Decision problem that can be verified but not run in n^2 time












2












$begingroup$


A much much weaker idea similar to the P=NP question, is there a decision problem that can be verified in $O(n^2)$ time, but it can be proven that there is no algorithm that decides it $O(n^2)$ time?






time-complexity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In what model of computation?
    $endgroup$
    – Curtis F
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CurtisF if it matters then please write that up as an answer. I was under the impression that that sort of thing didn't matter within reason, or else how can one ask "does P=NP"?
    $endgroup$
    – while1fork
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @while1fork. It does matter if you're giving precise timing estimates, like $O(n^2)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Decker
    3 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$


A much much weaker idea similar to the P=NP question, is there a decision problem that can be verified in $O(n^2)$ time, but it can be proven that there is no algorithm that decides it $O(n^2)$ time?






time-complexity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In what model of computation?
    $endgroup$
    – Curtis F
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CurtisF if it matters then please write that up as an answer. I was under the impression that that sort of thing didn't matter within reason, or else how can one ask "does P=NP"?
    $endgroup$
    – while1fork
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @while1fork. It does matter if you're giving precise timing estimates, like $O(n^2)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Decker
    3 hours ago
















2












2








2





$begingroup$


A much much weaker idea similar to the P=NP question, is there a decision problem that can be verified in $O(n^2)$ time, but it can be proven that there is no algorithm that decides it $O(n^2)$ time?






time-complexity







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




A much much weaker idea similar to the P=NP question, is there a decision problem that can be verified in $O(n^2)$ time, but it can be proven that there is no algorithm that decides it $O(n^2)$ time?






time-complexity




time-complexity






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago







while1fork

















asked 4 hours ago









while1forkwhile1fork

183




183












  • $begingroup$
    In what model of computation?
    $endgroup$
    – Curtis F
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CurtisF if it matters then please write that up as an answer. I was under the impression that that sort of thing didn't matter within reason, or else how can one ask "does P=NP"?
    $endgroup$
    – while1fork
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @while1fork. It does matter if you're giving precise timing estimates, like $O(n^2)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Decker
    3 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    In what model of computation?
    $endgroup$
    – Curtis F
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @CurtisF if it matters then please write that up as an answer. I was under the impression that that sort of thing didn't matter within reason, or else how can one ask "does P=NP"?
    $endgroup$
    – while1fork
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @while1fork. It does matter if you're giving precise timing estimates, like $O(n^2)$.
    $endgroup$
    – Rick Decker
    3 hours ago


















$begingroup$
In what model of computation?
$endgroup$
– Curtis F
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
In what model of computation?
$endgroup$
– Curtis F
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@CurtisF if it matters then please write that up as an answer. I was under the impression that that sort of thing didn't matter within reason, or else how can one ask "does P=NP"?
$endgroup$
– while1fork
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@CurtisF if it matters then please write that up as an answer. I was under the impression that that sort of thing didn't matter within reason, or else how can one ask "does P=NP"?
$endgroup$
– while1fork
3 hours ago




3




3




$begingroup$
@while1fork. It does matter if you're giving precise timing estimates, like $O(n^2)$.
$endgroup$
– Rick Decker
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
@while1fork. It does matter if you're giving precise timing estimates, like $O(n^2)$.
$endgroup$
– Rick Decker
3 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The answer depends a lot on the model of computation.



On one extreme: in the decision tree model, many lower bounds can be proven. For instance, consider the 3SUM problem. You can verify an alleged solution to the 3SUM problem in $O(n)$ time, but it's conjectured that no algorithm can solve the 3SUM problem in $O(n^{2-epsilon})$ time for any $epsilon>0$. One can prove this holds in some version of the algebraic decision tree model; one can prove that any algorithm to solve it in this model must take $Omega(n^2)$ time. This provides a gap of $O(n^2)$ vs $O(n)$ for solving vs verifying solutions, if the verifier is limited to the algebraic decision tree model. This is a pretty limited result; in this case, the model means that we're restricting attention to algorithms of a particular form. So, it doesn't rule out the possibility of some other algorithm (that does something weird) being faster.



On the other extreme: if we allow arbitrary (non-uniform) boolean circuits, then there is no explicitly stated function $f$ on $n$ bits where we can currently prove that every circuit for computing $f$ needs $ge 3.1n$ gates. In other words, this is saying that we have no clue how to prove lower bounds for circuits. Roughly speaking, we have no known result of a problem where we can prove that solving it requires circuits of size $omega(n)$. See, e.g., https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/8005/5038 and https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21400/5038. So, given our current state of knowledge, we have no hope of proving a result like that if the model of computation is unrestricted boolean circuits.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "419"
    };
    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: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    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/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f104894%2fdecision-problem-that-can-be-verified-but-not-run-in-n2-time%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









    3












    $begingroup$

    The answer depends a lot on the model of computation.



    On one extreme: in the decision tree model, many lower bounds can be proven. For instance, consider the 3SUM problem. You can verify an alleged solution to the 3SUM problem in $O(n)$ time, but it's conjectured that no algorithm can solve the 3SUM problem in $O(n^{2-epsilon})$ time for any $epsilon>0$. One can prove this holds in some version of the algebraic decision tree model; one can prove that any algorithm to solve it in this model must take $Omega(n^2)$ time. This provides a gap of $O(n^2)$ vs $O(n)$ for solving vs verifying solutions, if the verifier is limited to the algebraic decision tree model. This is a pretty limited result; in this case, the model means that we're restricting attention to algorithms of a particular form. So, it doesn't rule out the possibility of some other algorithm (that does something weird) being faster.



    On the other extreme: if we allow arbitrary (non-uniform) boolean circuits, then there is no explicitly stated function $f$ on $n$ bits where we can currently prove that every circuit for computing $f$ needs $ge 3.1n$ gates. In other words, this is saying that we have no clue how to prove lower bounds for circuits. Roughly speaking, we have no known result of a problem where we can prove that solving it requires circuits of size $omega(n)$. See, e.g., https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/8005/5038 and https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21400/5038. So, given our current state of knowledge, we have no hope of proving a result like that if the model of computation is unrestricted boolean circuits.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      The answer depends a lot on the model of computation.



      On one extreme: in the decision tree model, many lower bounds can be proven. For instance, consider the 3SUM problem. You can verify an alleged solution to the 3SUM problem in $O(n)$ time, but it's conjectured that no algorithm can solve the 3SUM problem in $O(n^{2-epsilon})$ time for any $epsilon>0$. One can prove this holds in some version of the algebraic decision tree model; one can prove that any algorithm to solve it in this model must take $Omega(n^2)$ time. This provides a gap of $O(n^2)$ vs $O(n)$ for solving vs verifying solutions, if the verifier is limited to the algebraic decision tree model. This is a pretty limited result; in this case, the model means that we're restricting attention to algorithms of a particular form. So, it doesn't rule out the possibility of some other algorithm (that does something weird) being faster.



      On the other extreme: if we allow arbitrary (non-uniform) boolean circuits, then there is no explicitly stated function $f$ on $n$ bits where we can currently prove that every circuit for computing $f$ needs $ge 3.1n$ gates. In other words, this is saying that we have no clue how to prove lower bounds for circuits. Roughly speaking, we have no known result of a problem where we can prove that solving it requires circuits of size $omega(n)$. See, e.g., https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/8005/5038 and https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21400/5038. So, given our current state of knowledge, we have no hope of proving a result like that if the model of computation is unrestricted boolean circuits.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        The answer depends a lot on the model of computation.



        On one extreme: in the decision tree model, many lower bounds can be proven. For instance, consider the 3SUM problem. You can verify an alleged solution to the 3SUM problem in $O(n)$ time, but it's conjectured that no algorithm can solve the 3SUM problem in $O(n^{2-epsilon})$ time for any $epsilon>0$. One can prove this holds in some version of the algebraic decision tree model; one can prove that any algorithm to solve it in this model must take $Omega(n^2)$ time. This provides a gap of $O(n^2)$ vs $O(n)$ for solving vs verifying solutions, if the verifier is limited to the algebraic decision tree model. This is a pretty limited result; in this case, the model means that we're restricting attention to algorithms of a particular form. So, it doesn't rule out the possibility of some other algorithm (that does something weird) being faster.



        On the other extreme: if we allow arbitrary (non-uniform) boolean circuits, then there is no explicitly stated function $f$ on $n$ bits where we can currently prove that every circuit for computing $f$ needs $ge 3.1n$ gates. In other words, this is saying that we have no clue how to prove lower bounds for circuits. Roughly speaking, we have no known result of a problem where we can prove that solving it requires circuits of size $omega(n)$. See, e.g., https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/8005/5038 and https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21400/5038. So, given our current state of knowledge, we have no hope of proving a result like that if the model of computation is unrestricted boolean circuits.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The answer depends a lot on the model of computation.



        On one extreme: in the decision tree model, many lower bounds can be proven. For instance, consider the 3SUM problem. You can verify an alleged solution to the 3SUM problem in $O(n)$ time, but it's conjectured that no algorithm can solve the 3SUM problem in $O(n^{2-epsilon})$ time for any $epsilon>0$. One can prove this holds in some version of the algebraic decision tree model; one can prove that any algorithm to solve it in this model must take $Omega(n^2)$ time. This provides a gap of $O(n^2)$ vs $O(n)$ for solving vs verifying solutions, if the verifier is limited to the algebraic decision tree model. This is a pretty limited result; in this case, the model means that we're restricting attention to algorithms of a particular form. So, it doesn't rule out the possibility of some other algorithm (that does something weird) being faster.



        On the other extreme: if we allow arbitrary (non-uniform) boolean circuits, then there is no explicitly stated function $f$ on $n$ bits where we can currently prove that every circuit for computing $f$ needs $ge 3.1n$ gates. In other words, this is saying that we have no clue how to prove lower bounds for circuits. Roughly speaking, we have no known result of a problem where we can prove that solving it requires circuits of size $omega(n)$. See, e.g., https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/8005/5038 and https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/21400/5038. So, given our current state of knowledge, we have no hope of proving a result like that if the model of computation is unrestricted boolean circuits.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        D.W.♦D.W.

        99.8k12122286




        99.8k12122286






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Computer Science Stack Exchange!


            • 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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f104894%2fdecision-problem-that-can-be-verified-but-not-run-in-n2-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Ponta tanko

            Image
            Usona ponta tanko M60A1 Ponta tanko estas, simile kiel kirasita savveturilo, inter specialaj kirasitaj transportiloj. Kiel pontaj tankoj eblas konsideri ĉiujn memmovigaj rimedoj ebligantaj superi obstaklojn ĝis larĝeco 24 metroj rekte en spaco de bataloperacoj. Ties ĉefa tasko estas ebligi al la propraj taĉmentoj daŭrigi en rapida antaŭenirado sen senbezona reteniĝo. El tio pli-malpli rezultas taktikaj-teknikaj postuloj, kiujn ili devas plenumi. Precipe temas pri kapablo operacii komune kun unue-sinsekvaj taĉmentoj kaj transpontigi obstaklojn dum kelke da minutoj. This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
            Read more

            Tantalo (mitologio)

            Image
            Ĉi tiu artikolo temas pri mitologio. Por aliaj signifoj vidu la paĝon Tantalo (apartigilo) . Tantalo , laŭ Gioacchino Assereto. Laŭ la helena mitologio, Tantalo (el la greka Τάνταλος , ŝancelanta aŭ tre malfeliĉa ) estis filo de Zeŭso kaj la oceanidino Pluto, laŭ la plej divastigata versio. Li estis reĝo de Frigio [1] aŭ de la monto Sipilo, en Lidio (Malgrandazio) [2] kaj post sia morto li suferis eternan torturadon ĉe la Tartaro, la plej profunda parto de Hadeso, rezervita por la plej perversaj homoj. Tamen, kelkaj rakontoj asertas ke li estis reĝo de Argo aŭ de Korinto [3] , aŭ ke li migris norden el la monto Sipilo por akiri la tronon de Paflagonio, el kie Ilo forpelis lin pro tio, ke Tantalo forkaptis kaj seksperfortis lian fraton Ganimedon [4] , kaj tiel ofendis la diojn. Verŝajne li ankaŭ regis urbon en okcidenta Anatolio, kiun oni nomis Tantalis [5] pro li, aŭ Sipilo , pro la monto sur kies flanko ankoraŭ staras ĝiaj ruinaĵoj [6] . Laŭ la geografiisto Strabo,
            Read more

            Erzsébet Schaár

            Image
            Erzsébet Schaár Memportreto de Erzsébet Schaár en Pécs Personaj informoj Naskiĝo 27-an de julio 1908 ( 1908-07-27 ) en Budafok Morto 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 ( 1975-08-29 ) (67-jara) en Budapeŝto Ŝtataneco Hungario Profesio skulptisto Familianoj Edz(in)o Tibor Vilt v   •   d   •   r Erzsébet Schaár [erĵEbet ŝAr], laŭ hungarlingve kutima sinsekvo Schaár Erzsébet estis hungara skulptisto. Ŝia edzo estis Tibor Vilt. Déryné Széppataki Róza en Miskolc fare de Erzsébet Schaár Erzsébet Schaár [1] naskiĝis la 27-an de julio 1908 en Budafok, ŝi mortis la 29-an de aŭgusto 1975 en Budapeŝto. Enhavo 1 Biografio 2 Elektitaj solaj ekspozicioj 3 Elektitaj kolektivaj ekspozicioj 4 Elektitaj skulptaĵoj 5 Elektitaj disĉiploj 6 Fontoj 7 Referencoj Biografio | Erzsébet Schaár studis en Industriarta Lernejo, poste en Reĝa Belarta Altlernejo (1924-1926). Ŝia ĉefinstruisto estis Zsig
            Read more