Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-06T07:55:54.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterizing co-NL by a group action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2014

CLÉMENT AUBERT  and
THOMAS SEILLER
CLÉMENT AUBERT
Affiliation:
Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, LIPN, CNRS, (UMR 7030), F-93430, Villetaneuse, France Email: aubert@lipn.fr
THOMAS SEILLER
Affiliation:
I.H.É.S., Le Bois-Marie, 35, Route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France Email: seiller@ihes.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent paper, Girard (2012) proposed to use his recent construction of a geometry of interaction in the hyperfinite factor (Girard 2011) in an innovative way to characterize complexity classes. We begin by giving a detailed explanation of both the choices and the motivations of Girard's definitions. We then provide a complete proof that the complexity class co-NL can be characterized using this new approach. We introduce the non-deterministic pointer machine as a technical tool, a concrete model to compute algorithms.

Information

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , May 2016 , pp. 606 - 638
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arora, S. and Barak, B. (2009) Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach volume 1, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aubert, C. (2011) Sublogarithmic uniform boolean proof nets. In: Marion, J. Y. (ed.) Developements in Implicit Computational Complexity (DICE). Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 75 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baillot, P. and Pedicini, M. (2001) Elementary complexity and geometry of interaction. Fundamenta Informaticae 45 (1–2) 1–31.Google Scholar
Conway, J. B. (1990) A Course in Functional Analysis, Springer.Google Scholar
Dal Lago, U. (2005) The geometry of linear higher-order recursion In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), IEEE Computer Society 366–375.Google Scholar
Dal Lago, U. and Hofmann, M. (2010) Bounded linear logic, revisited. Logical Methods in Computer Science 6 (4) 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danos, V. and Joinet, J.-B. (2003) Linear logic & elementary time. Information and Computation 183 (1) 123–137.Google Scholar
Girard, J. -Y. (1989a) Geometry of interaction I: Interpretation of system f. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 127 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J. -Y. (1989b) Towards a geometry of interaction. In: Proceedings of the AMS Conference on Categories, Logic and Computer Science 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J. -Y. (2011) Geometry of interaction V: Logic in the hyperfinite factor. Theoretical Computer Science 412 (20) 1860–1883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J. Y. (2012) Normativity in logic In: Dybjer, P., Lindström, S., Palmgren, E. and Sundholm, G. (eds.) Epistemology versus Ontology. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, volume 27, Springer 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haagerup, U. (1975) The standard form of Von Neumann algebras. Mathematica Scandinavia 37 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, M., Ramyaa, R. and Schöpp, U. (2013) Pure pointer programs and tree isomorphism. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) FoSSaCS. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7794 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, M. and Schöpp, U. (2009) Pointer programs and undirected reachability. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), IEEE Computer Society 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immerman, N. (1988) Nondeterministic space is closed under complementation In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Structure in Conference on Computational Complexity (CoCo), IEEE Computer Society 112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Y. (2004) Soft linear logic and polynomial time. Theoretical Computer Science 318 (1) 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. J. (1990) C*-Algebras and Operator Theory, Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1966) On multi-head finite automata. IBM Journal of Research and Development 10 (5) 388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schöpp, U. (2007) Stratified bounded affine logic for logarithmic space. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), IEEE Computer Society 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiller, T. (2012a) Interaction graphs: Additives. Arxiv preprint abs/1205.6557.Google Scholar
Seiller, T. (2012b) Interaction graphs: Multiplicatives. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 1808–1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiller, T. (2012c) Logique dans le Facteur Hyperfini: Géometrie de l'interaction et Complexité, Ph.D. thesis, Université de la Méditerranée. Available at http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00768403/ Google Scholar
Szelepscényi, R. (1987). The method of forcing for nondeterministic automata. Bulletin of the EATCS 33 96–99.Google Scholar
Takesaki, M. (2001) Theory of Operator Algebras 1, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, volume 124, Springer.Google Scholar
Takesaki, M. (2003a) Theory of Operator Algebras 2, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, volume 125, Springer.Google Scholar
Takesaki, M. (2003b) Theory of Operator Algebras 3, Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences, volume 127, Springer.Google Scholar
Terui, K. (2004) Proof nets and boolean circuits. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar