Is this statement true or false : "If a problem A is polynomially reducible to a problem B, then problem B must also be polynomially reducible to A".
This is wrong, consider the reducible to relationship as its hardness is less than or equal. For example, if A is polynomially reducible to B, it means that A <= B in terms of hardness (amount of computation needed to solve it). If A is reducible to B it means that A is simpler than (or as hard as) B, which means if you can solve B you can solve A, as well.
Some supplementary information:
Any problem in P, which are problems that are simple and can be solved in polynomial time, is reducible to any problem in NP-complete (e.g. SAT). This means that problems in P are simpler than problems in NP-complete. Now, if your statement was true then problems in NP-complete would have been solved in polynomial time, which is seemingly impossible (no one has proved or disproved it). And if anybody solves it there will be chaos!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
SAT problem
A world with P=NP
Here is a (slightly edited) illustration from a very well-known graduate text on Complexity Theory (C.H. Papadimitriou, Computational Complexity). It shows what a reduction from A to B is.
A reduction from A to B is an algorithm for solving A that is composed of a translation R that maps every instance of A into an instance of B, and an algorithm for B. The translation must ensure that the answer for A(x) and for B(R(x)) is the same.
The existence of a such a translation does not guarantee that the inverse translation also exists. Intuitively the images of instances of A might form a subset of easy instances of B.
Anyone can easily suggest simple examples of problems where reduction in one direction does not guarantee a reduction in the other direction. For instance, 2-SAT is trivially reducible to SAT, yet 2-SAT is solvable in polynomial time, while SAT is NP-complete.
This is false. Consider the following problem:
Given a finite automaton, does it halt on a given input?
The answer to this problem happens always to be yes since all deterministic finite automata halt on all inputs. However, this problem is polynomial-time reducible to the following problem:
Given a Turing machine, does it halt on a given input?
The answer to this problem happens to be undecidable in the general case. This is the halting problem. However, if we had an oracle for this problem, we could certainly use it to answer the first question, albeit much less efficiently:
Produce a Turing machine equivalent to the DFA
Use the oracle to determine whether the Turing machine halts.
The halting problem for Turing machines, however, is not polynomial-time reducible to the halting problem for DFAs.
Related
I am actually looking for description what NP alogrithm actually means and what kind of algo/problem can be classified as NP problem
I have read many resources on net . I liked
https://www.quora.com/What-are-P-NP-NP-complete-and-NP-hard
What are the differences between NP, NP-Complete and NP-Hard?
Non deterministic Turing machine
What are NP problems?
What are NP and NP-complete problems?
Polynomial problem :-
If the running time is some polynomial function of the size of the input**, for instance if the algorithm runs in linear time or quadratic time or cubic time, then we say the algorithm runs in polynomial time . Example can be binary search
Now I do understand Polynomial problem . But not able to contrast it with NP.
NP(nondeterministic polynomial Problem):-
Now there are a lot of programs that don't (necessarily) run in polynomial time on a regular computer, but do run in polynomial time on a nondeterministic Turing machine. These programs solve problems in NP, which stands for nondeterministic polynomial time.
I am not able to to understand/think of example that does not run in polynomial time on a regular computer. Per mine current understanding, Every problem/algo can be solved
in some polynomial function of time which can or can't be proportional to time. I know i am missing something here but really could not grasp this concept. Could someone
give example of problem which can not be solved in polynomial time on regular computer but can be verified in polynomial time ?
One of the example given at second link mentioned above is Integer factorization is in NP. This is the problem that given integers n and m, is there an integer f with 1 < f < m, such that f divides n (f is a small factor of n)? why this can't be solved in some polynomial time on regular computer ? we can check for all number from 1 to n if they divide n or not. Right ?
Also where verification part come here(i mean if it can be solved in polynomial time but then how the problem solution can be verified in polynomial time)?
Your question touches several points.
First, in the sense relevant to your question, the size of a problem is defined to be the size of the representation of the problem. So, for example, when you write about the problem of a divisor of n. What is the representation of n? It is a series of characters of length q (I don't want to be more specific than that). In general, n is exponential in q. So when you talk about a simple loop from 1 to n, you're talking about something that is exponential in the size of the input. For example, the number "999999999999999" represents the number 999999999999999. That is quite a large number, but it is represented by 12 characters here.
Second, while there is more than a single way to define the class NP, perhaps the simplest one for decision problems (which is the type you raise in your question, namely is something true or not) is that if the answer is true, then there is an "certificate" that can be verified in polynomial time. For example, consider the Hamilton Path Problem. This is (probably) a hard problem to solve, but, if you are given a hamilton path as an answer, it is very easy to verify that it is so; specifically, it can be done in polynomial time. For the Hamilton Path Problem, the path is a polynomial-time verifiable certificate, and therefore this problem is NP.
It's probably worth noting how the idea of "checking a solution in polynomial time" relates to a nondeterministic Turing Machine solving a problem: in a normal (deterministic) Turing Machine, there is a well-defined set of instructions telling the machine exactly what to do in any situation ("if you're in state 3 and see an 'a', move left, if you're in state 7 and see a 'c', overwrite it with a 'b', etc.") whereas in a nondeterministic Turing Machine there is more than one option for what to do in some situations ("if you're in state 3 and see an 'a', either move right or overwrite it with a 'b'"). In terms of algorithms, this lets us "guess" solutions in the sense that if we can encode a problem into a language on an alphabet* then we can use a nondeterministic Turing Machine to generate strings on this alphabet, and then use a standard (deterministic) Turing Machine to ensure that it is correct. If we assume that we always make the right guess, then the runtime of our algorithm is simply the runtime of the deterministic checking part, which for NP problems runs in polynomial time. This is what it means for a problem to be 'decidable in polynomial time on a nondeterministic Turing Machine', and why it is often simply phrased as 'checking a solution/ certificate in polynomial time'.
*
Example: The Hamiltonian Path problem could be encoded as follows:
Label the vertices of the graph 1 through n, where n is the number of vertices. Our alphabet is then the numbers 1 through n, and our language consists of all words such that
a) every integer from 1 to n appears exactly once
and
b) for every consecutive pair of integers in a word, the vertices with those labels are connected
Polynomial Time :- Problem which can be solved in polynomial time of input size is called polynomial problem. In plain simple words :- Here Solution to problem is fast. For
example sorting, binary search
Non deterministic polynomial :- Theoretically the problems which can be verified in polynomial time irrespective of actual solution time complexity (which can be polynomial or not polynomial). So some problem which are P can also be NP.
But Informally people while conversation/posts use the NP term in below sense
Problem which can not be solved in polynomial time of input size is called polynomial problem. In plain simple words :- Here Solution to problem is not fast. You may have to try different permutation/combination or guessing work. But Verification part is fast and can be done in polynomial time. Like
input some numbers X and divide the numbers into two groups that difference in their sum is minimum
I really liked the Alex Flint answer at https://www.quora.com/What-are-P-NP-NP-complete-and-NP-hard .Above is just gist of that.
I know if I reduce an NP-complete problem to a unknown problem P then I'm sure that P is itself NP-complete. And I know if I reduce a Problem P to an NP-complete problem there is no conclusion. So I want to give an example to show that we can reduce a Polynomial solvable problem P to an NP-complete one.
If I reduce an NP-complete problem to a unknown problem P then I'm
sure that P is itself NP-complete
No, this is not well formulated. If an NP-complete problem A is reducible to a problem P all we can say is that any problem in NP is reducible to P. To say that P is NP-complete we need to know additionally that P is itself in NP.
What you probably intended to say was
If I reduce an NP-complete problem to some a unknown problem P in NP then I'm
sure that P is itself NP-complete
Now to your original question.
give an example to show that we can reduce a Polynomial solvable
problem P to an NP-complete one
Consider the problem known as 2-SAT: Given a boolean formula in conjunctive normal form such that each disjunction contains at most two variables tell it if is satisfiable.
Solving this problem following an algorithm by Aspvall, Plass & Tarjan (1979) involves building an implication graph and finding all its strongly connected components. The paper proves that the formula is satisfiable if and only if the implication graph does not contain a strongly connected component that include some variable together with its negation. It also shows that this algorithm is linear in the size of the formula encoding.
So
there exists a linear algorithm for 2-SAT.
2-SAT is reducible to unrestricted boolean satisfiability problem known as SAT.
This gives an example of a polynomially solvable problem (2-SAT) that is reducible to an NP-complete problem (SAT).
It is written in a book that --"If a problem A is NP-Complete, there exists a non-deterministic polynomial time algorithm to solve A" . But as far I know 'yes' -answer for NP complete problems can be "verified" in polynomial time. I am really confused. Can a NP-complete problem be "solved" using non-deterministic polynomial time algorithm?
The two things are basically identical and are based on two different though equivalent definition of NP.
Every problem (language) in NP must be:
Verified in polynomial time by a deterministic turing machine. (given a problem and a 'verification', you can answer if the verification is correct for the problem in a polynomial time).
Example: Given a graph, and you want to check if there is a hamiltonian path in it - the verifier can be the path. You can easily check if the path is indeed hamiltonian once you have it.
Solved in polynomial time by a non deterministic turing machine. (there exists non deterministic Turing Machine M that can solve the problem polynomially)
Since by definition of NP-Complete - a problem is NP Complete if it is NP-Hard AND in NP, every NP-Complete problem is also NP - and both are correct.
Note that those two claims are basically based on the two equivalent definitions for NP:
A language L is in NP if for each x in L there is a word z such that |z| is polynomial in |x|, and there exists some deterministic turing machine that runs in polynomial time M - such that for each x and its matching z,: M(x,z) = true if and only if x is in L
A problem is in NP if there is a non deterministic turing machine that can solve the problem in polynomia time. Formally, a language L is in NP if there is a non deterministic turing machine such that M(x) = true if and only if x is in L
Finding the solution to an NP-complete problem can be done in polynomial time on a non-deterministic Turing machine. Given a candidate solution of an NP-complete problem, it can be verified whether it is indeed a solution or not, i.e. checked, in polynomial time on a deterministic Turing machine.
So the difference is in finding a solution and checking a solution. The former usually requires some kind of search for NP-complete problems while the latter is just verifying the assignments to your variables.
Professor Tim Roughgarden from Stanford University while teaching a MOOC said that solutions to problems in the class NP must be polynomial in length. But the wikipedia article says that NP problems are decision problems. So what type of problems are basically in the class NP ? And is it unnecessary to say that solutions to such problems have a polynomial length output(as decision problems necessarily output either 0 or 1) ?
He was probably talking about witnesses and verifiers.
For every problem in NP, there is a verifier—read algorithm/turing machine—that can verify "yes"-claims in polynomial time.
The idea is, that you have some kind of information—the witness—to help you do this given the time constraints.
For instance, in the travelling salesman problem:
TSP = {(G, k) if G has a hamiltonian cycle of cost <= k}
For a given input (G, k), you only need to determine whether or not the problem instance is in TSP. That's a yes/no answer.
Now, if someone comes along and says: This problem instance is in TSP, you will demand a proof. The other person will then probably give you a sequence of cities. You can then simply check whether the cities in that order form a Hamiltonian cycle and whether the total cost of the cycle is ≤ k.
You can perform this procedure in polynomial time—given that the witness is polynomial in length.
Using this sequence of cities, you were thus able to correctly determine that the problem instance was indeed in TSP.
That's the idea of verifiers: They take a proof object/witness that is polynomial in length to check in polynomial time, that a certain problem instance is in the language.
The standard definition of NP is that it is a class of decision problems only. Decision problems always produce a yes/no answer and thus have constant-sized output.
sDidn't watch the video/course, but I am guessing he was talking about certificates/verification and not solutions. Big difference.
Assuming some background in mathematics, how would you give a general overview of computational complexity theory to the naive?
I am looking for an explanation of the P = NP question. What is P? What is NP? What is a NP-Hard?
Sometimes Wikipedia is written as if the reader already understands all concepts involved.
Hoooo, doctoral comp flashback. Okay, here goes.
We start with the idea of a decision problem, a problem for which an algorithm can always answer "yes" or "no." We also need the idea of two models of computer (Turing machine, really): deterministic and non-deterministic. A deterministic computer is the regular computer we always thinking of; a non-deterministic computer is one that is just like we're used to except that is has unlimited parallelism, so that any time you come to a branch, you spawn a new "process" and examine both sides. Like Yogi Berra said, when you come to a fork in the road, you should take it.
A decision problem is in P if there is a known polynomial-time algorithm to get that answer. A decision problem is in NP if there is a known polynomial-time algorithm for a non-deterministic machine to get the answer.
Problems known to be in P are trivially in NP --- the nondeterministic machine just never troubles itself to fork another process, and acts just like a deterministic one. There are problems that are known to be neither in P nor NP; a simple example is to enumerate all the bit vectors of length n. No matter what, that takes 2n steps.
(Strictly, a decision problem is in NP if a nodeterministic machine can arrive at an answer in poly-time, and a deterministic machine can verify that the solution is correct in poly time.)
But there are some problems which are known to be in NP for which no poly-time deterministic algorithm is known; in other words, we know they're in NP, but don't know if they're in P. The traditional example is the decision-problem version of the Traveling Salesman Problem (decision-TSP): given the cities and distances, is there a route that covers all the cities, returning to the starting point, in less than x distance? It's easy in a nondeterministic machine, because every time the nondeterministic traveling salesman comes to a fork in the road, he takes it: his clones head on to the next city they haven't visited, and at the end they compare notes and see if any of the clones took less than x distance.
(Then, the exponentially many clones get to fight it out for which ones must be killed.)
It's not known whether decision-TSP is in P: there's no known poly-time solution, but there's no proof such a solution doesn't exist.
Now, one more concept: given decision problems P and Q, if an algorithm can transform a solution for P into a solution for Q in polynomial time, it's said that Q is poly-time reducible (or just reducible) to P.
A problem is NP-complete if you can prove that (1) it's in NP, and (2) show that it's poly-time reducible to a problem already known to be NP-complete. (The hard part of that was provie the first example of an NP-complete problem: that was done by Steve Cook in Cook's Theorem.)
So really, what it says is that if anyone ever finds a poly-time solution to one NP-complete problem, they've automatically got one for all the NP-complete problems; that will also mean that P=NP.
A problem is NP-hard if and only if it's "at least as" hard as an NP-complete problem. The more conventional Traveling Salesman Problem of finding the shortest route is NP-hard, not strictly NP-complete.
Michael Sipser's Introduction to the Theory of Computation is a great book, and is very readable. Another great resource is Scott Aaronson's Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science course.
The formalism that is used is to look at decision problems (problems with a Yes/No answer, e.g. "does this graph have a Hamiltonian cycle") as "languages" -- sets of strings -- inputs for which the answer is Yes. There is a formal notion of what a "computer" is (Turing machine), and a problem is in P if there is a polynomial time algorithm for deciding that problem (given an input string, say Yes or No) on a Turing machine.
A problem is in NP if it is checkable in polynomial time, i.e. if, for inputs where the answer is Yes, there is a (polynomial-size) certificate given which you can check that the answer is Yes in polynomial time. [E.g. given a Hamiltonian cycle as certificate, you can obviously check that it is one.]
It doesn't say anything about how to find that certificate. Obviously, you can try "all possible certificates" but that can take exponential time; it is not clear whether you will always have to take more than polynomial time to decide Yes or No; this is the P vs NP question.
A problem is NP-hard if being able to solve that problem means being able to solve all problems in NP.
Also see this question:
What is an NP-complete in computer science?
But really, all these are probably only vague to you; it is worth taking the time to read e.g. Sipser's book. It is a beautiful theory.
This is a comment on Charlie's post.
A problem is NP-complete if you can prove that (1) it's in NP, and
(2) show that it's poly-time reducible to a problem already known to
be NP-complete.
There is a subtle error with the second condition. Actually, what you need to prove is that a known NP-complete problem (say Y) is polynomial-time reducible to this problem (let's call it problem X).
The reasoning behind this manner of proof is that if you could reduce an NP-Complete problem to this problem and somehow manage to solve this problem in poly-time, then you've also succeeded in finding a poly-time solution to the NP-complete problem, which would be a remarkable (if not impossible) thing, since then you'll have succeeded to resolve the long-standing P = NP problem.
Another way to look at this proof is consider it as using the the contra-positive proof technique, which essentially states that if Y --> X, then ~X --> ~Y. In other words, not being able to solve Y in polynomial time isn't possible means not being to solve X in poly-time either. On the other hand, if you could solve X in poly-time, then you could solve Y in poly-time as well. Further, you could solve all problems that reduce to Y in poly-time as well by transitivity.
I hope my explanation above is clear enough. A good source is Chapter 8 of Algorithm Design by Kleinberg and Tardos or Chapter 34 of Cormen et al.
Unfortunately, the best two books I am aware of (Garey and Johnson and Hopcroft and Ullman) both start at the level of graduate proof-oriented mathematics. This is almost certainly necessary, as the whole issue is very easy to misunderstand or mischaracterize. Jeff nearly got his ears chewed off when he attempted to approach the matter in too folksy/jokey a tone.
Perhaps the best way is to simply do a lot of hands-on work with big-O notation using lots of examples and exercises. See also this answer. Note, however, that this is not quite the same thing: individual algorithms can be described by asymptotes, but saying that a problem is of a certain complexity is a statement about every possible algorithm for it. This is why the proofs are so complicated!
I remember "Computational Complexity" from Papadimitriou (I hope I spelled the name right) as a good book
very much simplified: A problem is NP-hard if the only way to solve it is by enumerating all possible answers and checking each one.
Here are a few links on the subject:
Clay Mathematics statement of P vp NP problem
P vs NP Page
P, NP, and Mathematics
In you are familiar with the idea of set cardinality, that is the number of elements in a set, then one could view the question like P representing the cardinality of Integer numbers while NP is a mystery: Is it the same or is it larger like the cardinality of all Real numbers?
My simplified answer would be: "Computational complexity is the analysis of how much harder a problem becomes when you add more elements."
In that sentence, the word "harder" is deliberately vague because it could refer either to processing time or to memory usage.
In computer science it is not enough to be able to solve a problem. It has to be solvable in a reasonable amount of time. So while in pure mathematics you come up with an equation, in CS you have to refine that equation so you can solve a problem in reasonable time.
That is the simplest way I can think to put it, that may be too simple for your purposes.
Depending on how long you have, maybe it would be best to start at DFA, NDFA, and then show that they are equivalent. Then they understand ND vs. D, and will understand regular expressions a lot better as a nice side effect.