Turing machine with the analogous threshold Turing machine, and replace the resource of alternations with the corresponding resource of thresholds. Threshold parallel computers are much more powerful than the standard models (for example, with only polynomially many processors, they can compute the parity function and sort in constant time, and multiply two integers in O(log*n) time), and appear less amenable to known lower-bound proof techniques.

## Keywords

Parallel Computation Parallel Machine Turing Machine Threshold Function Constant Multiple## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, “A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines,”
*Cognitive Science*, vol. 9, pp. 147–169, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.M. Ajtai, “Σ
_{1}^{1}-formulae on finite structures,”*Annals of Pure and Applied Logic*, vol. 24, pp. 1–48, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.M. Ajtai and M. Ben-Or, “A note on probabilistic constant depth computations,”
*Proc. 16th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing*, pp. 471–474, Washington, D.C., Apr.-May 1984.Google Scholar - 4.C. G. Bennet and J. Gill, “Relative to a random oracle A, P
^{A}≠ NP^{A}≠ Co-NP^{A}with probability 1,”*SIAM J. Comp.*, vol. 10, pp. 96–113, 1981.Google Scholar - 5.N. Blum, “A note on the ‘parallel computation thesis',”
*Inf. Proc. Lett.*, vol. 17, pp. 203–205, 1983.Google Scholar - 6.A. K. Chandra, D. C. Kozen, and L. J. Stockmeyer, “Alternation,”
*J. ACM*, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 114–133, Jan. 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.S. A. Cook, “Towards a complexity theory of synchronous parallel computation,”
*L'Enseignement Mathematique*, vol. 30, 1980.Google Scholar - 8.P. W. Dymond, “Simultaneous resource bounds and parallel computations,” Ph. D. Thesis, issued as Technical Report TR145/80, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Aug. 1980.Google Scholar
- 9.P. W. Dymond and S. A. Cook, “Hardware complexity and parallel computation,”
*Proc. 21st Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science*, Oct. 1980.Google Scholar - 10.M. Flynn, “Very high-speed computing systems,”
*Proc. IEEE*, vol. 54, pp. 1901–1909, Dec. 1966.Google Scholar - 11.S. Fortune and J. Wyllie, “Parallelism in random access machines,”
*Proc. 10th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing*, pp. 114–118, 1978.Google Scholar - 12.M. Furst, J. B. Saxe, and M. Sipser, “Parity, circuits and the polynomial time hierarchy,”
*Math. Syst. Theory*, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 13–27, 1984.Google Scholar - 13.L. M. Goldschlager, “Synchronous parallel computation,” Ph. D. Thesis, issued as TR-114, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Dec. 1977.Google Scholar
- 14.L. M. Goldschlager, “A universal interconnection pattern for parallel computers,”
*J. ACM*, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1073–1086, Oct. 1982.Google Scholar - 15.L. M. Goldschlager and I. Parberry, “On the construction of parallel computers from various bases of boolean functions,”
*Theor. Comput. Sci.*, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 1986.Google Scholar - 16.J. Hartmanis and J. Simon, “On the power of multiplication in random access machines,”
*Proc. 15th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory*, pp. 13–23, 1974.Google Scholar - 17.G. E. Hinton, T. J. Sejnowski, and D. H. Ackley, “Boltzmann machines: Constraint satisfaction networks that learn,” CMU-CS-84-119, Dept. of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., May 1984.Google Scholar
- 18.J. J. Hopfield, “Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities,”
*Proc. National Academy of Sciences*, vol. 79, pp. 2554–2558, Apr. 1982.Google Scholar - 19.M. Luby, “A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem,”
*Proc. 17th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing*, pp. 1–10, Providence, Rhode Island, May 1985.Google Scholar - 20.I. Parberry, “Parallel speedup of sequential machines: a defense of the parallel computation thesis,” Technical Report CS-84-17, Dept. of Computer Science, Penn. State Univ., Oct. 1984.Google Scholar
- 21.I. Parberry, “A complexity theory of parallel computation,”
*Ph. D. Thesis*, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Warwick, May 1984.Google Scholar - 22.I. Parberry, “On the number of processors required to simulate Turing machines in constant parallel time,” Technical Report CS-85-17, Dept. of Computer Science, Penn. State Univ., Aug. 1985.Google Scholar
- 23.W. J. Paul, N. Pippenger, E. Szemerédi, and W. T. Trotter, “On determinism versus non-determinism and related problems,”
*Proc. 24th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science*, pp. 429–438, Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 1983.Google Scholar - 24.N. Pippenger, “On simultaneous resource bounds,”
*Proc. 20th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science*, Oct. 1979.Google Scholar - 25.V. Pratt and L. J. Stockmeyer, “A characterization of the power of vector machines,”
*J. Comput. Sys. Sci.*, vol. 12, pp. 198–221, 1976.Google Scholar - 26.W. L. Ruzzo, “On uniform circuit complexity,”
*J. Comput. Sys. Sci.*, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 365–383, June 1981.Google Scholar - 27.J. E. Savage, “Computational work and time on finite machines,”
*J. ACM*, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 660–674, 1972.Google Scholar - 28.J. T. Schwartz, “Ultracomputers,”
*ACM TOPLAS*, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 484–521, Oct. 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.Y. Shiloach and U. Vishkin, “Finding the maximum, sorting and merging in a parallel computation model,”
*J. Algorithms*, vol. 2, pp. 88–102, 1981.Google Scholar - 30.M. Sipser, “Borel sets and circuit complexity,”
*Proc. 15th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing*, pp. 61–69, Boston, Mass., Apr. 1983.Google Scholar - 31.L. Stockmeyer and U. Vishkin, “Simulation of parallel random access machines by circuits,”
*SIAM J. Comp.*, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 409–422, May 1984.Google Scholar - 32.L. J. Stockmeyer, “The polynomial time hierarchy,”
*Theor. Comput. Sci.*, vol. 3, pp. 1–22, 1977.Google Scholar - 33.L. G. Valiant, “The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems,”
*SIAM J. Comp.*, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 410–421, 1979.Google Scholar - 34.L. G. Valiant, “The complexity of computing the permanent,”
*Theor. Comput. Sci.*, vol. 8, pp. 189–201, 1979.Google Scholar - 35.C. Wrathall, “Complete sets and the polynomial-time hierarchy,”
*Theor. Comput. Sci.*, vol. 3, pp. 23–33, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.A. C. Yao, “Separating the polynomial-time hierarchy by oracles,”
*Proc. 26th Ann. IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science*, Portland, Oregon, Oct. 1985.Google Scholar