Jump to content

Talk:Descriptive complexity theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Felix QW (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 15 February 2022 (Added merged tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconMathematics Start‑class Mid‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.
WikiProject iconComputer science Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Does anyone know how different modal logics can be used to describe complexity classes? Traversal of Kripke structures etc. I know the complexities of showing satisfiability in different modal logics; how does that relate to classes of languages expressible in those logics? --Spug (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge since there was nothing but support for more than a week.

The current coverage of descriptive complexity is quite unsatisfactory. We have what should be the parent article, Descriptive complexity theory, but which really is a stubby list of characterisations of complexity classes. Then we have three pages giving more detailed description of these characterisations, FO (complexity), SO (complexity) and HO (complexity). The main context is provided at FO (complexity) rather than here, and SO (complexity) and HO (complexity) make little sense without that context. Most problematically, however, none of the descriptions adequately distinguish between the classes of structures on which a given characterisation holds. For instance, Fagin's theorem (ESO = NP) holds on all classes of finite structures, while the Immermann-Vardi Theorem (FO(LFP) = P) holds only for ordered structures, and Grädel's theorem (Second-order Horn logic = P) only holds in the presence of a successor relation.

In my opinion, a much better organisation would be to order the characterisations by the complexity classes they are representing, and by the classes of structures on which they are representing them. The first step would be to merge the existing articles into Descriptive complexity theory, and then we could take it from there. Felix QW (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all accounts. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.