Optimal proof systems and sparse sets

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 1770, Issue , 2000, Pages 407-418

  Buhrman, Harry ^a   Fenner, Steve ^b   Fortnow, Lance ^c   van Melkebeek, Dieter ^d  

^a CWI   (Netherlands)

^b The Department of Mechanical Engineering   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^d Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; COMPUTERS;

COMPLETE SETS; PROOF SYSTEM; SPARSE LANGUAGES; SPARSE SET;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84944054056     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-46541-3_34     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. H. Buhrman, E. Hemaspaandra, and L. Longpré. SPARSE reduces conjunctively to TALLY. SIAM Journal on Computing, 24(3):673-681, 1995.
2. R. Book and K. Ko. On sets truth-table reducible to sparse sets. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(5):903-919, 1988.
3. S. Cook and R. Reckhow. The relative effciency of propositional proof systems. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44:36-50, 1979.
4. L. Fortnow. The role of relativization in complexity theory. Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 52:229-244, February 1994.
5. J. Hartmanis and L. Hemachandra. Complexity classes without machines: On complete languages for UP. Theoretical Computer Science, 34:17-32, 1984.
6. L. Hemaspaandra, S. Jain, and N. Vereshchagin. Banishing robust turing completeness. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science, 4(3):245-265, 1993.
7. J. Hartmanis and Y. Yesha. Computation times of NP sets of different densities. Theoretical Computer Science, 34(1-2):17-32, November 1984.
8. K. Ko. Distinguishing conjunctive and disjunctive reducibilities by sparse sets. Information and Computation, 81(1):62-87, 1989.
9. J. Krajíček and P. Pudlák. Propositional proof systems, the consistency of first order theories and the complexity of computations. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 54:1063-1079, 1989.
10. A. Klivans and D. van Melkebeek. Graph nonisomorhism has subexponential size proofs unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 659-667. ACM, New York, 1999.
11. M. Li and P. Vitányi. An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. Graduate Texts in Computer Science. Springer, New York, second edition, 1997.
12. J. Messner and J. Torán. Optimal proof systems for propositional logic and complete sets. In Proceedings of the 15th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, volume 1373 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 477-487. Springer, 1998.
13. S. Saluja. Relativized limitations of left set technique and closure classes of sparse sets. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, pages 215-223. IEEE, New York, 1993.
14. U. Schöning. On random reductions from sparse sets to tally sets. Information Processing Letters, 46(5):239-241, July 1993.
15. J. Seiferas, M. Fischer, and A. Meyer. Separating nondeterministic time complexity classes. Journal of the ACM, 25(1):146-167, 1978.
16. S. Žàk. A Turing machine time hierarchy. Theoretical Computer Science, 26(3):327-333, 1983.