Advertisement

On the acceptance power of regular languages

  • Bernd Borchert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 775)

Abstract

In [BCS92] it was shown that several well-known complexity classes which have a complete set for every relativization can be characterized by an acceptance language for the words of ouputs produced by a nondeterministic polynomial time computation. In [HL*93] some results were shown for classes for which this acceptance language is regular. Here a partial order on relativizable classes is presented which reflects the idea of oracle independent inclusion. The main result will be that this partial order on the classes characterized by regular languages is atomic and therefore not dense. The atoms correspond to the classes NP, co-NP and MODpP for p prime.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [BGS75]
    T.Baker, J.Gill, R.Solovay. Relativations of the P =?NP question, SIAM Journal of Computing 4, 1975, pp. 431–442Google Scholar
  2. [Bei91]
    R.Beigel. Relativized Counting Classes: Relations among Thresholds, Parity and Mods, Journal of Computer and System Science 42, 1991, pp. 76–96Google Scholar
  3. [BG92]
    R.Beigel, J.Gill. Counting Classes: thresholds parity, mods, and fewness, Theoretical Computer Science 103, 1992, pp. 3–23Google Scholar
  4. [BCS91]
    D.P.Bovet, P.Crescenzi, R.Silvestri. Complexity Classes and Sparse Oracles, Proceedings of the 6th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, 1991, pp. 102–108Google Scholar
  5. [BCS92]
    D.P.Bovet, P.Crescenzi, R.Silvestri. A Uniform Approach to Define Complexity Classes, Theoretical Computer Science 104, 1992, pp. 263–283Google Scholar
  6. [GW87]
    T.Gundermann, G.Wechsung. Counting Classes with Finite Acceptance Types, Computers and Artificial Intelligence 6 No. 5, 1987, pp. 395–409Google Scholar
  7. [Har65]
    M.A.Harrison. Introduction to Switching and Automata Theory, Mc-Graw Hill, 1965Google Scholar
  8. [HH88]
    J.Hartmanis, L.Hemachandra. Complexity classes without machines: On complete languages fo UP, Theoretical Computer Science 58, 1988, pp. 129–142Google Scholar
  9. [Has86]
    J.Hastad. Almost Optimal Lower Bounds for Small Depth Circuits, Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1986, pp. 6–20Google Scholar
  10. [Her90]
    U.Hertrampf Relations among Mod-Classes, Theoretical Computer Science 74, 1990, pp. 325–328Google Scholar
  11. [Her92]
    U.Hertrampf. Locally Definable Acceptance Types for Polynomial Time Machines, Proceedings 9th STAGS, 1992, pp. 199–207Google Scholar
  12. [HL*93]
    U.Hertrampf, CLautemann, Th. Schwentick, H.Vollmer, K.Wagner. On the Power of Polynomial Time Bit-Computations, Proceedings of the 8th Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, 1993, pp. 200–207Google Scholar
  13. [HU79]
    J.E.Hopcroft, J.D.Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison-Wesley, 1979Google Scholar
  14. [Ko91]
    K.Ko. Separating the low and high hierarchies by oracles, Information and Computation 90(2), 1991, pp. 156–177Google Scholar
  15. [Lad75]
    R.E.Ladner. On the structure of polynomial time reducibility, Journal of the ACM 22, 1975, pp. 155–171Google Scholar
  16. [Sto77]
    L.Stockmeyer. The polynomial-time Hierarchy, Theoretical Computer Science 3, 1977, pp. 23–33Google Scholar
  17. [Yao85]
    A.Yao. Separating the Polynomial time Hierarchy by Oracles, Proceedings of the 26th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1985, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  18. [Za88]
    S.Zachos. Probabilistic Quantifiers and Games, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 36, 1988, pp. 433–451Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Borchert
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations