0
$\begingroup$

Recall that a language $A$ is in NP iff it is of the form $$A = \{x \in \Sigma^* : (\exists w\in\Sigma^*)\ (x, w) \in R_A\},$$ for some relation $R_A$ such that membership of $(x, w)\in R_A$ can be decided in time polynomial in $|x|$. In this context $R_A$ is called a search problem, any $w$ such that $(x, w)\in R_A$ a witness or certificate for $x\in A$, and the poly-time decider for $R_A$ is called a verifier for $A$.

We can interpret $R_A(x,w)$ as meaning "$w$ is a correct solution to $x$."

An algorithm $\mathrm{Alg}$ solves search problem $R_A$ if $$\forall x\:(\exists w \; R_A(x,w)\implies R_A(x,\mathrm{Alg}(x))).$$

Till now I understand everything.

After then my teacher define two definitions which I couldn't find anywhere.

$R_A$ is in search-NP if $R_A$ can be computed in polynomial time, $R_A$ is polynomially bounded, and $\forall n \; R_A\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{\leq p(n)}.$

$R_A$ is in search-P if it is in search-NP and there exists a polytime algorithm $\mathrm{Alg}$ that solves $R_A$.

Can anybody give explanation of search-NP and search-P? Or give some references?

Ainsley H.
18k3 gold badges44 silver badges68 bronze badges
asked Nov 9 at 22:34
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ 1. What do you want to know about them? Can you elaborate on what you're looking for, i.e., what you mean by "give explanation of"? 2. I don't understand your definition search-NP. Can you explain/define it more clearly? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 10 at 1:19
  • $\begingroup$ @D.W. This definition defined by my teacher. I am looking for this type of terms are available in any book or somewhere else. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 10 at 5:00
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek I understand everything. Would you put your last two comments into an answer? I can accept. Otherwise I delete my question. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 10 at 6:36

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

These classes are called FNP and FP (respectively) in the literature.

Note that "$R_A$ is polynomially bounded" is the same condition as what was presumably intended by $\forall n\:R_A\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{\leq p(n)}$. (Taken literally, the latter does not make much sense: since the sets $\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{\leq p(n)}$ are disjoint for different $n$, the only way $R_A$ could be included in all of them is that $R_A=\varnothing$. The condition should be really written as $R_A\subseteq\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{\leq p(n)}$ or as $\forall n \:R_A\restriction\{0,1\}^n\subseteq\{0,1\}^n\times\{0,1\}^{\leq p(n)}$.)

answered Nov 10 at 9:51
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

Draft saved
Draft discarded

Sign up or log in

Sign up using Google
Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Required, but never shown

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.