[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

EXPTIME: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m task, replaced: J. Comb. Th. A → J. Comb. Theory A
Fortnow (talk | contribs)
The equivalence holds for E = NE but not for EXP=NEXP. The Hartmanis et al paper doesn't properly define the classes they use.
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
In [[computational complexity theory]], the [[complexity class]] '''EXPTIME''' (sometimes called '''EXP''' or '''DEXPTIME''') is the [[Set (mathematics)|set]] of all [[decision problem]]s that are solvable by a [[deterministic Turing machine]] in [[exponential time]], i.e., in [[big O notation|O]](2<sup>''p''(''n'')</sup>) time, where ''p''(''n'') is a polynomial function of ''n''.
In [[computational complexity theory]], the [[complexity class]] '''EXPTIME''' (sometimes called '''EXP''' or '''DEXPTIME''') is the [[Set (mathematics)|set]] of all [[decision problem]]s that are solvable by a [[deterministic Turing machine]] in [[exponential time]], i.e., in [[big O notation|O]](2<sup>''p''(''n'')</sup>) time, where ''p''(''n'') is a polynomial function of ''n''.


EXPTIME is one intuitive class in an [[exponential hierarchy]] of complexity classes with increasingly more complex oracles or quantifier alternations. For example, the class [[2-EXPTIME]] is defined similarly to EXPTIME but with a [[Double exponential function|doubly exponential]] time bound <math display="inline">2^{2^{p(n)}}</math>. This can be generalized to higher and higher time bounds.
EXPTIME is one intuitive class in an [[exponential hierarchy]] of complexity classes with increasingly more complex oracles or quantifier alternations. For example, the class [[2-EXPTIME]] is defined similarly to EXPTIME but with a [[Double exponential function|doubly exponential]] time bound. This can be generalized to higher and higher time bounds.


EXPTIME can also be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an [[alternating Turing machine]] in polynomial space.
EXPTIME can also be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an [[alternating Turing machine]] in polynomial space.


<!--Relationships to other classes-->
<!--Relationships to other classes-->
EXPTIME relates to the other basic time and space complexity classes in the following way: [[P (complexity)|P]] ⊆ [[NP (complexity)|NP]] ⊆ [[PSPACE]] ⊆ EXPTIME ⊆ [[NEXPTIME]] ⊆ [[EXPSPACE]]. Furthemore, by the [[time hierarchy theorem]] and the [[space hierarchy theorem]], it is known that P ⊊ EXPTIME, NP ⊊ NEXPTIME and PSPACE ⊊ EXPSPACE.
EXPTIME relates to the other basic time and space complexity classes in the following way: [[P (complexity)|P]] ⊆ [[NP (complexity)|NP]] ⊆ [[PSPACE]] ⊆ EXPTIME ⊆ [[NEXPTIME]] ⊆ [[EXPSPACE]]. Furthermore, by the [[time hierarchy theorem]] and the [[space hierarchy theorem]], it is known that P ⊊ EXPTIME, NP ⊊ NEXPTIME and PSPACE ⊊ EXPSPACE.


== Formal definition ==
== Formal definition ==
Line 27: Line 27:
In the above expressions, the symbol ⊆ means "is a subset of", and the symbol ⊊ means "is a strict subset of".
In the above expressions, the symbol ⊆ means "is a subset of", and the symbol ⊊ means "is a strict subset of".


so at least one of the first three inclusions and at least one of the last three inclusions must be proper, but it is not known which ones are. Most experts{{Who|date=December 2010}} believe all the inclusions are proper. It is also known that if [[P versus NP problem|P = NP]], then EXPTIME {{=}} [[NEXPTIME]], the class of problems solvable in exponential time by a [[nondeterministic Turing machine]].<ref>{{cite book| author = Christos Papadimitriou| title = Computational Complexity| publisher = Addison-Wesley| year = 1994| isbn = 0-201-53082-1| author-link = Christos Papadimitriou}} Section 20.1, page 491.</ref> More precisely, EXPTIMENEXPTIME if and only if there exist [[sparse language]]s in '''NP''' that are not in '''P'''.<ref>Juris Hartmanis, Neil Immerman, Vivian Sewelson. "Sparse Sets in NP&minus;P: EXPTIME versus NEXPTIME". ''Information and Control'', volume 65, issue 2/3, pp.158–181. 1985. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=808769 At ACM Digital Library]</ref>
so at least one of the first three inclusions and at least one of the last three inclusions must be proper, but it is not known which ones are. It is also known that if [[P versus NP problem|P = NP]], then EXPTIME {{=}} [[NEXPTIME]], the class of problems solvable in exponential time by a [[nondeterministic Turing machine]].<ref>{{cite book| last1=Papadimitriou | first1=Christos | title = Computational Complexity| publisher = Addison-Wesley| year = 1994| isbn = 0-201-53082-1| authorlink1 = Christos Papadimitriou}} Section 20.1, page 491.</ref> More precisely, [[E (complexity)|E]][[NE (complexity)|NE]] if and only if there exist [[sparse language]]s in '''NP''' that are not in '''P'''.<ref>Juris Hartmanis, Neil Immerman, Vivian Sewelson. "Sparse Sets in NP&minus;P: EXPTIME versus NEXPTIME". ''Information and Control'', volume 65, issue 2/3, pp.158–181. 1985. [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=808769 At ACM Digital Library]</ref>


EXPTIME can be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an [[alternating Turing machine]] in polynomial space. This is one way to see that PSPACE &sube; EXPTIME, since an alternating Turing machine is at least as powerful as a deterministic Turing machine.<ref>Papadimitriou (1994), section 20.1, corollary 3, page 495.</ref>
EXPTIME can be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an [[alternating Turing machine]] in polynomial space. This is one way to see that PSPACE &sube; EXPTIME, since an alternating Turing machine is at least as powerful as a deterministic Turing machine.<ref>{{harvtxt|Papadimitriou|1994|p=495|loc=Section 20.1, Corollary 3}}</ref>


==EXPTIME-complete==
==EXPTIME-complete==
A decision problem is EXPTIME-complete if it is in EXPTIME and every problem in EXPTIME has a [[polynomial-time many-one reduction]] to it. In other words, there is a polynomial-time [[algorithm]] that transforms instances of one to instances of the other with the same answer. Problems that are EXPTIME-complete might be thought of as the hardest problems in EXPTIME. Notice that although it is unknown whether NP is equal to P, we do know that EXPTIME-complete problems are not in P; it has been proven that these problems cannot be solved in [[polynomial time]], by the [[time hierarchy theorem]].
A decision problem is EXPTIME-complete if it is in EXPTIME and every problem in EXPTIME has a [[polynomial-time many-one reduction]] to it. In other words, there is a polynomial-time [[algorithm]] that transforms instances of one to instances of the other with the same answer. Problems that are EXPTIME-complete might be thought of as the hardest problems in EXPTIME. Notice that although it is unknown whether NP is equal to P, we do know that EXPTIME-complete problems are not in P; it has been proven that these problems cannot be solved in [[polynomial time]], by the [[time hierarchy theorem]].


In [[computability theory]], one of the basic undecidable problems is the [[halting problem]]: deciding whether a [[deterministic Turing machine]] (DTM) halts. One of the most fundamental EXPTIME-complete problems is a simpler version of this, which asks if a DTM halts in at most ''k'' steps. It is in EXPTIME because a trivial simulation requires O(''k'') time, and the input ''k'' is encoded using O(log ''k'') bits which causes exponential number of simulations. It is EXPTIME-complete because, roughly speaking, we can use it to determine if a machine solving an EXPTIME problem accepts in an exponential number of steps; it will not use more.<ref>{{citation|title=Theory of Computational Complexity|series=Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization|first1=Ding-Zhu|last1=Du|first2=Ker-I|last2=Ko|edition=2nd|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|year=2014|isbn=9781118594971|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KMwOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT203|at=Proposition 3.30}}.</ref> The same problem with the number of steps written in unary is [[P-complete]].
In [[computability theory]], one of the basic undecidable problems is the [[halting problem]]: deciding whether a [[deterministic Turing machine]] (DTM) halts. One of the most fundamental EXPTIME-complete problems is a simpler version of this, which asks if a DTM halts on a given input in at most ''k'' steps. It is in EXPTIME because a trivial simulation requires O(''k'') time, and the input ''k'' is encoded using O(log ''k'') bits which causes exponential number of simulations. It is EXPTIME-complete because, roughly speaking, we can use it to determine if a machine solving an EXPTIME problem accepts in an exponential number of steps; it will not use more.<ref>{{citation|title=Theory of Computational Complexity|series=Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization|first1=Ding-Zhu|last1=Du|first2=Ker-I|last2=Ko|edition=2nd|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|year=2014|isbn=9781118594971|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KMwOBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT203|at=Proposition 3.30}}.</ref> The same problem with the number of steps written in unary is [[P-complete]].


Other examples of EXPTIME-complete problems include the problem of evaluating a position in [[generalized game|generalized]] [[chess]],<ref name="Fraenkel1981">{{cite journal| author = [[Aviezri Fraenkel]] and D. Lichtenstein| title = Computing a perfect strategy for n&times;n chess requires time exponential in n| journal = J. Comb. Theory A| issue = 31| year = 1981| pages = 199–214|doi=10.1016/0097-3165(81)90016-9| doi-access = free}}</ref> [[checkers]],<ref name="robson1984">{{cite journal| author = J. M. Robson| title = N by N checkers is Exptime complete| journal = SIAM Journal on Computing| volume = 13| issue = 2| pages = 252–267| year = 1984| doi = 10.1137/0213018}}</ref> or [[Go (board game)|Go]] (with Japanese ko rules).<ref>{{Cite book| author = J. M. Robson| chapter = The complexity of Go| title = Information Processing; Proceedings of IFIP Congress| year = 1983| pages = 413–417}}</ref> These games have a chance of being EXPTIME-complete because games can last for a number of moves that is exponential in the size of the board. In the Go example, the Japanese ko rule is sufficiently intractable to imply EXPTIME-completeness, but it is not known if the more tractable American or Chinese rules for the game are EXPTIME-complete.
Other examples of EXPTIME-complete problems include the problem of evaluating a position in [[generalized game|generalized]] [[chess]],<ref name="Fraenkel1981">{{cite journal| last1=Fraenkel | first1=Aviezri |authorlink1=Aviezri Fraenkel | last2=Lichtenstein | first2=David| title = Computing a perfect strategy for n&times;n chess requires time exponential in n| journal = [[Journal of Combinatorial Theory]] | series=Series A| volume=31 | issue = 2| year = 1981| pages = 199–214|doi=10.1016/0097-3165(81)90016-9| doi-access = }}</ref> [[checkers]],<ref name="robson1984">{{cite journal| author = J. M. Robson| title = N by N checkers is Exptime complete| journal = SIAM Journal on Computing| volume = 13| issue = 2| pages = 252–267| year = 1984| doi = 10.1137/0213018}}</ref> or [[Go (board game)|Go]] (with Japanese ko rules).<ref>{{Cite book| author = J. M. Robson| chapter = The complexity of Go| title = Information Processing; Proceedings of IFIP Congress| year = 1983| pages = 413–417}}</ref> These games have a chance of being EXPTIME-complete because games can last for a number of moves that is exponential in the size of the board. In the Go example, the Japanese ko rule is known to imply EXPTIME-completeness, but it is not known if the American or Chinese rules for the game are EXPTIME-complete (they could range from PSPACE to EXPSPACE).


By contrast, generalized games that can last for a number of moves that is polynomial in the size of the board are often [[PSPACE-complete]]. The same is true of exponentially long games in which non-repetition is automatic.
By contrast, generalized games that can last for a number of moves that is polynomial in the size of the board are often [[PSPACE-complete]]. The same is true of exponentially long games in which non-repetition is automatic.


Another set of important EXPTIME-complete problems relates to [[succinct circuit]]s. Succinct circuits are simple machines used to describe some graphs in exponentially less space. They accept two vertex numbers as input and output whether there is an edge between them. For many natural [[P-complete]] graph problems, where the graph is expressed in a natural representation such as an [[adjacency matrix]], solving the same problem on a succinct circuit representation is EXPTIME-complete, because the input is exponentially smaller; but this requires nontrivial proof, since succinct circuits can only describe a subclass of graphs.<ref>Papadimitriou (1994), section 20.1, page 492.</ref>
Another set of important EXPTIME-complete problems relates to [[succinct circuit]]s. Succinct circuits are simple machines used to describe some graphs in exponentially less space. They accept two vertex numbers as input and output whether there is an edge between them. For many natural [[P-complete]] graph problems, where the graph is expressed in a natural representation such as an [[adjacency matrix]], solving the same problem on a succinct circuit representation is EXPTIME-complete, because the input is exponentially smaller; but this requires nontrivial proof, since succinct circuits can only describe a subclass of graphs.<ref>{{harvtxt|Papadimitriou|1994|p=495|loc=Section 20.1}}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 10:42, 25 June 2024

In computational complexity theory, the complexity class EXPTIME (sometimes called EXP or DEXPTIME) is the set of all decision problems that are solvable by a deterministic Turing machine in exponential time, i.e., in O(2p(n)) time, where p(n) is a polynomial function of n.

EXPTIME is one intuitive class in an exponential hierarchy of complexity classes with increasingly more complex oracles or quantifier alternations. For example, the class 2-EXPTIME is defined similarly to EXPTIME but with a doubly exponential time bound. This can be generalized to higher and higher time bounds.

EXPTIME can also be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an alternating Turing machine in polynomial space.

EXPTIME relates to the other basic time and space complexity classes in the following way: PNPPSPACE ⊆ EXPTIME ⊆ NEXPTIMEEXPSPACE. Furthermore, by the time hierarchy theorem and the space hierarchy theorem, it is known that P ⊊ EXPTIME, NP ⊊ NEXPTIME and PSPACE ⊊ EXPSPACE.

Formal definition[edit]

In terms of DTIME,

Relationships to other classes[edit]

It is known that

PNPPSPACE ⊆ EXPTIME ⊆ NEXPTIMEEXPSPACE

and also, by the time hierarchy theorem and the space hierarchy theorem, that

P ⊊ EXPTIME, NP ⊊ NEXPTIME and PSPACE ⊊ EXPSPACE

In the above expressions, the symbol ⊆ means "is a subset of", and the symbol ⊊ means "is a strict subset of".

so at least one of the first three inclusions and at least one of the last three inclusions must be proper, but it is not known which ones are. It is also known that if P = NP, then EXPTIME = NEXPTIME, the class of problems solvable in exponential time by a nondeterministic Turing machine.[1] More precisely, ENE if and only if there exist sparse languages in NP that are not in P.[2]

EXPTIME can be reformulated as the space class APSPACE, the set of all problems that can be solved by an alternating Turing machine in polynomial space. This is one way to see that PSPACE ⊆ EXPTIME, since an alternating Turing machine is at least as powerful as a deterministic Turing machine.[3]

EXPTIME-complete[edit]

A decision problem is EXPTIME-complete if it is in EXPTIME and every problem in EXPTIME has a polynomial-time many-one reduction to it. In other words, there is a polynomial-time algorithm that transforms instances of one to instances of the other with the same answer. Problems that are EXPTIME-complete might be thought of as the hardest problems in EXPTIME. Notice that although it is unknown whether NP is equal to P, we do know that EXPTIME-complete problems are not in P; it has been proven that these problems cannot be solved in polynomial time, by the time hierarchy theorem.

In computability theory, one of the basic undecidable problems is the halting problem: deciding whether a deterministic Turing machine (DTM) halts. One of the most fundamental EXPTIME-complete problems is a simpler version of this, which asks if a DTM halts on a given input in at most k steps. It is in EXPTIME because a trivial simulation requires O(k) time, and the input k is encoded using O(log k) bits which causes exponential number of simulations. It is EXPTIME-complete because, roughly speaking, we can use it to determine if a machine solving an EXPTIME problem accepts in an exponential number of steps; it will not use more.[4] The same problem with the number of steps written in unary is P-complete.

Other examples of EXPTIME-complete problems include the problem of evaluating a position in generalized chess,[5] checkers,[6] or Go (with Japanese ko rules).[7] These games have a chance of being EXPTIME-complete because games can last for a number of moves that is exponential in the size of the board. In the Go example, the Japanese ko rule is known to imply EXPTIME-completeness, but it is not known if the American or Chinese rules for the game are EXPTIME-complete (they could range from PSPACE to EXPSPACE).

By contrast, generalized games that can last for a number of moves that is polynomial in the size of the board are often PSPACE-complete. The same is true of exponentially long games in which non-repetition is automatic.

Another set of important EXPTIME-complete problems relates to succinct circuits. Succinct circuits are simple machines used to describe some graphs in exponentially less space. They accept two vertex numbers as input and output whether there is an edge between them. For many natural P-complete graph problems, where the graph is expressed in a natural representation such as an adjacency matrix, solving the same problem on a succinct circuit representation is EXPTIME-complete, because the input is exponentially smaller; but this requires nontrivial proof, since succinct circuits can only describe a subclass of graphs.[8]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Papadimitriou, Christos (1994). Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-53082-1. Section 20.1, page 491.
  2. ^ Juris Hartmanis, Neil Immerman, Vivian Sewelson. "Sparse Sets in NP−P: EXPTIME versus NEXPTIME". Information and Control, volume 65, issue 2/3, pp.158–181. 1985. At ACM Digital Library
  3. ^ Papadimitriou (1994, p. 495, Section 20.1, Corollary 3)
  4. ^ Du, Ding-Zhu; Ko, Ker-I (2014), Theory of Computational Complexity, Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Proposition 3.30, ISBN 9781118594971.
  5. ^ Fraenkel, Aviezri; Lichtenstein, David (1981). "Computing a perfect strategy for n×n chess requires time exponential in n". Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series A. 31 (2): 199–214. doi:10.1016/0097-3165(81)90016-9.
  6. ^ J. M. Robson (1984). "N by N checkers is Exptime complete". SIAM Journal on Computing. 13 (2): 252–267. doi:10.1137/0213018.
  7. ^ J. M. Robson (1983). "The complexity of Go". Information Processing; Proceedings of IFIP Congress. pp. 413–417.
  8. ^ Papadimitriou (1994, p. 495, Section 20.1)