Cook's theorem breaks down under some oracle A

  • Thread starter meiji11
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theorem
In summary: Your Name]In summary, we can use Ladner's theorem and the Baker-Gill-Solovay result to construct an oracle A such that for some L \in NP^A, L does not reduce in polynomial time to SAT, even with access to A. The oracle A is defined in such a way that it answers queries to another oracle B, which is used to show that SAT \in P^B and P^B \neq NP^B. Therefore, A cannot reduce SAT to any language L' \in NP^A in polynomial time, fulfilling the requirements of the question.
  • #1
meiji11
1
0

Homework Statement


Demonstrate the existence of an oracle [itex]A[/itex] such that for some [itex]L \in \text{NP}^{\text{A}}[/itex], [itex]L[/itex] does not reduce in polynomial time to [itex]SAT[/itex], the language of satisfiable Boolean formulae, even if the reducing machine has access to oracle [itex]A[/itex].

Homework Equations



Ladner's theorem states that, given [itex]P \neq NP[/itex], there exists a language [itex]L \in NP /\ P[/itex] such that [itex]L[/itex] is not NP-complete.

Another result, by Baker-Gill-Solovay, is that there exist oracles A, B such that [itex]P^A = NP^A[/itex] and [itex]P^B \neq NP^B[/itex].

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm fairly certain Ladner's theorem relativizes, ie. the same statement holds if we replace [itex]P[/itex], [itex]NP[/itex] in the statement of the theorem with [itex]P^A[/itex], [itex]NP^A[/itex]. We can find an oracle [itex]A[/itex] for which the two aren't equal by Baker-Gill-Solovay. All Ladner's theorem gives, at that point, is the fact that there exists some [itex]L[/itex] such that [itex]L[/itex] cannot be reduced to, in [itex]P^A[/itex] - polynomial time, by any language [itex]L' \in NP^A[/itex].

The question asks us to find a language that isn't [itex]P^A[/itex]-reducible to [itex]SAT[/itex] .. could we construct some oracle [itex]B[/itex] such that [itex]SAT \in P^B[/itex] but [itex]P^B \neq NP^B[/itex], because that would clearly do it.. how, though? The constructions of such oracles have been very contrived. I'm convinced that isn't the right way to go, but can't think of anything else.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Hello there,

Thank you for your post. You are correct in your approach - we can use Ladner's theorem to show the existence of an oracle A such that for some L \in NP^A, L does not reduce in polynomial time to SAT, even with access to oracle A.

To construct such an oracle A, we can use the Baker-Gill-Solovay result. Let B be an oracle such that P^B = NP^B and P^A \neq NP^A. Now, we can define A to be the oracle that answers queries to B in the following way:

1. If the query is of the form "Is x \in SAT?", A answers "yes" if x \in P^B and "no" if x \notin P^B.
2. If the query is of the form "Is x \in L?", A answers "yes" if x \in P^A and "no" if x \notin P^A.

By construction, we have that SAT \in P^B and P^B \neq NP^B. This means that A cannot reduce SAT to any language L' \in NP^A in polynomial time, even with access to A. Therefore, we have found an oracle A that satisfies the desired conditions.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.


 

FAQ: Cook's theorem breaks down under some oracle A

What is Cook's theorem and what does it state?

Cook's theorem, also known as Cook-Levin theorem, is a fundamental result in computational complexity theory. It states that any decision problem in the complexity class NP can be reduced to the decision problem of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) in polynomial time. This means that if you can efficiently solve SAT, you can also efficiently solve any problem in NP.

What does it mean when it is said that Cook's theorem breaks down under some oracle A?

This means that for some specific oracle A, Cook's theorem may not hold. In other words, there may exist decision problems in NP that cannot be reduced to SAT in polynomial time when an oracle A is present. This indicates that the presence of an oracle A can affect the complexity of solving certain problems in NP.

How does the presence of an oracle A affect the complexity of solving decision problems in NP?

The presence of an oracle A can potentially increase the complexity of solving decision problems in NP. This is because the oracle A provides additional information or computational power that may not be available in a standard computational model. Therefore, the reduction from a problem in NP to SAT may not hold under the influence of an oracle A.

Can you provide an example of an oracle A that causes Cook's theorem to break down?

One example of an oracle A that causes Cook's theorem to break down is the halting problem. This is a decision problem that asks whether a given program will eventually halt or run forever. It is known to be undecidable, which means that there is no algorithm that can always give the correct answer for all possible inputs. Therefore, the presence of the halting problem as an oracle can break down Cook's theorem.

What implications does Cook's theorem breaking down under some oracle A have on computational complexity theory?

The fact that Cook's theorem breaks down under some oracle A highlights the limitations of our understanding of computational complexity. It shows that there are still many open questions and challenges in this field, and that the presence of oracles can greatly affect the complexity of solving certain problems. It also emphasizes the importance of studying different computational models and their capabilities in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of computation.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
951
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top