How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The Polynomial Hierarchy and Relativization
1 · Prerequisites
- Boolean Circuits and Nonuniform Complexity
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Countability and Uncountability
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Formal Languages, Encodings, and Decision Problems
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Linear Recurrences and Rational Generating Functions
- Logarithmic Space, NL, and Reachability
- P, NP, coNP, and Polynomial Reductions
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Resource Bounds and Machine Invariance
- Sequences and Limits
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Time and Space Hierarchy Theorems
- Turing Machines, Configurations, and Computation
2 · Summary
Polynomially bounded quantifiers give a hierarchy of decision classes. The proofs connect those quantifiers to adaptive oracle computations, establish conditional collapse results, and construct two opposite oracle worlds. High and low sets and promise reductions use explicitly separate conventions.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Polynomial hierarchy levels
Definition
All languages are subsets of . Put as in The class P. For a fixed integer , means that a deterministic polynomial-time predicate and polynomially bounded, polynomial-time computable lengths satisfy Here is existential for odd and universal for even . Starting universally defines . Write . The level and all polynomials are fixed for a language, not part of the input. Length zero allows the single empty string. Variable-length witnesses can be encoded with a length field and padding; every padded string decodes to a bounded-length string, so universal blocks introduce no invalid-witness exception.
Relativized complexity class
Definition
Fix a total language . An oracle machine writes a query word and receives its membership bit in in one answer step. Query writing counts toward time and the query tape toward space. A polynomial time clock bounds every branch for every oracle. and are deterministic and nondeterministic polynomial-time oracle classes, respectively; the latter equivalently uses a polynomial-length witness and a deterministic polynomial-time -oracle verifier. Use the conventions of The class P and The class NP via polynomial-time verifiers.
For and , replace the deterministic predicate in Polynomial hierarchy levels by a predicate; level zero is . Define by deterministic polynomial space under the charged-query convention. For a language class , and . Finally . With a fixed base oracle, a machine may query both and a language ; encode this by the tagged union .
Ph quantifier block closure
Statement
For each fixed , both and are closed under polynomial-time many-one preimages and polynomially many uniformly indexed conjunctions and disjunctions. Precisely, if the language of pairs lies in the class and for a polynomial-time computable polynomial bound , then both “every such ” and “some such ” define languages in that class. Complements interchange and , and each is contained in both classes at level . These assertions also hold with one fixed base oracle.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
The levels are defined by a fixed number of alternating polynomial-length string blocks over a uniform polynomial-time predicate. (Polynomial hierarchy levels).
Proof
The bounded-block definition supplies one uniform predicate for , not a separately chosen machine for each index. A polynomial-time preimage first computes its image; witness lengths can be padded to a polynomial bound in . At level zero all these operations are deterministic polynomial-time loops.
For positive , conjunctions use a tuple of independent variables at each quantifier block and the conjunction of the matrix tests. The identities hold for either quantifier over nonempty domains. One verifies the universal identity by fixing an arbitrary value of the other variable, and the existential identity by combining witnesses. Repeated application proves both directions of the tuple construction. A tuple contains only polynomially many polynomial-length strings.
Disjunction follows by complementing a conjunction of complements; this simultaneously proves closure for both starting polarities. Negating a quantified predicate flips every quantifier and negates its deterministic matrix. A zero-term conjunction is true and a zero-term disjunction is false, both deterministic. Length-zero blocks still have one value.
Append an unused last block for containment in the next level of the same polarity; prepend an unused opposite block for the other polarity. Both preserve truth because binary-string domains are nonempty. The proof copies calls to a fixed base oracle verbatim, so all constructions relativize.
Np and conp are the first levels
Statement
and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
First-level existential and universal polynomial-time predicates define the first hierarchy levels. (Polynomial hierarchy levels).
NP consists of languages admitting polynomial-time verifiers with polynomially bounded certificates. (The class NP via polynomial-time verifiers).
coNP consists of complements of NP languages in the same binary-string universe. (The class coNP).
Proof
A first-level existential predicate is a polynomial-time verifier with a polynomial-length certificate, so it defines an NP language. Conversely, encode a bounded-length verifier certificate by a length field and padding; a total decoding onto all allowed certificates preserves existence and gives the first-level predicate. This includes length zero and the empty input.
Negating that existential formula yields a universal formula for the complement. Conversely negating a universal formula yields an NP verifier. By the definition of coNP these are exactly the languages of .
Ph circuit matrix final block encoding
Statement
For a fixed polynomial-time Boolean predicate , and a polynomial bound on in , one can construct in time polynomial in formulas in 3CNF and in 3DNF such that, for every allowed , Here clauses or terms have at most three literals. Both formula length and are polynomially bounded.
When the allowed strings have varying lengths at most a fixed bound , the formula's -block is a fixed-width encoding: a -bit length field followed by payload bits. A length field outside decodes to the empty string, and otherwise the decoder returns the indicated initial payload segment. Thus every fixed-width string decodes to an allowed , every allowed has an encoding, and in the display means applied to that decoded string. For a prescribed exact length, use the identity encoding.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For every fixed deterministic Turing machine that halts in polynomial time, there is a polynomial-size logspace-uniform Boolean circuit family such that exactly when accepts . (Polynomial-time computations have logspace-uniform circuit families).
A Boolean circuit on inputs is a finite directed acyclic graph with inputs , constants and , and NOT, AND, and OR gates; AND and OR have fan-in two, while NOT has fan-in one. One node is designated as the output. The circuit's value is the value at that node after evaluating the graph in topological order. Its size is its number of non-input gates, and its depth is the largest number of non-input gates on a directed path ending at the output (a path may begin at an input or a constant). If two fixed finite bounded-arity bases can simulate every gate (and every constant) of one another by fixed finite circuits, then changing between them costs only constant factors in size and depth. In particular this holds for any two such functionally complete bases with simulable constants. No such claim is made for an arbitrary finite basis that may fail to express one of the Boolean operations. (Boolean circuits: basis, fan-in, size, and depth).
Proof
Compile the fixed machine that first applies the stated total decoder and then evaluates at the exact encoded-pair length determined by and the fixed bound; then fix the bits of . The decoder is polynomial-time and never changes by silently padding its argument. A halting logspace uniformity procedure on polynomial-length gate indices has polynomially many configurations and hence runs in polynomial time; enumerating the polynomially many gates therefore takes polynomial time. Use the NOT, binary AND/OR and constant basis.
Introduce a variable for every gate output. For , use ; for , use ; for , use . Constants use unit clauses. If necessary add an output gate copying the designated input via two negations. Let be the conjunction. Each assignment to the inputs extends uniquely to one assignment satisfying , by gate order.
With output variable , set and . If is true, the unique consistent extension witnesses the first formula and every extension satisfies the second. If is false, no extension satisfies the first and the consistent extension falsifies the second. Negating the 3CNF gives a 3DNF of the same linear size. Constant predicates and zero input bits obey the same construction.
Bounded alternation qbf is level complete
Statement
For every fixed , truth of prenex Boolean formulas with alternating blocks beginning existentially is -complete under polynomial-time many-one reductions. The universally starting version is -complete. The matrix is a general Boolean formula, empty blocks are allowed, and malformed encodings are rejected.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
All languages are subsets of . Put as in the stated convention. For a fixed integer , means that a deterministic polynomial-time predicate and polynomially bounded, polynomial-time computable lengths satisfy Here is existential for odd and universal for even . Starting universally defines . Write . The level and all polynomials are fixed for a language, not part of the input. Length zero allows the single empty string. Variable-length witnesses can be encoded with a length field and padding; every padded string decodes to a bounded-length string, so universal blocks introduce no invalid-witness exception. (Polynomial hierarchy levels).
For a fixed polynomial-time Boolean predicate , and a polynomial bound on in , one can construct in time polynomial in formulas in 3CNF and in 3DNF such that, for every allowed , Here clauses or terms have at most three literals. Both formula length and are polynomially bounded. (Ph circuit matrix final block encoding).
Let and be languages over finite alphabets. A polynomial-time many-one reduction from to is a total function such that: - is computable by a deterministic Turing machine in polynomial time, and - for every , When such an exists, write (Polynomial-time many-one reductions).
Proof
Parse the encoding deterministically; reject a malformed word. For a well-formed formula, quantify one polynomial-length assignment string per block and evaluate the matrix in polynomial time. Make the parsing test a conjunction in the matrix, so rejection remains valid for either starting polarity. This proves membership even when blocks have length zero.
Given a language at the desired level, take its fixed defining predicate. For each input , apply the pointwise encoding to the whole tuple of quantified strings. If its last block is existential, use and merge into that block. If it is universal, use instead. For every assignment to earlier blocks the replacement has exactly the original truth value, so iterating the outer quantifiers preserves truth in both directions.
There are still blocks and polynomially many symbols; compilation is polynomial-time. It outputs a well-formed instance on every input, with membership equivalent to the original language, which is exactly the required reduction. The construction applies separately to both starting polarities, including .
Ph adaptive oracle transcript normal form
Statement
For fixed and , every nondeterministic polynomial-time -oracle computation has a definition. More generally, for a fixed total base oracle and , polynomial nondeterministic access to both and has a definition.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
Fix a total language . An oracle machine writes a query word and receives its membership bit in in one answer step. Query writing counts toward time and the query tape toward space. A polynomial time clock bounds every branch for every oracle. and are deterministic and nondeterministic polynomial-time oracle classes, respectively; the latter equivalently uses a polynomial-length witness and a deterministic polynomial-time -oracle verifier. Use the conventions of the stated convention and the stated convention. For and , replace the deterministic predicate in the stated convention by a predicate; level zero is . Define by deterministic polynomial space under the charged-query convention. For a language class , and . Finally . With a fixed base oracle, a machine may query both and a language ; encode this by the tagged union . (Relativized complexity class).
For each fixed , both and are closed under polynomial-time many-one preimages and polynomially many uniformly indexed conjunctions and disjunctions. Precisely, if the language of pairs lies in the class and for a polynomial-time computable polynomial bound , then both “every such ” and “some such ” define languages in that class. Complements interchange and , and each is contained in both classes at level . These assertions also hold with one fixed base oracle. (Ph quantifier block closure).
Proof
Use the oracle-independent polynomial clock to bound the branch string, number and lengths of queries, and the entire transcript. Guess in a first existential block a branch and all answers to queries. Replay the machine using these answers, making any calls directly; reject if the replay does not accept. Thus the replay test is in .
Write with . For each guessed YES answer, guess its in the first block too; its remaining condition starts universally and has blocks. For each NO answer, use the complementary -block universal-first formula. Pad YES conditions with an unused last block, and combine the conditions in parallel into alternating universal-first blocks by tuple conjunction closure. Unused transcript slots impose the constant true condition. At , a YES condition has no remaining quantified variable.
An actually accepting branch supplies its correct transcript and YES witnesses, so the constructed formula is true. Conversely a true formula certifies every YES and every NO answer, and the replay is therefore an actual accepting branch. Tuple lengths are polynomial because both query count and query length are polynomially bounded. Prefixing the guessed first block gives exactly alternating blocks over . For the unrelativized assertion take .
Quantifier and oracle characterizations of ph
Statement
For every , For a fixed complete bounded-alternation QBF language can replace the class oracle. At , this gives the usual satisfiability oracle. The quantifier levels also equal polynomial-time alternating computations with at most blocks of existential/universal choices, beginning with the indicated polarity. With a fixed base oracle , the same oracle characterization holds using access to both and a language in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For fixed and , every nondeterministic polynomial-time -oracle computation has a definition. More generally, for a fixed total base oracle and , polynomial nondeterministic access to both and has a definition. (Ph adaptive oracle transcript normal form).
For every fixed , truth of prenex Boolean formulas with alternating blocks beginning existentially is -complete under polynomial-time many-one reductions. The universally starting version is -complete. The matrix is a general Boolean formula, empty blocks are allowed, and malformed encodings are rejected. (Bounded alternation qbf is level complete).
and . (Np and conp are the first levels).
Proof
For , transcript normal form gives . Conversely, guess the first block of a predicate. The remaining language of pairs is in ; query its complementary language and flip the answer. The two procedures give both inclusions. For , polynomial-time oracle calls can be simulated directly in polynomial time, and the first-level verifier identity gives the result.
Every language at positive level reduces to the fixed complete QBF language; replace each adaptive query by its reduction. Query lengths and query counts remain polynomial. Negating the oracle machine's acceptance convention gives the complementary nondeterministic class; the displayed Delta equality is its definition. The first-level complete QBF language is simply formula satisfiability with its assignment block made explicit.
For an alternating machine, replace each existential or universal choice block by a polynomial-length string of its branch choices, ignoring unused bits. Deterministic steps between changes of polarity are simulated by the final predicate. Conversely, realize each quantified string by successive binary choices of the required polarity and then evaluate the predicate. Acceptance at an existential node means some child accepts, and at a universal node every child accepts; recursive evaluation of the finite tree proves the equivalence. Halted branches can be padded with ignored choices.
The first inclusion and the guess-and-complement-query construction work identically with a fixed base , using the relative part of transcript normal form. Both the outer machine and its predicate retain access to that same ; this is the claimed relative oracle characterization. It does not assert unrelativized formula completeness for arbitrary .
Ph containments and polynomial space
Statement
For every , Moreover .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For every , For a fixed complete bounded-alternation QBF language can replace the class oracle. At , this gives the usual satisfiability oracle. The quantifier levels also equal polynomial-time alternating computations with at most blocks of existential/universal choices, beginning with the indicated polarity. With a fixed base oracle , the same oracle characterization holds using access to both and a language in . (Quantifier and oracle characterizations of ph).
For each fixed , both and are closed under polynomial-time many-one preimages and polynomially many uniformly indexed conjunctions and disjunctions. Precisely, if the language of pairs lies in the class and for a polynomial-time computable polynomial bound , then both “every such ” and “some such ” define languages in that class. Complements interchange and , and each is contained in both classes at level . These assertions also hold with one fixed base oracle. (Ph quantifier block closure).
The class PSPACE is the union of all deterministic polynomial-space classes: The class NPSPACE is the union of all nondeterministic polynomial-space classes: Equivalently, a language lies in PSPACE when there is a deterministic multitape Turing machine deciding using at most space for some constant , and similarly lies in NPSPACE when there is such a nondeterministic decider. The meanings of and are those of the stated convention. (The classes PSPACE and NPSPACE).
Proof
A deterministic machine can decide a language in with one query to itself, and a language in with one query to its complement followed by a bit flip. A deterministic oracle decider is both a nondeterministic and a complementary nondeterministic decider. The oracle characterization gives the displayed containments, including .
For a fixed-level quantified predicate, enumerate assignments depth first. Store at most one assignment and counter per block plus the polynomial workspace of the matrix decider. Existential blocks OR their child values, universal blocks AND them; length-zero blocks have one child. The finite tree terminates even for false or constant predicates. The number of stored bits is polynomial for fixed level, meeting the deterministic PSPACE definition. Take the union over levels.
Collapse at one level propagates
Statement
If and , then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For each fixed , both and are closed under polynomial-time many-one preimages and polynomially many uniformly indexed conjunctions and disjunctions. Precisely, if the language of pairs lies in the class and for a polynomial-time computable polynomial bound , then both “every such ” and “some such ” define languages in that class. Complements interchange and , and each is contained in both classes at level . These assertions also hold with one fixed base oracle. (Ph quantifier block closure).
Proof
A language in has a leading existential block followed by a predicate on the pair consisting of the input and that block. By hypothesis this single language of pairs has a uniform definition. Substitute it and merge its first existential block with the leading one. Because , this gives blocks with polynomial bounds. No input-dependent selection of machines is made.
The reverse containment follows by dummy-block padding. Complement the containment just proved; complements interchange the two polarities, and the assumed level is complement closed. Consequently both classes at level equal . Zero-length witness blocks remain nonempty domains.
Sigma k equals pi k implies ph collapse
Statement
For fixed , implies . Also implies .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
If and , then . (Collapse at one level propagates).
Proof
Start at level and repeatedly apply the propagation lemma. After each application the next two polarities equal the same class, so the hypothesis needed for the following application holds. By finite induction all levels at least equal ; lower levels embed by unused quantifier blocks. Taking their union proves the first assertion.
If , a one-block existential verifier defines a P language, and every P language has an unused existential witness. Deterministic P is complement closed by flipping a halting decider's bit, so . Apply the first assertion at level one. Empty inputs and unused witnesses cause no exception.
Ph complete language forces collapse
Statement
If a language is polynomial-time many-one hard for all of PH, then PH collapses to a finite level. In particular, implies such a collapse.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For each fixed , both and are closed under polynomial-time many-one preimages and polynomially many uniformly indexed conjunctions and disjunctions. Precisely, if the language of pairs lies in the class and for a polynomial-time computable polynomial bound , then both “every such ” and “some such ” define languages in that class. Complements interchange and , and each is contained in both classes at level . These assertions also hold with one fixed base oracle. (Ph quantifier block closure).
For fixed , implies . Also implies . (Sigma k equals pi k implies ph collapse).
TQBF lies in PSPACE, and every language in PSPACE polynomial-time many-one reduces to TQBF. Therefore TQBF is PSPACE-complete. (TQBF is PSPACE-complete).
Proof
Choose a fixed with , padding upward if necessary. Every belongs to PH by padding and reduces to , hence lies in by preimage closure. Complementing gives the reverse inclusion, so the finite-level collapse theorem applies.
Under , TQBF belongs to PH and every PH language reduces to it, by its exact PSPACE-completeness statement. It therefore serves as in the first step. No strict containment between PH and PSPACE is assumed.
Standard containments relativize
Statement
For every fixed total oracle , , , and . The verifier characterization, bounded-level oracle characterization, and implication for all hold using the same throughout.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
Fix a total language . An oracle machine writes a query word and receives its membership bit in in one answer step. Query writing counts toward time and the query tape toward space. A polynomial time clock bounds every branch for every oracle. and are deterministic and nondeterministic polynomial-time oracle classes, respectively; the latter equivalently uses a polynomial-length witness and a deterministic polynomial-time -oracle verifier. Use the conventions of the stated convention and the stated convention. For and , replace the deterministic predicate in the stated convention by a predicate; level zero is . Define by deterministic polynomial space under the charged-query convention. For a language class , and . Finally . With a fixed base oracle, a machine may query both and a language ; encode this by the tagged union . (Relativized complexity class).
For every , For a fixed complete bounded-alternation QBF language can replace the class oracle. At , this gives the usual satisfiability oracle. The quantifier levels also equal polynomial-time alternating computations with at most blocks of existential/universal choices, beginning with the indicated polarity. With a fixed base oracle , the same oracle characterization holds using access to both and a language in . (Quantifier and oracle characterizations of ph).
For every , Moreover . (Ph containments and polynomial space).
Proof
A polynomially clocked branch is encoded by polynomially many bits; a deterministic -verifier replays it with the original oracle queries. Conversely a nondeterministic machine guesses the verifier witness and executes that verifier. A deterministic machine is a special case. All query writing is charged.
The relative oracle characterization is supplied with access to that same base oracle. For space containment, use the depth-first assignment evaluation from the unrelativized containment proof; each matrix predicate makes only polynomial-length queries and uses polynomial space including the query tape. Query buffers are reused. This treats both starting polarities and hence NP and coNP as well.
For collapse, substitute a uniform definition for the inner language of pairs and merge existential blocks. The final predicate still lies in ; no new oracle is introduced. Complementation flips its answer and preserves . Iterate this argument over the finite levels, then take their union. Zero-length blocks and immediately halting computations are preserved in each simulation.
Relativizing proof technique
Definition
An argument about complexity classes relativizes if its asserted reasoning remains valid when every machine in it receives the same arbitrary total membership oracle, using the resource conventions of Relativized complexity class. This is a property of an argument, not a claimed algorithm for classifying all proofs.
Oracle diagonalization finite extension
Statement
Let be a finite partial assignment of membership bits to binary words, and let be a deterministic oracle machine with a fixed polynomial clock . There exist and a finite extension of such that every total oracle extending makes disagree with membership in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
Fix a total language . An oracle machine writes a query word and receives its membership bit in in one answer step. Query writing counts toward time and the query tape toward space. A polynomial time clock bounds every branch for every oracle. and are deterministic and nondeterministic polynomial-time oracle classes, respectively; the latter equivalently uses a polynomial-length witness and a deterministic polynomial-time -oracle verifier. Use the conventions of the stated convention and the stated convention. For and , replace the deterministic predicate in the stated convention by a predicate; level zero is . Define by deterministic polynomial space under the charged-query convention. For a language class , and . Finally . With a fixed base oracle, a machine may query both and a language ; encode this by the tagged union . (Relativized complexity class).
Proof
Choose larger than every committed word length, with . Such integers exist: for a fixed degree , the ratio divided by tends to , and is eventually bounded below one, so any polynomial is eventually smaller than . Simulate the clocked machine; answer committed queries consistently and commit every previously unassigned queried word to NO. The clock bounds both query length and count.
If it accepts, commit all -bit words to NO. If it rejects (including clock expiration), choose an unqueried -bit word and commit it to YES, committing every other -bit word to NO. There is an unqueried word because fewer than queries occurred and no earlier commitment had length . Each extension is finite and consistent.
Every total extension retains all answers on the simulated path, including queries longer than , so the deterministic path is unchanged. In the accepting case ; in the rejecting case . Thus both outcomes defeat the machine for every total extension.
An oracle separates p from np
Statement
There is a total oracle for which . In fact lies in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
Let be a finite partial assignment of membership bits to binary words, and let be a deterministic oracle machine with a fixed polynomial clock . There exist and a finite extension of such that every total oracle extending makes disagree with membership in . (Oracle diagonalization finite extension).
Proof
Enumerate all deterministic oracle programs paired with clocks , for positive integers . Every polynomial-time oracle decider agrees with some clocked program for its oracle. Starting with no commitments, apply the finite-extension lemma once to each pair, always preserving all prior commitments. Let have precisely the words ever assigned YES; all other words receive NO. This is a consistent total extension of every stage.
At the assigned input the corresponding clocked program fails by the lemma, so no polynomial-time decider decides . A nondeterministic machine rejects nonunary inputs, guesses one -bit word on , and asks whether it belongs to . It accepts exactly within polynomial time; at it queries the empty word. Thus the separation follows.
Polynomial space oracle absorption
Statement
.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
Fix a total language . An oracle machine writes a query word and receives its membership bit in in one answer step. Query writing counts toward time and the query tape toward space. A polynomial time clock bounds every branch for every oracle. and are deterministic and nondeterministic polynomial-time oracle classes, respectively; the latter equivalently uses a polynomial-length witness and a deterministic polynomial-time -oracle verifier. Use the conventions of the stated convention and the stated convention. For and , replace the deterministic predicate in the stated convention by a predicate; level zero is . Define by deterministic polynomial space under the charged-query convention. For a language class , and . Finally . With a fixed base oracle, a machine may query both and a language ; encode this by the tagged union . (Relativized complexity class).
The class PSPACE is the union of all deterministic polynomial-space classes: The class NPSPACE is the union of all nondeterministic polynomial-space classes: Equivalently, a language lies in PSPACE when there is a deterministic multitape Turing machine deciding using at most space for some constant , and similarly lies in NPSPACE when there is such a nondeterministic decider. The meanings of and are those of the stated convention. (The classes PSPACE and NPSPACE).
TQBF lies in PSPACE, and every language in PSPACE polynomial-time many-one reduces to TQBF. Therefore TQBF is PSPACE-complete. (TQBF is PSPACE-complete).
Proof
For a nondeterministic oracle machine with clock , enumerate all branch-choice strings of the bounded length and replay each branch. Each TQBF query has length at most under the charged-query convention. Decide it by the polynomial-space algorithm supplied by TQBF membership in PSPACE, then reuse that workspace. A branch counter, a machine configuration and the query workspace all have polynomial size; accepting when one replay accepts yields a deterministic polynomial-space decider. Zero-query branches use the same procedure.
For any PSPACE language, its polynomial-time many-one reduction to TQBF computes one polynomial-length query. Accept exactly when the oracle answers YES. This is a deterministic polynomial-time oracle decider on every input, proving the other containment.
An oracle collapses p and np
Statement
For , .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
Proof
Oracle absorption supplies and . A deterministic oracle computation is a nondeterministic one with no choices, so .
The inclusions form a closed chain, giving equality of all three classes. The same fixed total TQBF language is used throughout; it is not required to belong to P.
Relativization alone cannot resolve p versus np
Statement
Neither an argument for nor an argument for can be valid unchanged relative to every total oracle.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
An argument about complexity classes relativizes if its asserted reasoning remains valid when every machine in it receives the same arbitrary total membership oracle, using the resource conventions of the stated convention. This is a property of an argument, not a claimed algorithm for classifying all proofs. (Relativizing proof technique).
There is a total oracle for which . In fact lies in . (An oracle separates p from np).
For , . (An oracle collapses p and np).
Proof
By the definition of relativization, an argument for equality with this property would prove for every total . The separating oracle supplies a counterinstance.
An argument for inequality with this property would prove for every total . The TQBF oracle instead gives equality. These two obstructions concern the property of the argument, and imply neither an unrelativized equality nor an unrelativized separation.
Lowness and highness
Definition
For a language and an integer , define The relativized levels and use Relativized complexity class; SAT denotes satisfiability of general Boolean formulas, the first-level complete language supplied in Quantifier and oracle characterizations of ph. At the highness benchmark is ; no identification of that class with is assumed. At positive levels the oracle characterization identifies with . More generally, lowness for a specified oracle machine class means . Highness here concerns polynomial-time oracle access, not many-one completeness or computability-theoretic jumps.
Elementary high low identities
Statement
For the NP high/low classes, , , and consists exactly of NP languages polynomial-time Turing complete for NP. Both and hold for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
For a language and an integer , define The relativized levels and use the stated convention; SAT denotes satisfiability of general Boolean formulas, the first-level complete language supplied in the stated convention. At the highness benchmark is ; no identification of that class with is assumed. At positive levels the oracle characterization identifies with . More generally, lowness for a specified oracle machine class means . Highness here concerns polynomial-time oracle access, not many-one completeness or computability-theoretic jumps. (Lowness and highness).
and . (Np and conp are the first levels).
For fixed and , every nondeterministic polynomial-time -oracle computation has a definition. More generally, for a fixed total base oracle and , polynomial nondeterministic access to both and has a definition. (Ph adaptive oracle transcript normal form).
Proof
If , one query decides , so . Conversely a P decider for replaces each of polynomially many polynomial-length queries, giving . This proves the level-zero low identity under the restriction .
If , deterministic queries decide both and its complement in , so . Conversely assume both have NP verifiers. Guess an accepting branch and its adaptive query transcript, and an appropriate NP witness for every YES or NO answer. Deterministic replay and verification accepts exactly the real accepting transcripts; the total certificate length is polynomial. Therefore , while ignoring the oracle gives the reverse containment. The first-level identity identifies this with lowness at level one.
Every has a polynomial-time many-one reduction to SAT, so . Equality implies , which implies every NP language belongs to by composing its SAT reduction. Conversely that Turing completeness gives and allows every SAT query to be simulated using , proving . These reductions use the first-level complete language in the highness convention.
For , the relative oracle characterization gives : the base oracle may be absorbed into the inner language by a tagged union, since and that class is closed under tagged unions. For the same identity holds as , by replacing each subroutine with its deterministic oracle simulation. Thus equality of the inner classes, either with the unrelativized class or with the SAT-relativized class, propagates one level. This proves both nestings, including the zero-to-one transition. Empty transcripts and constant oracles are included by these simulations.
Promise problem
Definition
A promise problem is a pair of disjoint subsets of . Its promise is . A deterministic solver must accept every word of and reject every word of , with either answer allowed elsewhere. The pair belongs to if such a solver has a polynomial time bound on every input.
It belongs to if there are a polynomial and a deterministic polynomial-time predicate such that every has some with and , whereas for every every such has . The promise need not be decidable; either side or both sides may be empty. When , this is the ordinary language decision convention.
Promise preserving reduction
Definition
For promise problems and in Promise problem, a polynomial-time many-one promise reduction is a total polynomial-time function satisfying and . There is no condition on outside .
A polynomial-time oracle promise reduction is a polynomially clocked deterministic oracle machine which solves for every total language satisfying and . This uses binary, consistent membership completions: an off-promise word may have either bit, but repeated queries to that word receive the same bit. The clock is uniform over all completions.
Oracle and promise conventions are distinct
Statement
A total membership oracle in Relativized complexity class fixes the answer on every query word. A promise target in Promise preserving reduction describes a collection of total completions. Correctness of a promise reduction must hold for each completion, including its arbitrary answers outside the target promise. A promised input to the caller does not by itself guarantee that the caller's queries satisfy the target promise.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
Relativized separations prove unrelativized separations
Statement
False inference schema: a separation for one total oracle can be transferred independently of the oracle, yielding for every total oracle (and in particular for the empty oracle).
Facts & Assumptions
Given: the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.
There is a total oracle for which . In fact lies in . (An oracle separates p from np).
For , . (An oracle collapses p and np).
Refutation
There exists a total with , so the premise of the proposed rule is realized.
For , however, . This violates the universally quantified conclusion and refutes the rule. The isolated implication from the separating world to is not here called a known false proposition: determining its truth would require settling the unrelativized question.
Remark
The refutation supplies total oracles and with and , respectively. These are counterinstances to the universal transfer rule; no conclusion about the empty oracle follows.
Sources
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §§5.1–5.2, Definitions5.1,5.4, pp91–92.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 Definitions3.6–3.7, pp70–71.
- Goldreich, Computational Complexity lecture notes; Lecture9 §9.1, Proposition9.1.1 p104 and proof of Theorem9.9 pp105–107.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §5.2 Remark5.5, p92.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §5.2.2 Example5.9, pp93–94; constructive circuit prerequisite on disk.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §5.2.2 Example5.9, pp93–94.
- Goldreich, Computational Complexity lecture notes; Lecture9 Theorem9.9, pp105–107, proof in both directions.
- Goldreich, Computational Complexity lecture notes; Lecture9 Theorem9.9, pp105–107; AB §5.3 Claim5.11 and §5.5 Theorem5.15.
- Goldreich, Computational Complexity lecture notes; Propositions9.1.1,9.1.2,9.2.1, pp102–108.
- Goldreich, Computational Complexity lecture notes; Proposition9.2.3 and appendix proof, pp108,113–114.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §5.2.1 Theorem5.6, pp92–93.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §5.2.2 Claim5.7 and Remark5.8, p93.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 discussion after Theorem3.9, pp71–72; Goldreich Theorem9.9 proof.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 Relativization, pp70–72.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 proof of Theorem3.9, p72.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 Theorem3.9, pp71–72.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 Claim3.8(3), pp70–71, adapted from EXP-complete to the established PSPACE-complete TQBF oracle.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 Theorem3.9 and Claim3.8(3), pp70–72; explicit TQBF adaptation.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 conclusion, p72.
- Richard Chang, On the Structure of Bounded Queries to Arbitrary NP Sets; §3 High and Low Sets, pp3–4.
- Richard Chang, On the Structure of Bounded Queries to Arbitrary NP Sets; §3 properties6–8 and preceding nesting statement, pp3–4.
- Goldreich, On Promise Problems; §1.1 Definition1.1 and §1.2 Definition1.2, pp2–4.
- Goldreich, On Promise Problems; §1.2 Definition1.3 and oracle reduction paragraph, pp4–5.
- Goldreich, On Promise Problems; §1.2 following Definition1.3, p5.
- Arora–Barak, Computational Complexity, 2007 draft; §3.5 Theorem3.9 and relativization discussion, pp71–72.