Talk:Polynomial hierarchy

Mathematics Start‑class Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

This page is awful. It's utterly incomprehensible to an average lay reader, because it doesn't define it's symbols, nor does it provide references to definitions of those symbols.

Wikipedia needs to take more emphatic measures against such incomprehensible morasses.

Er, as far as I can tell all symbols are either linked, defined in this article, or simple set builder notation. Is there anything specific that you think needs clarification? Deco 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article works pretty well for anyone who has had a basic grad-level class in theoretical computer science, which is about the level of expertise required to understand the polynomial hierarchy. If you know of an explanation of the polynomial hierarchy that the "average lay reader" would understand, then add it. That's why it's called a collaborative encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a person that "needs to take measures". Wikipedia is you. You add more intuition to the article if you don't like it. Pexatus 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle definition of hierarchy

$\Sigma _{k}$ is ${\rm {NP}}^{\Sigma _{k-1}}$ and ${\rm {NP}}^{\Pi _{k-1}}$ . They are equivalent, since having an oracle for a language is the same as having an oracle for its complement. I reverted the previous change to reflect the "standard" definition. Pexatus 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

humor by scott aaronson

Terrible news, the polynomial hierarchy has collapsed.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/phcollapse.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.238.233 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seen that before, it's very entertaining (and quite well-informed in its references to various complexity theory results). Might even be worth linking. Dcoetzee 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Strings?

In the Definitions section, item (2) is the sentence "L represents a set of ordered (red) pairs of strings". What on earth is a red pair of strings? Does the polynomial hierarchy came in designer colours? Ross Fraser (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I removed "red" from the article. --Robin (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error in formular

This formular does not work:

$\Sigma _{i+1}^{\rm {P}}:={\mbox{NP}}^{\Sigma _{i}^{\rm {P}}}$

It would result in $\Sigma _{2}^{\rm {P}}:={\mbox{NP}}^{\Sigma _{1}^{\rm {P}}}={\mbox{NP}}^{\mbox{NP}}={\mbox{NP}}$

Instead it has to be:

$\Sigma _{i+1}^{\rm {P}}:={\mbox{NP}}^{\Pi _{i}^{\rm {P}}}$

This way the symmetrie in the PH is also more obvious to be seen. I know it is done wrong in some books, but using the definition of the oracle the error is quite obvious. --Maria Siebert 31.07.2010 16:58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.234.189 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{\mbox{NP}}^{\mbox{NP}}

is not the same as

{\mbox{NP}}

(unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses). One easy way to see this is to first observe that

{\mbox{NP}}\subseteq {\mbox{P}}^{\mathrm {SAT} }

and

{\mbox{coNP}}\subseteq {\mbox{P}}^{\mathrm {SAT} }

. This is because a SAT oracle can be used to decide SAT, complete for NP, and also it can be used to decide UNSAT, complete for coNP. Also,

{\mbox{NP}}\subseteq {\mbox{P}}^{\mathrm {SAT} }={\mbox{P}}^{\mbox{NP}}\subseteq {\mbox{NP}}^{\mbox{NP}}

. But if they are all equal, then since

{\mbox{coNP}}\subseteq {\mbox{P}}^{\mathrm {SAT} }

, this means

{\mbox{coNP}}\subseteq {\mbox{NP}}

, so the polynomial hierarchy collapses. Pexatus (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim $\Delta _{1}=\Delta _{0}$

I'm quite dubious if $\Delta _{1}=\Delta _{0}$ . As I remeber from lectures asymmetric cryptography makes sense only if ${\mbox{NP}}\cap {\mbox{coNP}}\setminus {\mbox{P}}$ is not empty. Presented diagram claims contrarily. I could correct that if I'm right. Korektysta (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Examples' subsection in Definitions section

My frustration with this article is the same as the user whose words appear at the top of this talk page. I came to this page for help understanding formal definitions as part of a homework assignment to write proofs regarding the PH, and did not find some of the formal notations that were introduced in the textbook, and other materials online, etc... In fact, what I noticed is that they are all different and as noted, what was true of a lot of the sources were "utterly incomprehensible to an average lay reader, because it doesn't define it's symbols".

I can imagine what would be helpful is to introduce a section into the main article, as a subsection to definitions, "Examples" and in there, for starters, write out the first three levels of the definitions. For the existential/universal definition (numbered '2' in the definition section), it could spell out that the class $\Sigma _{1}^{p}=\{L|\exists T\exists k{\text{ s.t. T runs }}\|x\|^{k},x\in L\iff \forall x\exists yT(x,y)\}$ where L is a language, T is a turing machine which can verify the result for a decision problem x, using certificate y.

Then do the same for \Pi_1^p, \Sigma_2^p, \Pi_2^p... No single source on the internet actually does this, but a reasonable midterm test problem is to prove membership in these classes -- and we wonder why its lonely in the ivory tower of academia. No self respecting person would actually go and slog through something like this when its not actually verifiable anywhere.

--Loraxcannon (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]