Skip Navigation


Journal of Logic and Computation Advance Access originally published online on July 24, 2008
Journal of Logic and Computation 2009 19(1):217-242; doi:10.1093/logcom/exn025
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, I. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author, 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Journal of Logic and Computation issue: Special Issue: Logic and Computation in the Real World: CiE 2007 [View the issue table of contents]

Original Articles

Logical and Complexity-theoretic Aspects of Models of Computation with Restricted Access to Arrays

Iain A. Stewart

Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, Science Labs, Durham DH1 3LE, UK.

E-mail: i.a.stewart{at}durham.ac.uk

Received 17 May 2008.

We study a class of program schemes, NPSB, in which, aside from basic assignments, non-deterministic guessing and while loops, we have access to arrays; but where these arrays are binary write-once in that they are initialized to ‘zero’ and can only ever be set to ‘one’. We show, amongst other results, that: NPSB can be realized as a vectorized Lindström logic; there are problems accepted by program schemes of NPSB that are not definable in the bounded-variable infinitary logic Formula; all problems accepted by the program schemes of NPSB have asymptotic probability 1 and on ordered structures, NPSB captures the complexity class LNP. We give equivalences (on the class of all finite structures) of the complexity-theoretic question ‘Does NP equal PSPACE?’, where the logics and classes of program schemes involved in the equivalent statements define or accept only problems with asymptotic probability 0 or 1 and so do not cover many computationally trivial problems. The class of program schemes NPSB is actually the union of an infinite hierarchy of classes of program schemes. Finally, when we amend the semantics of our program schemes slightly, we find that the classes of the resulting hierarchy capture the complexity classes {Sigma}Formula (where i≥2) of the Polynomial Hierarchy PH.

Keywords: Finite model theory; descriptive complexity; program schemes



References

  1. Abiteboul S, Vianu V. Procedural and declarative database update languages. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. (1988) ACM Press. 240–250.
  2. Abiteboul S, Vianu V. Fixpoint extensions of first-order logic and Datalog-like languages. In: Proceedings of 4th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. (1989) IEEE Press. 71–79.
  3. Abiteboul S, Vianu V. Procedural languages for database queries and updates. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (1990) 41:181.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  4. Abiteboul S, Vianu V. Generic computation and its complexity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. (1991) ACM Press. 209–219.
  5. Abiteboul S, Vianu V. Computing with first-order logic. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (1995) 50:309–335.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  6. Abiteboul S, Vardi MY, Vianu V. Fixpoint logics, relational machines and computational complexity. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (1997) 44:30–56.
  7. Arratia-Quesada AA, Chauhan SR, Stewart IA. Hierarchies in classes of program schemes. Journal of Logic and Computation (1999) 9:915–957.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Chandra AK, Harel D. Structure and complexity of relational queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (1982) 25:99–128.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  9. Chandra AK, Harel D. Horn clause queries and generalizations. Journal of Logic Programming (1985) 2:1–15.[CrossRef]
  10. Constable R, Gries D. On classes of program schemata. SIAM Journal of Computing (1972) 1:66–118.[CrossRef]
  11. Dawar A. A restricted second-order logic for finite structures. Information and Computation (1998) 143:154–174.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  12. Ebbinghaus HD, Flum J. Finite Model Theory. (1995) Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  13. Esparza J, Nielsen M. Decidability issues for Petri nets – a survey. Journal of Information Processing and Cybernetics (1994) 30:143–160.
  14. Fagin R. Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets. In: Complexity of Computation.—Karp RM, ed. (1974) 7:43–73. SIAM-AMS Proceedings.
  15. Friedman H. Algorithmic procedures, generalized Turing algorithms and elementary recursion theory. In: Logic Colloquium.—Gandy RO, Yates CME, eds. (1969) Amsterdam: North-Holland. 361–390.
  16. Garey M, Johnson DS. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NPCompleteness. (1979) San Francisco: Freeman.
  17. Gault RL, Stewart IA. An infinite hierarchy in a class of polynomial-time program schemes. Theory of Computing Systems (2006) 39:753–783.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  18. van Gelder A, Ross KA, Schlipf JS. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. (1988) ACM Press. 221–230.
  19. Gottlob G. Relativized logspace and generalized quantifiers over finite ordered structures. Journal of Symbolic Logic (1997) 62:545–574.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  20. Gurevich Y, Shelah S. Fixed-point extensions of first-order logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (1986) 32:265–280.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  21. Harel D, Peleg D. On static logics, dynamic logics and complexity classes. Information and Control (1984) 60:86–102.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  22. Immerman N. Relational queries computable in polynomial time. Information and control (1986) 69:86–104.
  23. Immerman N. Languages that capture complexity classes. SIAM Journal of Computing (1987) 16:760–778.[CrossRef]
  24. Immerman N. Descriptive Complexity. (1998) New York: Springer-Verlag.
  25. Jones ND, Muchnik SS. Even simple programs are hard to analyze. Journal of Association for Computing Machinery (1977) 24:338–350.
  26. Libkin L. Elements of Finite Model Theory. (2004) Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  27. Neven F, Otto M, Tyszkiewicz J, van den Bussche J. Adding for-loops to first-order logic. Information and Computation (2001) 168:156–186.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  28. Otto M. Bounded Variable Logics and Counting. Vol. Lecture Notes in Logic. (1997) 9. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  29. Paterson M, Hewitt N. Comparative schematology. In: Record of Project MAC Conference on Concurrent Systems and Parallel Computation. (1970) ACM Press. 119–128.
  30. Sazonov V. Polynomial computability and recursivity in finite domains. Elektronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetik (1980) 60:319–323.
  31. Stewart IA. Complete problems involving boolean labelled structures and projection translations. Journal of Logic and Computation (1991) 1:861–882.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Stewart IA. Using the Hamiltonian path operator to capture NP. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (1992) 45:127–151.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  33. Stewart IA. Logical and schematic characterization of complexity classes. Acta Informatica (1993) 30:61–87.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  34. Stewart IA. Methods for proving completeness via logical translations. Theoretical Computer Science (1993) 118:193–229.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  35. Stewart IA. Logical characterizations of bounded query classes II: polynomial-time oracle machines. Fundamenta Informaticae (1993) 18:93–105.
  36. Stewart IA. Complete problems for monotone NP. Theoretical Computer Science (1995) 145:147–157.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  37. Stewart IA. Logics with zero-one laws that are not fragments of bounded-variable infinitary logic. Mathematical Logic Quarterly (1997) 41:158–178.
  38. Stewart IA. Program schemes, queues, the recursive spectrum and zero-one laws. In: Proceedings of 7th Annual International Computing and Combinatorics Conference.—Wang J, ed. (2001) Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 39–48. Vol. 2108, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  39. Stewart IA. Program schemes, arrays, Lindström quantifiers and zero-one laws. Theoretical Computer Science (2002) 275:283–310.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  40. Stewart IA. Using program schemes to logically capture polynomial-time on certain classes of structures. London Mathematical Society Journal of Computation and Mathematics (2003) 6:40–67.
  41. Tiuryn J, Urzyczyn P. Some relationships between logics of programs and complexity theory. Theoretical Computer Science (1988) 60:83–108.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  42. Vardi M. The complexity of relational query languages. In: Proceedings of 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. (1982) ACM Press. 137–146.
  43. Vianu V. Databases and finite-model theory. In: Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models.—Immerman N, Kolaitis P, eds. (1996) 31. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, American Mathematical Society. 97–148.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, I. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?