The Algebraic View of Computation

We argue that computation is an abstract algebraic concept, and a computer is a result of a morphism (a structure preserving map) from a finite universal semigroup.Comment: 13 pages, final version will be published elsewher

Monoidal computer III: A coalgebraic view of computability and complexity

Monoidal computer is a categorical model of intensional computation, where many different programs correspond to the same input-output behavior. The upshot of yet another model of computation is that a categorical formalism should provide a much needed high level language for theory of computation, flexible enough to allow abstracting away the low level implementation details when they are irrelevant, or taking them into account when they are genuinely needed. A salient feature of the approach through monoidal categories is the formal graphical language of string diagrams, which supports visual reasoning about programs and computations. In the present paper, we provide a coalgebraic characterization of monoidal computer. It turns out that the availability of interpreters and specializers, that make a monoidal category into a monoidal computer, is equivalent with the existence of a *universal state space*, that carries a weakly final state machine for any pair of input and output types. Being able to program state machines in monoidal computers allows us to represent Turing machines, to capture their execution, count their steps, as well as, e.g., the memory cells that they use. The coalgebraic view of monoidal computer thus provides a convenient diagrammatic language for studying computability and complexity.Comment: 34 pages, 24 figures; in this version: added the Appendi

Quantum Branching Programs and Space-Bounded Nonuniform Quantum Complexity

In this paper, the space complexity of nonuniform quantum computations is investigated. The model chosen for this are quantum branching programs, which provide a graphic description of sequential quantum algorithms. In the first part of the paper, simulations between quantum branching programs and nonuniform quantum Turing machines are presented which allow to transfer lower and upper bound results between the two models. In the second part of the paper, different variants of quantum OBDDs are compared with their deterministic and randomized counterparts. In the third part, quantum branching programs are considered where the performed unitary operation may depend on the result of a previous measurement. For this model a simulation of randomized OBDDs and exponential lower bounds are presented.Comment: 45 pages, 3 Postscript figures. Proofs rearranged, typos correcte

The Cardinality of an Oracle in Blum-Shub-Smale Computation

We examine the relation of BSS-reducibility on subsets of the real numbers. The question was asked recently (and anonymously) whether it is possible for the halting problem H in BSS-computation to be BSS-reducible to a countable set. Intuitively, it seems that a countable set ought not to contain enough information to decide membership in a reasonably complex (uncountable) set such as H. We confirm this intuition, and prove a more general theorem linking the cardinality of the oracle set to the cardinality, in a local sense, of the set which it computes. We also mention other recent results on BSS-computation and algebraic real numbers

Functional units for natural numbers

Interaction with services provided by an execution environment forms part of the behaviours exhibited by instruction sequences under execution. Mechanisms related to the kind of interaction in question have been proposed in the setting of thread algebra. Like thread, service is an abstract behavioural concept. The concept of a functional unit is similar to the concept of a service, but more concrete. A state space is inherent in the concept of a functional unit, whereas it is not inherent in the concept of a service. In this paper, we establish the existence of a universal computable functional unit for natural numbers and related results.Comment: 17 pages; notational mistakes in tables 5 and 6 corrected; erroneous definition at bottom of page 9 correcte