Advertisement

First-order spectra with one variable

  • E. Grandjean
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 270)

Abstract

Define a (∀1, unary)-sentence to be a prenex first-order sentence of unary type with only one (universal) quantifier. A successor structure is a structure 〈B,S〉 such that S is a function which is a permutation of the basis B with only one cycle. We exhibit a (∀1, unary)-sentence ϕ of type {S,U1,...,Up} such that if B is finite then 〈B,S〉 is a successor structure iff 〈B,S〉 satisfies ∃U1...∃Up ϕ. It implies that
where NRAM(cn) denotes the class of sets of positive integers accepted by a Nondeterministic Random Access Machine in time cn (where n is the input integer) and SPECTRA (∀1, unary) is the class of finite spectra of (∀1, unary)-sentences. Another consequence is that some graph properties (hamiltonicity, connectedness) can be characterized by sentences with only one variable.

Keywords

Linear Order Turing Machine Hamiltonian Cycle Unary Type Successor 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.
    Aho A.V., Ullman J.D., Universality of Data Retrieval Languages, Proc. of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1979, p. 110–117.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandra A.K., Harel D., Structure and Complexity of Relational Queries, J. Comput. System Sci. 25, 1982, p. 99–128.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang C.C., Keisler H.J., Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Rougemont M., Uniform Definability on Finite Structures with successor, 16th ACM STOC Symposium, 1984, p. 409–417.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fagin R., Generalized First-Order Spectra and Polynomial-Time Recognizable sets, in Complexity of Computations, ed. by R. Karp SIAM-AMS Proc. 7, 1974, p. 43–73.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fagin R., Monadic Generalized Spectra, Z. Math. Logik. Grundlag. Math. 21, 1975, p. 89–96.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gaifman, H., On local and non-local properties, Proc. of the Logic Colloquium 81, Studies in Logic, vol. 107, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, p. 105–135.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garey M.R., Johnson D.S., Computers and Intractability: a Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grandjean E., The Spectra of First-Order Sentences and Computational Complexity, SIAM J. Comput. 13, 1984, p. 356–373.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grandjean E., Universal Quantifiers and Time Complexity of Random Access Machines, Math. Systems Theory 18, 1985, p. 171–187.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grandjean E., A Natural NP-Complete Problem with a Nontrivial Lower Bound, to appear in the SIAM J. Comput.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gurevich Y., Toward Logic Tailored for Computational Complexity, in Computation and Proof Theory, ed. by M.M. Ritcher et al., Springer, Lecture Notes in Math. 1104, 1984, p. 175–216.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gurevich Y., Logic and the Challenge of Computer Science, Technical Report CRL-TR-10-85, Univ. of Michigan, Ann. Arbor, Sep. 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Immerman N., Number of Quantifiers in Better than Number of Tape Cells, J. Comput. System Sci. 22, 1981, p. 65–72.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Immerman N., Relational Queries Computable in Polynomial Time, 14th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1982, p. 147–152, also in Technical Report, Yale Univ., New Haven, Jan. 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Immerman N., Languages wchich capture complexity classes, 15th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1983, p. 347–354.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones N.G., Selman A.L., Turing Machines and the Spectra of First-Order Formulas, J. Symbolic Logic 39, 1974, p. 139–150.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lynch J.F., Complexity classes and theories of finite models, Math. Systems Theory 15, 1982, p. 127–144.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mostowski A., Concerning a Problem of H. Scholz, Z. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 2, 1956, p. 210–214.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paul W.J., Pippenger N., Semeredi E., Trotter W.T., On Determinism Versus Non-Determinism and Related Problems, 24th IEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1983, p. 429–438.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scholz H., J. Symbolic Logic, 17, 1952, 160.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vardi M.Y., Complexity of Relational Query Languages, 14th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1982, p. 137–146.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Grandjean
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'InformatiqueUniversité de CaenCaen CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations