1. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Speed-up and Compression Theoretical Models 1999 Peter van Emde Boas References available at: http://turing.wins.uva.nl/~peter/teaching/thmod99.html Most Papers will be made available in Library

2. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 When is More Better ? More time or space will allow you to compute more This is not always true –Constant factor speed-up –Non Constructible time/space bounds: Gap theorems. Compression theorems for constructible bounds

3. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Constant Factor Speed-up A Turing Machine Alphabet is easily compressed by coding k symbols in one symbol of a larger alphabet:  k --->  ’  ’ =  3

4. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Constant Factor Speed-up This yields automatic constant factor speed-up in space: Space( S(n) ) = Space( S(n)/k ) Snags: Input is not compressed! This may require additional steps and another worktape. It shows space speed-up for single tape model only for  (n) bounds. And what about Time?

5. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 The k for 6 solution PREPARE COMPUTE & UPDATE Snags: you must compress the alphabet 6 times more dense than you expected. Input must be preprocessed so it works only nice for time t(n) =  (n) (even  (n 2 ) in single tape model)

6. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 The direct solution 1172117711761173 11751174 Finite Control Encode two blocks in finite control simulator Turing Machine. Externally scan the block adjacent to the block scanned internally Now one can allways simulate k steps for 1 step and still preserve the above invariant after every step.

7. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Time speed-up THEOREM: Time( t(n) ) = Time( t(n)/ k ) for fixed k, as long as t(n)/k > (1+  ).n Doesn’t work for single tape model; there the input compression already requires time  (n 2 ) So in order that Time( t(n) )  Time( G(t(n)) ) it is necessary that G(m) =  (m) This is however not sufficient...... ≠

8. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Borodin-Trakhtenbrot Gap Theorem For every G(m) > m one can invent a pathological timebound u(n) such that Time(u(n)) = Time(G(u(n))) u(m) := min{ k | no machine computation M i (x) with |x| = m and i  m has a runtime T i (x) with k  T i (x) < G(k) } This is well defined; there are at most m.c m runtimes which have to be excluded from the interval [ k, G(k) ) so sooner or later the sequence 0, G(0), G(G(0)),.... will provide us with an example....

9. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Constructible Bounds t(n) is time constructible when some TM on input n (in binary) can initialize a binary counter with value t(n) in time < t(n) s(n) is space constructible when some TM on input x of length n can mark a block of s(n) tape cells without ever exceeding this block. Against constructible bounds effective diagonalization is possible

10. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 SPACE COMPRESSION Downward Diagonalization If S 1 (n) > log(n) is space constructible and S 2 (n) = o(S 1 (n)) then Space( S 2 (n) )  Space( S 1 (n) ) On input i # x : 1)mark S 1 (|i#x|) tape cells 2)simulate M i ( i#x ) within this block if simulation leaves the block accept if simulation cycles accept - counting OK since S 1 (n) > log(n) 3)if simulation terminates do the opposite: if accept reject and accept otherwise ≠

11. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 SPACE COMPRESSION Downward Diagonalization This program runs in space S 1 (n) by construction The result can’t be computed by any device in space S 2 (n). Assume M j does it then on input j#x for x sufficiently large, cases 1 and 2 won’t occur and therefore M j ( j#x ) accepts iff it rejects..... CONTRADICTION !

12. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 TIME COMPRESSION Downward Diagonalization A similar result for Time Compression is affected by the overhead required for maintaining the counter ticking down from T 1 (n) to 0. If we assume that this overhead is logarithmic the result becomes: If T 1 (n) > n is time constructible and T 2 (n) = o(T 1 (n)) then Time( T 2 (n) )  Time( T 1 (n).log(T 1 (n)) ) ≠

13. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 TIME COMPRESSION Downward Diagonalization Improvements: Add an extra tape. Storing the clock on it makes the overhead vanish..... At least two tapes: Divide clock in head and tail and move the head only when the tail underflows. This reduces overhead to loglog(n); the trick extends yielding log*(n) overhead (W. Paul) Use distributed super redundant clock; overhead vanishes (Fürer 1982)

14. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Compression in General The diagonalization argument is generic; the minimal overhead determining the size of the separation gaps is fully machine dependent. Extends to the world of nondeterministic computation; proof become rather complex. (Seiferas et al. for TM time measure) For the RAM world diagonalization results are similar; Constant factor speed-up is difficult.

15. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Constructibility ? Reasonable bounds turn out to be constructible: –polynomials, –simple exponentials, –polylog functions –closed under sum & product –not closed under difference!

16. Peter van Emde Boas: Games and Computer Science 1999 Constructibility ? Many Theorems are proven assuming constructibility of bounds Some theorems extend to general case, using trick of incremental resources –Savitch Theorem –Hopcroft, Paul, Valiant Theorem –resulting bounds are weak (terminating computations only)