×

Like this presentation? Why not share!

# MELJUN CORTES Automata Theory (Automata22)

## by MELJUN CORTES, ACADEMIC INSTRUCTOR at (JRU) JOSE RIZAL UNIVERSITY, 109 years existing on Dec 16, 2013

• 87 views

MELJUN CORTES Automata Theory (Automata22)

MELJUN CORTES Automata Theory (Automata22)

### Views

Total Views
87
Views on SlideShare
87
Embed Views
0

Likes
0
0
0

No embeds

### Categories

Uploaded via SlideShare as Microsoft PowerPoint

## MELJUN CORTES Automata Theory (Automata22)Presentation Transcript

• MELJUN P. CORTES, MBA,MPA,BSCS,ACS Fall 2008 CSC 3130: Automata theory and formal languages NP-completeness MELJUN CORTES
• P and NP P = languages that can be decided on a TM with polynomial running time (problems that admit efficient algorithms) NP = languages decidable on a nondeterministic TM with polynomial running time (solutions can be checked efficiently) We believe that NP is bigger than P, but we are not 100% sure decidable NP P
• Evidence that NP is bigger than P CLIQUE = {(G, k): G is a graph with a clique of k vertices} IS = {(G, k): G is a graph with an independent set of k vertices} VC = {(G, k): G is a graph with a vertex cover of k vertices} SAT = {f: f is a satisfiable Boolean formula} • These (and many others) are in NP – Their solutions, once found, are easy to verify • But no efficient algorithms are known for any of them – The fastest known algorithms take time ≈2n
• Equivalence of certain NP languages • We strongly suspect that problems like CLIQUE, SAT, etc. require time ≈2n to solve • We do not know how to prove this, but what we can prove is that If any one of them is tractable (by a polynomialtime algorithm), then all of them are tractable
• Equivalence of certain NP languages • All these problems are as hard as one another • Moreover, they are at the “frontier” of NP – They are at least as hard as any problem in NP NP sat y bilit isfia over tex-c v er e epend ind ue et cliq nt s P
• Polynomial-time reductions • What do we mean when we say, for example, “CLIQUE is at least as hard as IS” • We mean that If CLIQUE has a polynomial-time algorithm, so does IS • Or, we can convert an imaginary poly-time algorithm for IS into one for CLIQUE
• Polynomial-time reductions CLIQUE = {(G, k): G is a graph with a clique of k vertices} IS = {(G, k): G is a graph with an independent set of k vertices} • Theorem If CLIQUE has a polynomial-time algorithm, so does IS 1 2 3 4 {1, 4}, {2, 3, 4}, {1} are cliques {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {4} are independent sets
• Polynomial-time reductions If CLIQUE has a polynomial-time algorithm, so does IS • Proof: Suppose CLIQUE has an algorithm A G, k G’, k’ A • We want to use it to solve IS accept accept G clique of size if G’ifhashas IS of size kk reject reject if if not not
• Reducing IS to CLIQUE • We look for a polynomial-time transformation s.t.: If G’ has a clique of size k’, then G has an IS of size k G, k If G’ does not have a clique of size k’, then G has no IS of size k 1 2 1 G 3 set k’ = k 2 3 flip all edges 4 ISs of size k R 4 G’ cliques of size k’ G’, k’
• Reducing IS to CLIQUE On input (G, k) Construct G’ by flipping all edges of G Set k’ = k Output (G’, k’) independent sets in G If G’ has a clique of size k’, then G has an IS of size k G, k R cliques in G’ ✓ If G’ does not have a clique of size k’, then G has no IS of size k ✓ G’, k’
• Reduction recap • We showed that If CLIQUE has a polynomial-time algorithm, so does IS by converting an imaginary algorithm for CLIQUE into one for IS • To do this, we came up with a reduction that transforms instances of IS into ones for CLIQUE
• Polynomial-time reductions • Language L polynomial-time reduces to L’ if there exists a polynomial-time computable map R that takes an instance x of L into instance y of L’ s.t. x ∈ L if and only if y ∈ L’ L (IS) x (G, k) x∈L (G has IS of size k) L’ (CLIQUE) R y (G’, k’) y ∈ L’ (G’ has clique of size k’)
• Meaning of poly-time reductions • Saying L reduces to L’ means L is easier than L’ – In other words, if we can solve L’, then we can also solve L • Theorem If L reduces to L’ and L’ ∈ P, then L ∈ P • Proof x x∈L R y y ∈ L’ algorithm for L’ acc rej algorithm accepts
• Notes about reductions • The direction of the reduction is very important – This makes sense, because “A is easier than B” and “B is easier than A” mean different things • However, it is possible that L reduces to L’ and L’ reduces to L – This means that L and L’ are as hard as one another – For example, IS and CLIQUE reduce to one another
• The Cook-Levin Theorem Every L ∈ NP reduces to SAT SAT = {f: f is a satisfiable Boolean formula} • So every problem in NP is easier than SAT • But SAT itself is in NP, so SAT must be the “hardest problem” in NP: If SAT ∈ P, then P = NP
• Interpretation of Cook-Levin Theorem • Optimistic view: If we manage to solve SAT, then we can also solve CLIQUE, scheduling, and almost anything • Pessimistic view: Since we do not believe P = NP, it is unlikely that we will ever have a fast algorithm for SAT