3
$\begingroup$

Let:

  • $2EQ$ - The language of all binary ($\mathbb{Z}_2$) equation sets that have a solution in $\mathbb{Z}_2$, where each multiplication is of at most two $x_i,\, x_j$. Meaning a set of equations of the form: $\Sigma a_i \cdot x_i + \Sigma \, \Sigma \, a_{i,j} \cdot x_i \cdot x_j = b $.
  • $3EQ$ - Same just up to at most 3 multiplications, meaning a set of equations of the form: $\Sigma a_i \cdot x_i + \Sigma \, \Sigma \, a_{i,j} \cdot x_i \cdot x_j + \Sigma \, \Sigma \, \Sigma \, a_{i,j,k} \cdot x_i \cdot x_j \cdot x_k = b $.

I'd like to show that $3EQ \leq _P 2EQ$, but I don't know how to deal with the expressions of $x_i \cdot x_j \cdot x_k$. I thought about trying to represent them with using only at most two $\wedge$'s, but not sure if it's even possible. Maybe there's a better idea?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

Hint: You can add a variable $x_{ij}$ whose value is always $x_ix_j$ by adding the equation $x_{ij}-x_ix_j=0$. This allows you to reduce cubic equations to quadratic ones.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

They're both NP-hard, and both in NP, so they are both NP-complete. Therefore, there is a reduction between them.

Hint: Try proving that Independent SET $\le_P$ 2EQ. Once you prove that, you should be able to take it from there, as the desired result follows immediately.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.