Advertisement

Relativized alternation

  • Jonathan F. Buss
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 223)

Abstract

The prototypical result of relativized complexity theory is the theorem of Baker, Gill and Solovay that the answer to the relativized P=? NP question depends on the oracle. Such results are commonly taken as evidence of the difficulty of solving the unrelativized case, on the assumption that simple simulations and diagonalizations generalize to oracle machines. However, some simple simulations, such as the alternation theorems of Chandra, Kozen and Stockmeyer (ALOGSPACE=P, AP=PSPACE, etc.), can fail in the presence of an oracle.

This paper examines the reasons for nonrelativizability and discusses how they can be overcome. A model for alternation oracle machines is presented in which ALOGSPACE=P and AP=PSPACE relativize to all oracles.

Keywords

Conditional State Query String Query Tree Length Query Alternation Theorem 
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]
    T. Baker, J. Gill, R. Solovay, “Relativizations of the P=? NP question,” SIAM J. Comput. 4 (1975) 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. F. Buss, “Relativized Alternation and Space-Bounded Computation,” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to appear, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. K. Chandra, D. Kozen, L. J. Stockmeyer, “Alternation,” J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 28 (1981) 114–133.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Ladner, N. Lynch, “Relativization of Questions about Log-Space Reducibility,” Math. Syst. Theory 10 (1976) 19–32.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    N. Lynch, “Log Space Machines with Multiple Oracle Tapes,” Theor. Comput. Sci. 6 (1978) 25–39.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Orponen, “Complexity Classes of Alternating Machines with Oracles,” Automata, Languages and Programming, Lect. N. Comput. Sci. 154 (1983) 573–584.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Orponen, “General Nonrelativizability Results for Parallel Models of Computation,” Proc. of the Winter School on Theor. Comput. Sci., Lammi, Finland (1984) 194–205.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. L. Ruzzo, J. Simon, M. Tompa, “Space-Bounded Hierarchies and Probabilistic Computation,” Proc. Fourteenth Ann. ACM Symp. Theory Comput. (1982) 215–223.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. J. Savitch, “Relationships between Nondeterministic and Deterministic Tape Complexities,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 4 (1970) 177–192.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    I. Simon, “On Some Subrecursive Reducibilities,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Report STAN-CS-77-608 (1977).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. B. Wilson, “Relativized Circuit Size and Depth,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Technical Report 179/85 (1985). See also C. B. Wilson, “Parallel Computation and the NC hierarchy relativized,” these proceedings.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan F. Buss
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge

Personalised recommendations