Naive question about polynomial time reducibilitySuper-linear time complexity lower bounds for any natural problem in NP?Solving NP problems in (usually) Polynomial time?Given a polynomial-time algorithm, can we compute an explicit polynomial time bound just from the program?Proof that any NP problem can be reduced (in P time) to any problem in NPC?What are the implications of the new quasi-polynomial time solution for the Graph Isomorphism problem?What arguments do exist against defining completeness in NP using injective Karp reductions?Should we expect there to be a problem that is PH-hard but not PSPACE-hard?Non-invertible Karp reduction
Naive question about polynomial time reducibility
Super-linear time complexity lower bounds for any natural problem in NP?Solving NP problems in (usually) Polynomial time?Given a polynomial-time algorithm, can we compute an explicit polynomial time bound just from the program?Proof that any NP problem can be reduced (in P time) to any problem in NPC?What are the implications of the new quasi-polynomial time solution for the Graph Isomorphism problem?What arguments do exist against defining completeness in NP using injective Karp reductions?Should we expect there to be a problem that is PH-hard but not PSPACE-hard?Non-invertible Karp reduction
$begingroup$
Question:
is it known, whether there is an upper bound on the exponent of the fastest polynomial-time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ to $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problems or, can it be proved that for every problem requiring an $Theta(n^k)$ time reduction, there is a problem requiring an $Omega(n^k+1)$ reduction from $mathrm3SAT$?
Additional, secondary question:
Which $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problem requires the polynomial time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ with the highest exponent?
computational-complexity
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Question:
is it known, whether there is an upper bound on the exponent of the fastest polynomial-time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ to $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problems or, can it be proved that for every problem requiring an $Theta(n^k)$ time reduction, there is a problem requiring an $Omega(n^k+1)$ reduction from $mathrm3SAT$?
Additional, secondary question:
Which $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problem requires the polynomial time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ with the highest exponent?
computational-complexity
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Question:
is it known, whether there is an upper bound on the exponent of the fastest polynomial-time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ to $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problems or, can it be proved that for every problem requiring an $Theta(n^k)$ time reduction, there is a problem requiring an $Omega(n^k+1)$ reduction from $mathrm3SAT$?
Additional, secondary question:
Which $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problem requires the polynomial time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ with the highest exponent?
computational-complexity
$endgroup$
Question:
is it known, whether there is an upper bound on the exponent of the fastest polynomial-time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ to $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problems or, can it be proved that for every problem requiring an $Theta(n^k)$ time reduction, there is a problem requiring an $Omega(n^k+1)$ reduction from $mathrm3SAT$?
Additional, secondary question:
Which $mathrmNP$-$mathrmhard$ problem requires the polynomial time reduction from $mathrm3SAT$ with the highest exponent?
computational-complexity
computational-complexity
asked 11 hours ago
Manfred WeisManfred Weis
4,9642 gold badges15 silver badges48 bronze badges
4,9642 gold badges15 silver badges48 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's unlikely there is any upper bound. To see the problem, consider the (artificial) problem
$text3SATpad = phi #^ : phi in text3SAT$,
where $#$ is some new symbol. $text3SATpad$ is in $mathsfNP$, and there is an obvious $O(n^100)$-time reduction from $text3SAT$ to $text3SATpad$. But it's doubtful there's even an $O(n^99)$-time reduction. Otherwise, one could solve $text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time (unlikely, as this violates the Exponential Time Hypothesis), as follows:
On input $phi$ of length $n$, run the reduction producing string $y$. The key point here is that $|y| leq O(n^99)$.
If $y$ is not of the form $psi #^$, reject.
Otherwise, since $|psi #^| leq O(n^99)$, it must be that $|psi| leq O(n^.99)$. Now decide if $psi in text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time, using a naive brute-force algorithm. This gives the correct answer about satisfiability of $phi$.
Perhaps one can even prove the impossibility conditioned only on $mathsfP neq mathsfNP$ (rather than on E.T.H.), by a Ladner's Theorem-type argument...
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f342720%2fnaive-question-about-polynomial-time-reducibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's unlikely there is any upper bound. To see the problem, consider the (artificial) problem
$text3SATpad = phi #^ : phi in text3SAT$,
where $#$ is some new symbol. $text3SATpad$ is in $mathsfNP$, and there is an obvious $O(n^100)$-time reduction from $text3SAT$ to $text3SATpad$. But it's doubtful there's even an $O(n^99)$-time reduction. Otherwise, one could solve $text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time (unlikely, as this violates the Exponential Time Hypothesis), as follows:
On input $phi$ of length $n$, run the reduction producing string $y$. The key point here is that $|y| leq O(n^99)$.
If $y$ is not of the form $psi #^$, reject.
Otherwise, since $|psi #^| leq O(n^99)$, it must be that $|psi| leq O(n^.99)$. Now decide if $psi in text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time, using a naive brute-force algorithm. This gives the correct answer about satisfiability of $phi$.
Perhaps one can even prove the impossibility conditioned only on $mathsfP neq mathsfNP$ (rather than on E.T.H.), by a Ladner's Theorem-type argument...
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
It's unlikely there is any upper bound. To see the problem, consider the (artificial) problem
$text3SATpad = phi #^ : phi in text3SAT$,
where $#$ is some new symbol. $text3SATpad$ is in $mathsfNP$, and there is an obvious $O(n^100)$-time reduction from $text3SAT$ to $text3SATpad$. But it's doubtful there's even an $O(n^99)$-time reduction. Otherwise, one could solve $text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time (unlikely, as this violates the Exponential Time Hypothesis), as follows:
On input $phi$ of length $n$, run the reduction producing string $y$. The key point here is that $|y| leq O(n^99)$.
If $y$ is not of the form $psi #^$, reject.
Otherwise, since $|psi #^| leq O(n^99)$, it must be that $|psi| leq O(n^.99)$. Now decide if $psi in text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time, using a naive brute-force algorithm. This gives the correct answer about satisfiability of $phi$.
Perhaps one can even prove the impossibility conditioned only on $mathsfP neq mathsfNP$ (rather than on E.T.H.), by a Ladner's Theorem-type argument...
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
It's unlikely there is any upper bound. To see the problem, consider the (artificial) problem
$text3SATpad = phi #^ : phi in text3SAT$,
where $#$ is some new symbol. $text3SATpad$ is in $mathsfNP$, and there is an obvious $O(n^100)$-time reduction from $text3SAT$ to $text3SATpad$. But it's doubtful there's even an $O(n^99)$-time reduction. Otherwise, one could solve $text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time (unlikely, as this violates the Exponential Time Hypothesis), as follows:
On input $phi$ of length $n$, run the reduction producing string $y$. The key point here is that $|y| leq O(n^99)$.
If $y$ is not of the form $psi #^$, reject.
Otherwise, since $|psi #^| leq O(n^99)$, it must be that $|psi| leq O(n^.99)$. Now decide if $psi in text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time, using a naive brute-force algorithm. This gives the correct answer about satisfiability of $phi$.
Perhaps one can even prove the impossibility conditioned only on $mathsfP neq mathsfNP$ (rather than on E.T.H.), by a Ladner's Theorem-type argument...
$endgroup$
It's unlikely there is any upper bound. To see the problem, consider the (artificial) problem
$text3SATpad = phi #^ : phi in text3SAT$,
where $#$ is some new symbol. $text3SATpad$ is in $mathsfNP$, and there is an obvious $O(n^100)$-time reduction from $text3SAT$ to $text3SATpad$. But it's doubtful there's even an $O(n^99)$-time reduction. Otherwise, one could solve $text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time (unlikely, as this violates the Exponential Time Hypothesis), as follows:
On input $phi$ of length $n$, run the reduction producing string $y$. The key point here is that $|y| leq O(n^99)$.
If $y$ is not of the form $psi #^$, reject.
Otherwise, since $|psi #^| leq O(n^99)$, it must be that $|psi| leq O(n^.99)$. Now decide if $psi in text3SAT$ in $2^O(n^.99)$ time, using a naive brute-force algorithm. This gives the correct answer about satisfiability of $phi$.
Perhaps one can even prove the impossibility conditioned only on $mathsfP neq mathsfNP$ (rather than on E.T.H.), by a Ladner's Theorem-type argument...
answered 5 hours ago
Ryan O'DonnellRyan O'Donnell
5,0991 gold badge21 silver badges42 bronze badges
5,0991 gold badge21 silver badges42 bronze badges
3
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
3
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can’t you prove it unconditionally using the nondeterministic time hierarchy theorem?
$endgroup$
– Emil Jeřábek
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Seems possible, yes.
$endgroup$
– Ryan O'Donnell
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f342720%2fnaive-question-about-polynomial-time-reducibility%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown