# Does converting algorithms into elementary recursive form preserve runtime bounds? [closed]

There is the complexity class ELEMENTARY that captures all problems that can be solved by using elementary recursive function only. So if algorithms for solving problems in some complexity class (e.g. NP or P) are converted to elementary recursive function form, would they retain time complexity of the complexity class?

For example, in complexity class P, we know that problems take deterministic polynomial time to solve. Would an elementary recursive form of a solving algorithm retain this complexity?

By converting into elementary recursive form, I mean:

Yes, it is true that NP is in elementary, that is there is an elementary recursive algorithm that can solve NP problems, but what I ask is "will such algorithm retain its time complexity?" For example, complexity P has problems that can be solved in polynomial time complexity; however, it is not clear whether it will retain polynomial time complexity if the algorithm has to be in elementary recursive form.

By my understanding, elementary recursive algorithm would be the one that does not necessarily use "if and else".

Modification to the question: Let us say that for all decision problems we consider, there exist function problems that have same time complexity as their decision problem counterparts. For example, for 3-SAT problem with some input $x$, one satisfying assignment to the variables is treated as output. The reason why some people think this question is not valuable may be because for all decision problems, output is always either zero or one. So let us consider the function version of decision problems (that keeps time complexity).

## closed as not a real question by Kaveh, Pål GD, frafl, Yuval Filmus, Ran G.Apr 20 '13 at 20:27

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Note that ELEMENTARY is more alike to PR, R and RE in that it defines a model of computation, not so much a complexity class. But still, since we can simulate representations of an algorithm in every (known) Turing complete machine model with polynomial overhead, I think something similar may hold for weaker models. – Raphael Apr 14 '13 at 11:29
• Every function in NP is in Elementary by definition. What do you mean by converting them to elementary form? Do you mean using expressing it using the basis? If so then the question is meaningless, unless you define what is the time complexity of them. – Kaveh Apr 14 '13 at 17:56
• The previous comment still applies. Voting to close as not-a-real-question. – Kaveh Apr 16 '13 at 9:23
• @Kaveh I don't follow. Usual assumptions make the question well-defined, e.g. counting elementary operations. – Raphael Apr 16 '13 at 9:27
• @PålGD That may be so, but that is an answer, not a reason to close the question. – Raphael Apr 18 '13 at 8:18

Elementary recursive functions are over natural numbers and do not speak of their encoding: is $s(0)$ encoded as $1$ or as $s0$?