40 research outputs found
Boolean Operations, Joins, and the Extended Low Hierarchy
We prove that the join of two sets may actually fall into a lower level of
the extended low hierarchy than either of the sets. In particular, there exist
sets that are not in the second level of the extended low hierarchy, EL_2, yet
their join is in EL_2. That is, in terms of extended lowness, the join operator
can lower complexity. Since in a strong intuitive sense the join does not lower
complexity, our result suggests that the extended low hierarchy is unnatural as
a complexity measure. We also study the closure properties of EL_ and prove
that EL_2 is not closed under certain Boolean operations. To this end, we
establish the first known (and optimal) EL_2 lower bounds for certain notions
generalizing Selman's P-selectivity, which may be regarded as an interesting
result in its own right.Comment: 12 page
Depth, Highness and DNR degrees
We study Bennett deep sequences in the context of recursion theory; in
particular we investigate the notions of O(1)-deepK, O(1)-deepC , order-deep K
and order-deep C sequences. Our main results are that Martin-Loef random sets
are not order-deepC , that every many-one degree contains a set which is not
O(1)-deepC , that O(1)-deepC sets and order-deepK sets have high or DNR Turing
degree and that no K-trival set is O(1)-deepK.Comment: journal version, dmtc
Depth, Highness and DNR Degrees
A sequence is Bennett deep [5] if every recursive approximation of the
Kolmogorov complexity of its initial segments from above satisfies that the difference
between the approximation and the actual value of the Kolmogorov complexity of
the initial segments dominates every constant function. We study for different lower
bounds r of this difference between approximation and actual value of the initial segment
complexity, which properties the corresponding r(n)-deep sets have. We prove
that for r(n) = εn, depth coincides with highness on the Turing degrees. For smaller
choices of r, i.e., r is any recursive order function, we show that depth implies either
highness or diagonally-non-recursiveness (DNR). In particular, for left-r.e. sets, order
depth already implies highness. As a corollary, we obtain that weakly-useful sets are
either high or DNR. We prove that not all deep sets are high by constructing a low
order-deep set.
Bennett's depth is defined using prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity. We show that
if one replaces prefix-free by plain Kolmogorov complexity in Bennett's depth definition,
one obtains a notion which no longer satisfies the slow growth law (which
stipulates that no shallow set truth-table computes a deep set); however, under this
notion, random sets are not deep (at the unbounded recursive order magnitude). We
improve Bennett's result that recursive sets are shallow by proving all K-trivial sets
are shallow; our result is close to optimal.
For Bennett's depth, the magnitude of compression improvement has to be achieved
almost everywhere on the set. Bennett observed that relaxing to infinitely often is
meaningless because every recursive set is infinitely often deep. We propose an alternative
infinitely often depth notion that doesn't suffer this limitation (called i.o.
depth).We show that every hyperimmune degree contains a i.o. deep set of magnitude
εn, and construct a π01- class where every member is an i.o. deep set of magnitude
εn. We prove that every non-recursive, non-DNR hyperimmune-free set is i.o. deep
of constant magnitude, and that every nonrecursive many-one degree contains such
a set
Depth, Highness and DNR Degrees
A sequence is Bennett deep [5] if every recursive approximation of the
Kolmogorov complexity of its initial segments from above satisfies that the difference
between the approximation and the actual value of the Kolmogorov complexity of
the initial segments dominates every constant function. We study for different lower
bounds r of this difference between approximation and actual value of the initial segment
complexity, which properties the corresponding r(n)-deep sets have. We prove
that for r(n) = εn, depth coincides with highness on the Turing degrees. For smaller
choices of r, i.e., r is any recursive order function, we show that depth implies either
highness or diagonally-non-recursiveness (DNR). In particular, for left-r.e. sets, order
depth already implies highness. As a corollary, we obtain that weakly-useful sets are
either high or DNR. We prove that not all deep sets are high by constructing a low
order-deep set.
Bennett's depth is defined using prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity. We show that
if one replaces prefix-free by plain Kolmogorov complexity in Bennett's depth definition,
one obtains a notion which no longer satisfies the slow growth law (which
stipulates that no shallow set truth-table computes a deep set); however, under this
notion, random sets are not deep (at the unbounded recursive order magnitude). We
improve Bennett's result that recursive sets are shallow by proving all K-trivial sets
are shallow; our result is close to optimal.
For Bennett's depth, the magnitude of compression improvement has to be achieved
almost everywhere on the set. Bennett observed that relaxing to infinitely often is
meaningless because every recursive set is infinitely often deep. We propose an alternative
infinitely often depth notion that doesn't suffer this limitation (called i.o.
depth).We show that every hyperimmune degree contains a i.o. deep set of magnitude
εn, and construct a π01- class where every member is an i.o. deep set of magnitude
εn. We prove that every non-recursive, non-DNR hyperimmune-free set is i.o. deep
of constant magnitude, and that every nonrecursive many-one degree contains such
a set
Downward Collapse from a Weaker Hypothesis
Hemaspaandra et al. proved that, for and : if
\Sigma_i^p \BoldfaceDelta DIFF_m(\Sigma_k^p) is closed under complementation,
then . This sharply asymmetric
result fails to apply to the case in which the hypothesis is weakened by
allowing the to be replaced by any class in its difference
hierarchy. We so extend the result by proving that, for and : if DIFF_s(\Sigma_i^p) \BoldfaceDelta DIFF_m(\Sigma_k^p) is closed
under complementation, then
Query Order and the Polynomial Hierarchy
Hemaspaandra, Hempel, and Wechsung [cs.CC/9909020] initiated the field of
query order, which studies the ways in which computational power is affected by
the order in which information sources are accessed. The present paper studies,
for the first time, query order as it applies to the levels of the polynomial
hierarchy. We prove that the levels of the polynomial hierarchy are
order-oblivious. Yet, we also show that these ordered query classes form new
levels in the polynomial hierarchy unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses.
We prove that all leaf language classes - and thus essentially all standard
complexity classes - inherit all order-obliviousness results that hold for P.Comment: 14 page