Advertisement

Equivalence relations, invariants, and normal forms, II

  • Andreas Blass
  • Yuri Gurevich
Section I: Complexity
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 171)

Abstract

For an equivalence relation E on the words over some finite alphabet, we consider the following four problems, listed in order of increasing difficulty. Recognition: Decide whether two words are equivalent. Invariant: Calculate a function constant on precisely the equivalence classes. Normal form: Calculate a particular member of an equivalence class, given an arbitrary member. First member: Calculate the first member of an equivalence class, given an arbitrary member. We consider the questions whether p solutions for the easier problems yield NP solutions for the harder ones, or vice versa. We show that affirmative answers to several of these questions are equivalent to natural principles like NP=co-NP, NP ∩co-NP=P, and the shrinking principle for NP sets. We supplement known oracles with enough new ones to show that all the questions considered have negative answers relative to some oracles. In other words, these questions cannot be answered affirmatively by means of relativizable polynomial-time Turing reductions. Finally, we show that the analogous questions with "p" replaced by "Borel" have negative answers.

Keywords

Normal Form Equivalence Relation Invariant Problem Recursion Theory Natural Principle 
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, and R. Solovay, Relativizations of the P=?NP question, SIAM J. Computing 4 (1975) 431–442.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Blass and Y. Gurevich, Equivalence relations, invariants, and normal forms, SIAM J. Computing, to appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Hewitt and K. Stromberg, Real and Abstract Analysis, Springer, 1965.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.G. Hinman, Recursion-Theoretic Hierarchies, Springer, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. John, Similarities between NP and analytic sets, preliminary report.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.C. Kleene, Recursive functionals and quantifiers of finite types, I, Trans. Amer. Math Soc., 91(1959) 1–52.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Moschovakis, Descriptive Set Theory, North-Holland, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Sipser, Borel sets and circuit complexity, extended abstract, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.J. Stockmeyer, The polynomial-time hierarchy, Theoret. Comp. Sci., 3(1977) 1–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Blass
    • 1
  • Yuri Gurevich
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Mathematics and Dept. of Computer and Communication SciencesThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations