This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 6.841 Advanced Complexity Theory February 9, 2009 Lecture 2 Lecturer: Madhu Sudan Scribe: Sam McVeety Today, we will study diagonalization and Ladners Theorem, which states roughly that: P 6 = NP NPintermediate Problem Later, we will look at relativization, in the context of why diagonalization cant prove P 6 = NP. 1 Diagonalization All subsequent applications of diagonalization are based on the method discovered by Cantor (1880s), which he used to prove the uncountability of rational numbers. We outline that method below: We can enumerate the rational numbers, r i , and use them as rows in a matrix Examine the binary expansion of each number, one digit in each column Construct a new number n such that n does not equal r i at the i th place, negating along the diagonal Recall that we first applied this to languages to show that they are not computable, and then moved to prove further results. The proofs are very similar, as we can simply change the rows from rational numbers to languages, and the column headings to be an element in the set of all finite strings. For entries in the table, 1 implies membership in the language, 0 implies otherwise. Proving the uncomputability of the Halting Problem represents a significant step forward (1940s). The jump from a language is not computable to this language is not computable is nontrivial, particularly given that we have a concise description of the language. Taking the technique still further, we can use diagonalization to prove results for time and space com plexity. Rabin and Blum contributed significantly to these results. Theorem 1 (Hartmanis, Stearns, 65) time ( f ( n )) ( time ( ( f ( n ))log f ( n )) space ( f ( n )) ( space ( ( f ( n ))) Sketch of Proof Describe language L (or Turing Machine M ) such that M time ( ( f ( n ))log f ( n )) For every L i time ( f ( n )), L i 6 = L We ensure this inequality by using different phases for different i On input x , simulate L i ( x ) and negate its answer. This is the language L . Note that negation is easy for deterministic machines, but it is more subtle for nondeterministic machines. Now, we will look at Ladners Theorem. First, a bit of context for this particular result. In his paper on NPcompleteness, Levin managed to prove many things to be NPcomplete, with the major exceptions of LP, GRAPHISO, and Factoring. Because so many problems were NPcomplete, theorists began to wonder whether problems were either NPcomplete or in P. (Concisely, is P NPcomplete = NP?) Ladners TheoremNPcomplete = NP?...
View
Full
Document
 Spring '09
 MadhuSudan

Click to edit the document details