FO(TC) reductions are strictly stronger than first-order ones #
DescriptiveComplexity.FOReduction.toTC embeds every first-order reduction
into the FO(TC) ones. The embedding is strict, and unconditionally:
DescriptiveComplexity.EVEN reduces in FO(≤, TC) to a problem it does not
reduce to first-order at all
(DescriptiveComplexity.exists_tcReduction_not_orderedReduction).
The witness is the one of DescriptiveComplexity.FixedPointReductionStrict,
now at the weakest reduction notion that can carry it: the target is
DescriptiveComplexity.NONEMPTYMARK, “some element is marked”, which is
first-order definable, so nothing first-order-reducing to it can escape
first-order logic – and EVEN does
(DescriptiveComplexity.even_not_foDefinable). The reduction marks every
element when the universe is even and none when it is odd, and the walk that
decides which is the one already in the catalog
(DescriptiveComplexity.evenSpec: step to the successor, flip a bit), read as
an atom through DescriptiveComplexity.TCSpec.acceptsF.
Since an FO(TC) reduction is an FO(LFP) reduction, this strengthens the
separation of DescriptiveComplexity.FixedPointReductionStrict: the gap
between ≤ᶠᵒ[≤] and ≤ˡᶠᵖ opens already at the logarithmic-space notion, and
needs neither a fixed point nor a hard problem – only a walk along the order.
The last section sharpens it once more. The parity walk is functional – the
mode flips and the immediate successor is unique
(DescriptiveComplexity.evenSpec_functional) – so it survives determinization,
and the separation holds already for the deterministic logarithmic-space
reductions (DescriptiveComplexity.exists_dtcReduction_not_orderedReduction),
which is the reduction notion of the textbooks. The same observation gives EVEN
its FO(DTC) definition (DescriptiveComplexity.even_dtcDefinable), and so its
membership in DescriptiveComplexity.LOGSPACE by the logic rather than through
the bit-level stack.
The interpretation #
The FO(TC) interpretation reducing EVEN to DescriptiveComplexity.NONEMPTYMARK:
the universe unchanged, every element marked exactly when the parity walk
accepts.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Dependency graph
The reduction and the separation #
FO(TC) reductions are strictly stronger than first-order ones, with
EVEN as the witness: it reduces to DescriptiveComplexity.NONEMPTYMARK in
FO(≤, TC) and by no first-order reduction. No complexity-theoretic assumption
enters either half.
Dependency graph
The walk is deterministic, so the separation is one notion lower #
The parity walk is functional: a node has at most one successor – the mode flips, and an element covers at most one element in a linear order.
Dependency graph
EVEN is FO(DTC) definable: the parity walk is deterministic, so the
walk that defines EVEN survives Immerman's determinization. Hence EVEN is in
DescriptiveComplexity.LOGSPACE by the logic, the bit-level route
(DescriptiveComplexity.even_mem_LOGSPACE_bit) being a second proof.
Registered in the Lax archive as
Lax945089.FirstOrderBelowTransitiveClosure.even_dtcDefinable.
Dependency graph
Deterministic logarithmic-space reductions are already strictly stronger
than first-order ones: EVEN reduces to DescriptiveComplexity.NONEMPTYMARK
in FO(≤, DTC) – one walk that never has a choice – and by no first-order
reduction. This is the sharpest form of the separation: the notion on the left
is the many-one reduction of the textbooks.
Registered in the Lax archive as
Lax945089.ReductionsBelowLogSpace.exists_dtcReduction_not_orderedReduction.