1995
DOI: 10.1007/bfb0022277
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ramified recurrence and computational complexity II: Substitution and poly-space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
44
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
4
44
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in the general setting, this notion of working space is meaningless, as pointed in [Mic89]: on some structures like (R, 0, 1, =, +, −, * ), any computation can be done in constant working space. However, since we have in the classical setting PAR = PSPACE, our result extends the classical one from [LM95].…”
Section: Simulation Of a P-uniform Family Of Circuitssupporting
confidence: 65%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, in the general setting, this notion of working space is meaningless, as pointed in [Mic89]: on some structures like (R, 0, 1, =, +, −, * ), any computation can be done in constant working space. However, since we have in the classical setting PAR = PSPACE, our result extends the classical one from [LM95].…”
Section: Simulation Of a P-uniform Family Of Circuitssupporting
confidence: 65%
“…As shown in the simulation of a BSS machine by safe recursive functions, we need to have a simultaneous recursion able to define simultaneously three functions in order to prove Theorem 2. In the classical setting, this is the choice made by Leivant and Marion in [LM95], while Bellantoni and cook used a smash function # to build and break t-uples [BC92]. Both choices are equivalent.…”
Section: Containing the Basic Safe Functions And Closed Under The Opmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To the author's knowledge, all the other charaterization results are novel. Similar results can be ascribed to Leivant and Marion [25,22], but they do not take linearity constraints into account. Notice that, in presence of ramification, going from W to A dramatically increases the expressive power, while going from W to ∅ does not cause any loss of expressivity.…”
Section: Subsystemssupporting
confidence: 66%
“…In a previous paper [5], based on classical characterizations in [3] and [19], we exhibited machine-independent characterizations of the classes of functions over an arbitrary structure computable in polynomial sequential or parallel time. Our aim here is to provide such machine-independent characterizations over an arbitrary structure for polynomial hierarchy and polynomial alternating time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%