Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with complexity-theory
Search options not deleted
user 169957
Questions related to the (computational) complexity of solving problems
3
votes
1
answer
48
views
Prove that $\Sigma_{i}\text{SAT}$ is a complete problem for $\Sigma_{i}^{p}$
I'm trying to prove that $\Sigma_{i}\text{SAT}$ is a complete problem for $\Sigma_{i}^{p}$.
Using induction on $i$, I can see that for the base case, when $i=1$, $\Sigma_{1}\text{SAT}$ is equivalent t …
- 141
0
votes
1
answer
95
views
Negating a Quantified Boolean Formula (QBF)
I'm reading about quantified boolean formulas. One sentence mentions:
You should also verify that the negation of the formula $Q_1x_1\cdot\cdot\cdot Q_nx_n \phi(x_1, ..., x_n)$ is the same as $Q^{\pr …
- 141