FO(LFP) reductions are strictly stronger than first-order ones #
DescriptiveComplexity.FOReduction.toLFP embeds every first-order reduction
into the FO(LFP) ones. This file shows the embedding is strict, and
unconditionally: there is a problem to which EVEN reduces in FO(LFP) and to
which it reduces by no first-order reduction at all
(DescriptiveComplexity.exists_lfpReduction_not_orderedReduction).
The witness is as small as it can be. Let NONEMPTYMARK be “the marked subset
is nonempty”, over the vocabulary of a marked set
(DescriptiveComplexity.Problems.Parity). It is first-order definable – one
existential quantifier – so nothing that first-order reduces to it is harder
than a first-order sentence, and EVEN is not
(DescriptiveComplexity.even_not_foDefinable,
DescriptiveComplexity.even_not_le_of_foDefinable). Yet EVEN does FO(LFP)
reduce to it: mark every element if the universe is even, none if it is odd.
Deciding which is a polynomial-time question, so an induction settles it – the
one already at hand, since EVEN is in PTIME – and the reduction's marking
formula is that induction's output sentence, read with a free variable it
ignores.
Two things to read off this.
- The gap is not about hardness: EVEN is in LOGSPACE,
NONEMPTYMARKis first-order, and neither is hard for anything. It is about what a reduction may compute on its way, which is exactly the difference between AC⁰ and polynomial time. - A reduction notion that can decide its source problem outright trivializes
every problem it can decide:
NONEMPTYMARKis a target only because the interpretation may answer the question itself. That is why the classical theory measures classes above the reductions' own power, and why the library's own hardness results stay stated with≤ᶠᵒ[≤], where no such collapse happens.
A first-order target: the marked subset is nonempty #
NONEMPTYMARK: some element of the universe is marked. As simple a
problem as the vocabulary of a marked set supports, and first-order definable
(DescriptiveComplexity.nonemptyMark_foDefinable).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Dependency graph
The defining sentence of DescriptiveComplexity.NONEMPTYMARK.
Equations
Instances For
Dependency graph
NONEMPTYMARK is first-order definable: one existential quantifier.
Dependency graph
EVEN reduces to it, in FO(LFP) #
The interpretation of the reduction: the universe unchanged, every element
marked exactly when the induction d – which will be one defining EVEN –
answers yes. Its marking formula is the output sentence of d, read with a
free variable it does not use.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Dependency graph
Every point of the interpreted universe is marked exactly when the induction answers yes.
Dependency graph
Every element of the base universe is a point of the interpreted one: the
domain formula is ⊤.
Dependency graph
EVEN FO(LFP)-reduces to NONEMPTYMARK: the reduction marks everything when the universe is even and nothing when it is odd, the decision being made by the induction that puts EVEN in PTIME.
Dependency graph
The separation #
EVEN does not first-order reduce to NONEMPTYMARK: the target is first-order definable and EVEN is not, and definability travels backward along first-order reductions.
Dependency graph
FO(LFP) reductions are strictly stronger than first-order ones, with
EVEN as the witness: it reduces to DescriptiveComplexity.NONEMPTYMARK in
FO(LFP) and by no first-order reduction. No complexity-theoretic assumption
enters either half.