Advertisement

Predicative Recursion and The Polytime Hierarchy

  • Stephen Bellantoni
Part of the Progress in Computer Science and Applied Logic book series (PCS, volume 13)

Abstract

Recent work in recursion theory has shown that the primitive recursive schemas can be modified so as to generate only the “feasible” class of polynomial time computable functions. In contrast to Cobham’s characterization, the new algebraic formulation uses a more structured form of recursion (“predicative recursion”) to avoid referring to polynomial growth bounds. The overall project is to rework recursion theory with respect to computational complexity, using predicativity as a guiding idea.

Keywords

Partial Recursive Function Correspondence Theorem Primitive Recursive Function Primitive Recursion Predicative Recursion 
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]
    S. Bellantoni, “Predicative Recursion and Computational Complexity”, PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, 1992. Available as Technical Report 264/92, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Bellantoni, “Further Complexity Characterizations Using Predicative Recursion”, Manuscript, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Bellantoni and S. Cook, “A New Recursion-Theoretic Characterization of the Polytime Functions”, computational complexityv. 2, p. 97–110, 1992. Extended Abstract appeared in Proc. 24th Symposium on the Theory Of Computing, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Bloch, “Functional Characterizations of Uniform Log-depth and Polylogdepth Circuit Families”, in Annual Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Bloch, Divide and Conquer in Parallel Complexity and Proof Theory, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of California at San Diego, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Buss, “Bounded Arithmetic”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1985; reprinted Bibliopolis, Naples, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Buss, “The polynomial hierarchy and intuitionistic bounded arithmetic”, Annual Conference on Structure in Complexity Theory, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 223, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Cobham, “The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions”. In Y. Bar-Hillel ed., Proc. of the 1964 International Congress for Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, p. 24 – 30. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Cook and A. Urquhart, “Functional interpretations of feasibly constructive arithmetic”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic(to appear). See also Technical Report 210/88, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L. Fegaras, T. Sheard, D. Stemple, “Uniform Traversal Combinators: Definition, Use and Properties”, in 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, June 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Feferman, “Systems of Predicative Analysis”, in The Philosophy of Mathematics, J. Hintikka ed., series: “Oxford Readings in Philosophy”, Oxford University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Krajicek, G. Takeuti, “On Bounded \(\Sigma_1^1\) Polynomial Induction”, in Feasible Mathematics, S. Buss and P. Scott, eds., Birkhauser 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Leivant, “A foundational delineation of computational feasibility”, in Sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Amsterdam), IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. D. Leivant, “Subrecursion and lambda representation over free algebras (Preliminary summary)”, in Feasible Mathematics, S. Buss and P. Scott, eds., Birkhauser 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    D. Leivant, “Semantic characterizations of number theories”, Technical Report CMU-CS-90-169, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    D. Leivant, “Characterization of Complexity Classes in Higher-Order Logic”, in Second Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D. Leivant, “Predicative recurrence and computational complexity I: Word recurrence and poly-time”, this volume.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    V. Lifschitz, “Calculable Natural Numbers” in Intensional Mathematics, S. Shapiro, ed., series: Studies in Logic v. 113, North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. Nelson, Predicative Arithmetic, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Nguyen, A Formal System for Linear Space Reasoning, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. Otto, “Categorical Characterization of Ptime I”, manuscript, Dept. of Mathematics, McGill University, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    T. Pitassi, “The Efficiency of Weak Formal Systems”, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. R. W. Ritchie, “Classes of Predictably Computable Functions”, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, v. 106, 1963.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    H. Simmons, “The Realm of Primitive Recursion”, Archive for Mathematical Logic, v. 27 p. 177+, Springer Verlag 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Boston 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Bellantoni
    • 1
  1. 1.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations