Advertisement

Bridging across the log(n) space frontier

  • Viliam Geffert
Invited Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 969)

Abstract

We believe that now is the opportune time to unify the theory of space bounded computations below log n with higher complexity classes. This needs to review the basic concepts of the space complexity theory and clarify the role of the space constructibility. Despite of the fact that the space below log n behaves radically different from the higher bounds, many important techniques do work on the both sides of this boundary. In addition, several important problems are closely related across the log n space bound.

Keywords

Turing Machine Computation Path Input Tape Input Head Work Tape 
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]
    M. Albers. Space complexity of alternating Turing machines. In Fundamentals of Computation Theory, LNCS 199, Springer-Verlag, 1–7, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    H. Alt, V. Geffert, and K. Mehlhorn. A lower bound for the nondeterministic space complexity of context-free recognition. Inform. Process. Letters, 42, 25–27, 1992.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Alt and K. Mehlhorn. A language over a one symbol alphabet requiring only O(loglogn) space. SIGACT News, 7, 31–33, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Bertoni, C. Mereghetti, and G. Pighizzini. An optimal lower bound for nonregular languages. Inform. Process. Letters, 50, 289–92, 1994. (Erratum: 52, 339, 1994).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. Bertoni, C. Mereghetti, and G. Pighizzini. Strong optimal lower bounds for Turing machines that accept nonregular languages. In Proc. of MFCS'95, this volume, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    B. von Braunmühl, R. Gengler, and R. Rettinger. The alternation hierarchy for machines with sublogarithmic space is infinite. In Proc. of STACS'94, LNCS 775, Springer-Verlag, 85–96, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Damm and M. Holtzer. Inductive counting below LOGSPACE. In Proc. of MFCS'94, LNCS 841, Springer-Verlag, 276–85, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A.R. Freedman and R.E. Ladner. Space bounds for processing contentless inputs. J. Comput. System Sci., 11, 118–28, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    V. Geffert. Nondeterministic computations in sublogarithmic space and space constructibility. SIAM J. Comput., 20, 484–98, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    V. Geffert. Tally versions of the Savitch and Immerman-Szelepcsényi theorems for sublogarithmic space. SIAM J. Comput., 22, 102–13, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    V. Geffert. Sublogarithmic ∑2-SPACE is not closed under complement and other separation results. RAIRO Theoret. Informatics & Appl., 27, 349–66, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Geffert. A hierarchy that does not collapse: Alternations in low level space. RAIRO Theoret. Informatics & Appl., 28, 465–512, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Hartmanis. New developments in structural complexity theory. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 71, 79–93, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman. Some results on tape-bounded Turing machines. Journal of the ACM, 16, 168–77, 1969.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman. Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Addison-Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    N. Immerman. Nondeterministic space is closed under complement. SIAM J. Comput., 17, 935–38, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. Liśkiewicz and R. Reischuk. Separating the lower levels of the sublogarithmic space hierarchy. In Proc. of STACS'93, LNCS 665, Springer-Verlag, 16–27, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. Liśkiewicz and R. Reischuk. The complexity world below logarithmic space. In Proc. of the Structure in Complexity Theory, 64–78, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. Monien and H. Sudborough. On eliminating nondeterminism from Turing machines which use less than logarithm work tape space. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 21, 237–53, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    D. Ranjan, R. Chang, and J. Hartmanis. Space bounded computations: Review and new separation results. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 80, 289–302, 1991.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    W.J. Savitch. Relationships between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. J. Comput. System Sci., 4, 177–92, 1970.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Sipser. Halting space bounded computations. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 10, 335–38, 1980.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R.E. Stearns, J. Hartmanis, and P.M. Lewis II. Hierarchies of memory limited computations. In IEEE Conf. Record on Switching Circuit Theory and Logical Design, 179–90, 1965.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Szelepcsényi. The method of forced enumeration for nondeterministic automata. Acta Informatica, 26, 279–84, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Szepietowski. If deterministic and nondeterministic space complexities are equal for log log n then they are also equal for log n. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 74, 115–19, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Szepietowski. Turing machines with sublogarithmic space. LNCS 843, Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Ch.K. Yap. Theory of complexity classes. To be published by Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viliam Geffert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceP.J. Šafárik UniversityKošiceSlovakia

Personalised recommendations