5 MARKS

1.Theory of Machines
Basic and advanced principles
An awareness of the way machines work is fundamental to most engineering courses. Students
need to understand the principles of mechanical advantage, cams, vibration and mechanical
movement to give them a solid foundation of knowledge about mechanical system behaviour.
This knowledge will serve them throughout their academic and future engineering careers.
TecQuipment offers an outstanding selection of quality products to teach the principles and
theory of machines. The strong designs clearly teach a comprehensive range of basic and
advanced principles used in engineering throughout the world.
Classroom, group or individual use
For maimum teaching efficiency, the equipment is equally effective whether it!s used for
classroom demonstrations, or by students on their own or in groups. This versatility is a great
benefit when teaching different academic levels. "t!s easy to show basic principles to groups of
students. For more advanced investigations, the straightforward controls, instrumentation and
built#in safety allow students to progress through the eperiments with minimum supervision.
Easy to install and completely safe to use
TecQuipment builds all its products to eceptionally high safety standards. $ven though some
products in this range include fast#moving parts, our engineers have developed imaginative ways
to make the equipment safe to use without compromising its educational value.
The products are easy to work and need only minimal installation and maintenance. This keeps
running costs low and makes efficient use of staff and student time.
%uring &'((, a number of the products in the Theory of )achines range were updated in line
with modern teaching techniques and technology, and to simplify their set#up and operation.
Four products have been completely revised* Static and %ynamic +alancing ,T)(''&-, the
.yroscope ,T)(''/-, 0entrifugal Force ,T)(''1- and .overnors ,T)('&2-.
Automatic data acquisition
)any of the products are compatible with TecQuipment3s 4%AS5 system for automatic data
acquisition. This allows the equipment to connect easily to a computer to provide accurate real#
time data capture. 6aw data can be transformed instantly into sophisticated graphs and tables
using the 4%AS5 software and also easily eported to other programs. There are other solutions
on the market, but none which offer the same convenience, functionality or wide range of
features.
2.FEATURES OF THEORY MACHINES
Features
7ow cost, effective teaching.
Self#contained.
8all mounted.
"ntroduction to simple machines.
%etermination of velocity ratio mechanical advantage and efficiency.
Three year warranty.
6ange of $periments
(. $perimental determination of velocity ratio and comparison with calculated value.
&. %etermination of variation with load of
o # effort
o # efficiency
%escription
The 940 dual diameter wheel has an ale supported on simple pivots in a sturdy wall mounting
bracket. 0ords wound round the peripheries of the wheels carry load hangers for the load and
effort. A set of weights is provided.
This equipment is part of a range designed to both demonstrate and eperimentally confirm basic
engineering principles. .reat care has been given to each item so as to provide wide
eperimental scope without unduly complicating or compromising the design. $ach piece of
apparatus is self#contained and compact. Setting up time is minimal, and all measurements are
made with the simplest possible instrumentation, so that the student involvement is purely with
the engineering principles being taught.
A complete instruction manual is provided describing the apparatus, its application, eperimental
procedure and typical test results.
Features
7ow cost, effective teaching
Self#contained
8all mounted
"ntroduction to simple machines
%etermination of velocity ratio mechanical advantage and efficiency
Simple wheel or differential ale machine
Three year warranty
6ange of $periments
(. $perimental determination of velocity ratio and comparison with calculated values for
simple wheel and differential ale machine
&. %etermination of variation with load of
o effort
o efficiency
:. 7imiting efficiency of the machine
%escription
A 940 wheel of (;' mm diameter is integral with a differential ale of ((/ and :< mm
diameters. The shaft runs in bron=e bearings in a sturdy wall mounting bracket. The necessary
cords and load hangers are provided and weights are included. An additional load hanger is
supplied to enable the simple wheel and ale eperiment htm& to be performed
This equipment is part of a range designed to both demonstrate and eperimentally confirm basic
engineering principles. .reat care has been given to each item so as to provide wide
eperimental scope without unduly complicating or compromising the design. $ach piece of
apparatus is self#contained and compact. Setting up time is minimal, and all measurements are
made with the simplest possible instrumentation, so that the student involvement is purely with
the engineering principles being taught.
A complete instruction manual is provided describing the apparatus, its application, eperimental
procedure and typical test results.
3.FORCES APPARATUS
7ow cost, effective teaching.
Self#contained, bench mounted.
%irect measurement of forces.
Ad>ustable lines of action of forces.
9ractical verification of triangle of forces, polygon of forces and link polygon.
%emonstrates equilibrium of forces at a point, applied to various points round a
disc or acting on a rectangular lamina.
0oncurrent ? @on#concurrent coplanar forces.
Three year warranty.
6ange of $periments.
(. To resolve by eperiment any suitable system of static coplanar forces which may or
may not be concurrent
&. To verify graphically using*
a- triangle of forces for three concurrent coplanar forces
b- polygon of forces for more than three concurrent coplanar forces
c- link polygon for three or more non#concurrent coplanar forces
:. To investigate ,c- for either a disc or a rectangular shape
/. To compare the accuracy of the eperiment by comparing the eperimental and graphical
results
%escription
This apparatus is a more comprehensive and versatile version of the AF0&. A simple but elegant
demonstration of the conditions of equilibrium for three or more coplanar forces acting either at
a point, on a circular disc or on a rectangular shape. Bp to five loads can be applied to the chosen
shape by setting up pulleys at various angular positions. The lines of action of the forces are
recorded by drawing along the weighted cords onto a piece of paper attached to the pulley table.
A range of eperiments is possible, investigating concurrent and non concurrent coplanar forces
acting on simple shapes, comparing the eperimental values with the relevant polygons of force.
This equipment is part of a range designed to both demonstrate and eperimentally confirm basic
engineering principles. .reat care has been given to each item so as to provide wide
eperimental scope without unduly complicating or compromising the design. $ach piece of
apparatus is self#contained and compact. Setting up time is minimal, and all measurements are
made with the simplest possible instrumentation, so that the student involvement is purely with
the engineering principles being taught. A complete instruction manual is provided describing the
apparatus, its application, eperimental procedure and typical test results.
A length of material supported hori=ontally and carrying vertical loads is called a beam. The
loading causes bending and transverse shearing. The loads and reactions are the 3eternal3 forces
acting on the beam. They must be in equilibrium. Aowever, the strength of the beam depends on
3internal3 forces. This eperiment demonstrates the nature of these internal forces and their
dependence on the eternal system of forces.
The eperimental beam is in two parts, >oined by a pair of ball bearing rollers running in flat
vertical tracks. To develop the internal beam forces at the section an underslung tension spring is
used to resist the bending moment, while an overhung spring balance provides the vertical
shearing force. %ue to the mechanical arrangement, there must always be a net downward load
on the longer side of the split beam.
The beam is simply supported on end bearings and several weight hangers can be attached at any
position on either side of the >oint. A hinged metal strip is available to simulate the loading
pattern of a panelled girder for a more advanced eperiment on influence lines.
This equipment is part of a range designed to both demonstrate and eperimentally confirm basic
engineering principles. .reat care has been given to each item so as to provide wide
eperimental scope without unduly complicating or compromising the design. $ach piece of
apparatus is self#contained and compact. Setting up time is minimal, and all measurements are
made with the simplest possible instrumentation, so that the student involvement is purely with
the engineering principles being taught. A complete instruction manual is provided describing the
apparatus, its application, eperimental procedure and typical test results.
20 MARKS
1.CLASSIFICATION OF CAMS AND FOLLOWERS,
0ams are classified according to their
+asic shapes
Types of follower movement
)anner of constraints of the follower
Classification accorin! to "asic sha#es of the ca$s%
We!e ca$% A wedge cam has a wedge of specified contour. The translation motion of
the wedge is imparted to the follower which either reciprocates or oscillates. .enerally, a
spring is used to maintain contact between the follower and the cam
&late ca$% A cam made out of a plate in such a way that follower moves radially from the centre
of rotation is known as #late ca$. These cams are also known as disc cams or raial cams
because the surface of the cam is so shaped that the follower reciprocates or oscillates in a plane
at right angle to the ais of the cam. +y far. the most common is the plate cam. For this reason,
we shall restrict our discussion to plate cams, although the concept presented pertains
universalityClassification accorin! to $o'e$ent of the follo(er%
The motions of the followers are distinguished from each other by the dwells ,rises and returns
they have.
Rise of a cam: The motion of the cam which tend to lift the follower is known as the rise motion.
Dwell of a cam: The rotation of the cam for which the follower is stationary at its position is
known as dwell of the cam.
Return of a cam: The motion ,rotation- of the cam for which the follower tends to move its
original position is known as the return motion of the cam.
0ams are classified according to the motions of the followers in the following ways*
(. Rise-Return-Rise ,6#6#6-* "n this, there is alternate rise and return of the follower with no
periods of dwells ,as shown in figure-. "t!s use is very limited in the industry. The follower has a
linear or an angular displacement.
Classification accorin! to $anner of constraint of the follo(er%
To reproduce eactly the motion transmitted by the cam to the follower, it is necessary that the
cam and follower remains in touch at all speeds and at all times. The cams can be classified
according to the manner in which this is achieved.
(. Pre-loaded Spring Cam: A pre#loaded compression spring is used for the purpose of keeping
the contact between the cam and the follower.
&. Positive-drive Cam: "n this type, constant touch between the cam and the follower is
maintained by a roller follower operating in the groove of a cam. The follower cannot go out of
this groove under the normal working operations. A constrained or positive drive is also obtained
by the use of a con>ugate cam.
:. Gravity Cam: "f the rise of the cam is achieved by the rising surface of the cam and the return
by the force of gravity or due to the weight of the cam, the cam is known as a gravity cam.
Aowever, these cams arc not preferred due to their uncertain behavior.
This is all about the classification of the cams. "n net tutorial, we will learn about the
classification of follower. Aope you en>oyed it, 9lease comment if you feel any difficulty in
understanding the topics covered in this tutorial
2.COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY
Co$#)tational co$#le*ity theory is a branch of the theory of computation in theoretical
computer science and mathematics that focuses on classifying computational problems according
to their inherent difficulty, and relating those classes to each other. "n this contet, a
computational problem is understood to be a task that is in principle amenable to being solved by
a computer ,which basically means that the problem can be stated by a set of mathematical
instructions-. "nformally, a computational problem consists of problem instances and solutions to
these problem instances. For eample, primality testing is the problem of determining whether a
given number is prime or not. The instances of this problem are natural numbers, and the
solution to an instance is yes or no based on whether the number is prime or not.
A problem is regarded as inherently difficult if its solution requires significant resources,
whatever the algorithm used. The theory formali=es this intuition, by introducing mathematical
models of computation to study these problems and quantifying the amount of resources needed
to solve them, such as time and storage. Cther compleity measures are also used, such as the
amount of communication ,used in communication compleity-, the number of gates in a circuit
,used in circuit compleity- and the number of processors ,used in parallel computing-. Cne of
the roles of computational compleity theory is to determine the practical limits on what
computers can and cannot do.
0losely related fields in theoretical computer science are analysis of algorithms and
computability theory. A key distinction between analysis of algorithms and computational
compleity theory is that the former is devoted to analy=ing the amount of resources needed by a
particular algorithm to solve a problem, whereas the latter asks a more general question about all
possible algorithms that could be used to solve the same problem. )ore precisely, it tries to
classify problems that can or cannot be solved with appropriately restricted resources. "n turn,
imposing restrictions on the available resources is what distinguishes computational compleity
from computability theory* the latter theory asks what kind of problems can, in principle, be
solved algorithmically.
Problem instances
A computational problem can be viewed as an infinite collection of instances together with a
solution for every instance. The input string for a computational problem is referred to as a
problem instance, and should not be confused with the problem itself. "n computational
compleity theory, a problem refers to the abstract question to be solved. "n contrast, an instance
of this problem is a rather concrete utterance, which can serve as the input for a decision
problem. For eample, consider the problem of primality testing. The instance is a number ,e.g.
(1- and the solution is DyesD if the number is prime and DnoD otherwise ,in this case DnoD-.
Alternatively, the instance is a particular input to the problem, and the solution is the output
corresponding to the given input.
To further highlight the difference between a problem and an instance, consider the following
instance of the decision version of the traveling salesman problem* "s there a route of at most
&''' kilometres in length passing through all of .ermany3s (1 largest citiesE The quantitative
answer to this particular problem instance is of little use for solving other instances of the
problem, such as asking for a round trip through all sites in )ilan whose total length is at most
(' km. For this reason, compleity theory addresses computational problems and not particular
problem instances.
Representing problem instances
8hen considering computational problems, a problem instance is a string over an alphabet.
Bsually, the alphabet is taken to be the binary alphabet ,i.e., the set F',(G-, and thus the strings
are bitstrings. As in a real#world computer, mathematical ob>ects other than bitstrings must be
suitably encoded. For eample, integers can be represented in binary notation, and graphs can be
encoded directly via their ad>acency matrices, or by encoding their ad>acency lists in binary.
$ven though some proofs of compleity#theoretic theorems regularly assume some concrete
choice of input encoding, one tries to keep the discussion abstract enough to be independent of
the choice of encoding. This can be achieved by ensuring that different representations can be
transformed into each other efficiently.
Decision problems as formal languages
are one of the central ob>ects of study in computational compleity theory. A decision problem is
a special type of computational problem whose answer is either yes or no, or alternately either (
or '. A decision problem can be viewed as a formal language, where the members of the
language are instances whose answer is yes, and the non#members are those instances whose
output is no. The ob>ective is to decide, with the aid of an algorithm, whether a given input string
is a member of the formal language under consideration. "f the algorithm deciding this problem
returns the answer yes, the algorithm is said to accept the input string, otherwise it is said to
re>ect the input.
An eample of a decision problem is the following. The input is an arbitrary graph. The problem
consists in deciding whether the given graph is connected, or not. The formal language
associated with this decision problem is then the set of all connected graphsHof course, to obtain
a precise definition of this language, one has to decide how graphs are encoded as binary strings.
Function problems
A function problem is a computational problem where a single output ,of a total function- is
epected for every input, but the output is more comple than that of a decision problem, that is,
it isn3t >ust yes or no. @otable eamples include the traveling salesman problem and the integer
factori=ation problem.
"t is tempting to think that the notion of function problems is much richer than the notion of
decision problems. Aowever, this is not really the case, since function problems can be recast as
decision problems. For eample, the multiplication of two integers can be epressed as the set of
triples ,a, b, c- such that the relation a I b J c holds. %eciding whether a given triple is member
of this set corresponds to solving the problem of multiplying two numbers.
Measuring the size of an instance
To measure the difficulty of solving a computational problem, one may wish to see how much
time the best algorithm requires to solve the problem. Aowever, the running time may, in
general, depend on the instance. "n particular, larger instances will require more time to solve.
Thus the time required to solve a problem ,or the space required, or any measure of compleity-
is calculated as function of the si=e of the instance. This is usually taken to be the si=e of the
input in bits. 0ompleity theory is interested in how algorithms scale with an increase in the
input si=e. For instance, in the problem of finding whether a graph is connected, how much more
time does it take to solve a problem for a graph with &n vertices compared to the time taken for a
graph with n verticesE
"f the input si=e is n, the time taken can be epressed as a function of n. Since the time taken on
different inputs of the same si=e can be different, the worst#case time compleity T,n- is defined
to be the maimum time taken over all inputs of si=e n. "f T,n- is a polynomial in n, then the
algorithm is said to be a polynomial time algorithm. 0obham3s thesis says that a problem can be
solved with a feasible amount of resources if it admits a polynomial time algorithm.
A Turing machine is a mathematical model of a general computing machine. "t is a theoretical
device that manipulates symbols contained on a strip of tape. Turing machines are not intended
as a practical computing technology, but rather as a thought eperiment representing a computing
machine##anything from an advanced supercomputer to a mathematician with a pencil and paper.
"t is believed that if a problem can be solved by an algorithm, there eists a Turing machine that
solves the problem. "ndeed, this is the statement of the 0hurchKTuring thesis. Furthermore, it is
known that everything that can be computed on other models of computation known to us today,
such as a 6A) machine, 0onway3s .ame of 7ife, cellular automata or any programming
language can be computed on a Turing machine. Since Turing machines are easy to analy=e
mathematically, and are believed to be as powerful as any other model of computation, the
Turing machine is the most commonly used model in compleity theory.
)any types of Turing machines are used to define compleity classes, such as deterministic
Turing machines, probabilistic Turing machines, non#deterministic Turing machines, quantum
Turing machines, symmetric Turing machines and alternating Turing machines. They are all
equally powerful in principle, but when resources ,such as time or space- are bounded, some of
these may be more powerful than others.
A deterministic Turing machine is the most basic Turing machine, which uses a fied set of rules
to determine its future actions. A probabilistic Turing machine is a deterministic Turing machine
with an etra supply of random bits. The ability to make probabilistic decisions often helps
algorithms solve problems more efficiently. Algorithms that use random bits are called
randomi=ed algorithms. A non#deterministic Turing machine is a deterministic Turing machine
with an added feature of non#determinism, which allows a Turing machine to have multiple
possible future actions from a given state. Cne way to view non#determinism is that the Turing
machine branches into many possible computational paths at each step, and if it solves the
problem in any of these branches, it is said to have solved the problem. 0learly, this model is not
meant to be a physically reali=able model, it is >ust a theoretically interesting abstract machine
that gives rise to particularly interesting compleity classes. For eamples, see nondeterministic
algorithm.
Other machine models
)any machine models different from the standard multi#tape Turing machines have been
proposed in the literature, for eample random access machines. 9erhaps surprisingly, each of
these models can be converted to another without providing any etra computational power. The
time and memory consumption of these alternate models may vary.
L(M
8hat all these models have
in common is that the machines operate deterministically.
Aowever, some computational problems are easier to analy=e in terms of more unusual
resources. For eample, a nondeterministic Turing machine is a computational model that is
allowed to branch out to check many different possibilities at once. The nondeterministic Turing
machine has very little to do with how we physically want to compute algorithms, but its
branching eactly captures many of the mathematical models we want to analy=e, so that
nondeterministic time is a very important resource in analy=ing computational problems.
3.BEST WORST AND AVERAGE CASE
COMPLEXITY
The best, worst and average case compleity refer to three different ways of measuring the time
compleity ,or any other compleity measure- of different inputs of the same si=e. Since some
inputs of si=e n may be faster to solve than others, we define the following compleities*
Bes!"#se "$%&'e()*+ T,)s )s ,e "$%&'e()* $- s$'.)/0 ,e &1$2'e% -$1 ,e
2es )/&3 $- s)4e n.
W$1s!"#se "$%&'e()*+ T,)s )s ,e "$%&'e()* $- s$'.)/0 ,e &1$2'e% -$1 ,e
5$1s )/&3 $- s)4e n.
A.e1#0e!"#se "$%&'e()*+ T,)s )s ,e "$%&'e()* $- s$'.)/0 ,e &1$2'e% $/ #/
#.e1#0e. T,)s "$%&'e()* )s $/'* 6e7/e6 5), 1es&e" $ # &1$2#2)')*
6)s1)23)$/ $.e1 ,e )/&3s. F$1 )/s#/"e8 )- #'' )/&3s $- ,e s#%e s)4e #1e
#ss3%e6 $ 2e e93#''* '):e'* $ #&&e#18 ,e #.e1#0e "#se "$%&'e()* "#/ 2e
6e7/e6 5), 1es&e" $ ,e 3/)-$1% 6)s1)23)$/ $.e1 #'' )/&3s $- s)4e n.
For eample, consider the dc sorting algorithm quicksort. This solves the problem of sorting a
list of integers that is given as the input. The worst#case is when the input is sorted or sorted in
reverse order, and the algorithm takes time C,n
&
- for this case. "f we assume that all possible
permutations of the input list are equally likely, the average time taken for sorting is C,n log n-.
The best case occurs when each pivoting divides the list in half, also needing C,n log n- time.
Upper and lower bounds on the complexity of problems
To classify the computation time ,or similar resources, such as space consumption-, one is
interested in proving upper and lower bounds on the minimum amount of time required by the
most efficient algorithm solving a given problem. The compleity of an algorithm is usually
taken to be its worst#case compleity, unless specified otherwise. Analy=ing a particular
algorithm falls under the field of analysis of algorithms. To show an upper bound T,n- on the
time compleity of a problem, one needs to show only that there is a particular algorithm with
running time at most T,n-. Aowever, proving lower bounds is much more difficult, since lower
bounds make a statement about all possible algorithms that solve a given problem. The phrase
Dall possible algorithmsD includes not >ust the algorithms known today, but any algorithm that
might be discovered in the future. To show a lower bound of T,n- for a problem requires showing
that no algorithm can have time compleity lower than T,n-.
Bpper and lower bounds are usually stated using the big C notation, which hides constant factors
and smaller terms. This makes the bounds independent of the specific details of the
computational model used. For instance, if T,n- J 2n
&
N (1n N /', in big C notation one would
write T,n- J C,n
&
-.
Defning complexity classes
A co$#le*ity class is a set of problems of related compleity. Simpler compleity classes are
defined by the following factors*
The type of computational problem* The most commonly used problems are decision
problems. Aowever, compleity classes can be defined based on function problems,
counting problems, optimi=ation problems, promise problems, etc.
The model of computation* The most common model of computation is the deterministic
Turing machine, but many compleity classes are based on nondeterministic Turing
machines, +oolean circuits, quantum Turing machines, monotone circuits, etc.
The resource ,or resources- that are being bounded and the bounds* These two properties
are usually stated together, such as Dpolynomial timeD, Dlogarithmic spaceD, Dconstant
depthD, etc.
Cf course, some compleity classes have comple definitions that do not fit into this framework.
Thus, a typical compleity class has a definition like the following*
The set of decision problems solvable by a deterministic Turing machine within time f,n-.
,This compleity class is known as %T")$,f,n--.-
+ut bounding the computation time above by some concrete function f,n- often yields
compleity classes that depend on the chosen machine model. For instance, the language Fxx O x
is any binary stringG can be solved in linear time on a multi#tape Turing machine, but necessarily
requires quadratic time in the model of single#tape Turing machines. "f we allow polynomial
variations in running time, 0obham#$dmonds thesis states that Dthe time compleities in any two
reasonable and general models of computation are polynomially relatedD ,.oldreich &''<,
0hapter (.&-. This forms the basis for the compleity class 9, which is the set of decision
problems solvable by a deterministic Turing machine within polynomial time. The corresponding
set of function problems is F9.
mportant complexity classes
M#/* )%&$1#/ "$%&'e()* "'#sses "#/ 2e 6e7/e6 2* 2$3/6)/0 ,e )%e $1 s&#"e
3se6 2* ,e #'0$1),%. S$%e )%&$1#/ "$%&'e()* "'#sses $- 6e")s)$/ &1$2'e%s
6e7/e6 )/ ,)s %#//e1 #1e ,e -$''$5)/0+ O,e1 )%&$1#/ "$%&'e()* "'#sses )/"'36e
BPP8 ;PP #/6 RP8 5,)", #1e 6e7/e6 3s)/0 &1$2#2)')s)" T31)/0 %#",)/es< AC #/6 NC8
5,)", #1e 6e7/e6 3s)/0 B$$'e#/ ")1"3)s #/6 B=P #/6 =MA8 5,)", #1e 6e7/e6 3s)/0
93#/3% T31)/0 %#",)/es. >P )s #/ )%&$1#/ "$%&'e()* "'#ss $- "$3/)/0
&1$2'e%s ?/$ 6e")s)$/ &1$2'e%s@. C'#sses '):e IP #/6 AM #1e 6e7/e6 3s)/0
I/e1#").e &1$$- s*se%s. ALL )s ,e "'#ss $- #'' 6e")s)$/ &1$2'e%s.
A.IMPORTANT OPEN PROBLEMS
The compleity class 9 is often seen as a mathematical abstraction modeling those computational
tasks that admit an efficient algorithm. This hypothesis is called the 0obhamK$dmonds thesis.
The compleity class @9, on the other hand, contains many problems that people would like to
solve efficiently, but for which no efficient algorithm is known, such as the +oolean satisfiability
problem, the Aamiltonian path problem and the verte cover problem. Since deterministic Turing
machines are special nondeterministic Turing machines, it is easily observed that each problem
in 9 is also member of the class @9.
The question of whether 9 equals @9 is one of the most important open questions in theoretical
computer science because of the wide implications of a solution.
L&M
"f the answer is yes, many
important problems can be shown to have more efficient solutions. These include various types
of integer programming problems in operations research, many problems in logistics, protein
structure prediction in biology,
L/M
and the ability to find formal proofs of pure mathematics
theorems.
L1M
The 9 versus @9 problem is one of the )illennium 9ri=e 9roblems proposed by the
0lay )athematics "nstitute. There is a BSP(,''',''' pri=e for resolving the problem.
LQM
Problems in !P not "nown to be in P or !P#complete
"t was shown by 7adner that if & R N& then there eist problems in N& that are neither in & nor
N&+co$#lete.
L:M
Such problems are called @9#intermediate problems. The graph isomorphism
problem, the discrete logarithm problem and the integer factori=ation problem are eamples of
problems believed to be @9#intermediate. They are some of the very few @9 problems not
known to be in & or to be N&+co$#lete.
The graph isomorphism problem is the computational problem of determining whether two finite
graphs are isomorphic. An important unsolved problem in compleity theory is whether the
graph isomorphism problem is in &, N&+co$#lete, or @9#intermediate. The answer is not
known, but it is believed that the problem is at least not @9#complete.
L2M
"f graph isomorphism is
@9#complete, the polynomial time hierarchy collapses to its second level.
L<M
Since it is widely
believed that the polynomial hierarchy does not collapse to any finite level, it is believed that
graph isomorphism is not @9#complete. The best algorithm for this problem, due to 7as=lo +abai
and $ugene 7uks has run time &
C,S,n log,n---
for graphs with n vertices.
The integer factori=ation problem is the computational problem of determining the prime
factori=ation of a given integer. 9hrased as a decision problem, it is the problem of deciding
whether the input has a factor less than k. @o efficient integer factori=ation algorithm is known,
and this fact forms the basis of several modern cryptographic systems, such as the 6SA
algorithm. The integer factori=ation problem is in N& and in co+N& ,and even in B9 and co#
B9
L;M
-. "f the problem is N&+co$#lete, the polynomial time hierarchy will collapse to its first
level ,i.e., N& will equal co+N&-. The best known algorithm for integer factori=ation is the
general number field sieve, which takes time C,e
,Q/T;-(T:,n.log &-(T:,log ,n.log &--&T:
- to factor an n#bit
integer. Aowever, the best known quantum algorithm for this problem, Shor3s algorithm, does run
in polynomial time. Bnfortunately, this fact doesn3t say much about where the problem lies with
respect to non#quantum compleity classes.
$eparations between other complexity classes
)any known compleity classes are suspected to be unequal, but this has not been proved. For
instance & B N& B && B &S&ACE, but it is possible that & J &S&ACE. "f & is not equal to N&,
then & is not equal to &S&ACE either. Since there are many known compleity classes between
& and &S&ACE, such as R&, ,&&, &&, ,-&, MA, &., etc., it is possible that all these
compleity classes collapse to one class. 9roving that any of these classes are unequal would be
a ma>or breakthrough in compleity theory.
Along the same lines, co+N& is the class containing the complement problems ,i.e. problems
with the yesTno answers reversed- of N& problems. "t is believed
L('M
that N& is not equal to co+
N&U however, it has not yet been proven. "t has been shown that if these two compleity classes
are not equal then & is not equal to N&.
Similarly, it is not known if L ,the set of all problems that can be solved in logarithmic space- is
strictly contained in & or equal to &. Again, there are many compleity classes between the two,
such as NL and NC, and it is not known if they are distinct or equal classes.
"t is suspected that & and ,&& are equal. Aowever, it is currently open if ,&& J NE/&.
9roblems that can be solved in theory ,e.g., given infinite time-, but which in practice take too
long for their solutions to be useful, are known as intractable problems.
L((M
"n compleity theory,
problems that lack polynomial#time solutions are considered to be intractable for more than the
smallest inputs. "n fact, the 0obhamK$dmonds thesis states that only those problems that can be
solved in polynomial time can be feasibly computed on some computational device. 9roblems
that are known to be intractable in this sense include those that are $V9T")$#hard. "f @9 is not
the same as 9, then the @9#complete problems are also intractable in this sense. To see why
eponential#time algorithms might be unusable in practice, consider a program that makes &
n

operations before halting. For small n, say ('', and assuming for the sake of eample that the
computer does ('
(&
operations each second, the program would run for about / I ('
('
years,
which is roughly the age of the universe. $ven with a much faster computer, the program would
only be useful for very small instances and in that sense the intractability of a problem is
somewhat independent of technological progress. @evertheless a polynomial time algorithm is
not always practical. "f its running time is, say, n
(1
, it is unreasonable to consider it efficient and
it is still useless ecept on small instances.
8hat intractability means in practice is open to debate. Saying that a problem is not in 9 does not
imply that all large cases of the problem are hard or even that most of them are. For eample the
decision problem in 9resburger arithmetic has been shown not to be in 9, yet algorithms have
been written that solve the problem in reasonable times in most cases. Similarly, algorithms can
solve the @9#complete knapsack problem over a wide range of si=es in less than quadratic time
and SAT solvers routinely handle large instances of the @9#complete +oolean satisfiability
problem.
0ontinuous compleity theory can refer to compleity theory of problems that involve
continuous functions that are approimated by discreti=ations, as studied in numerical analysis.
Cne approach to compleity theory of numerical analysis
L(&M
is information based compleity.
0ontinuous compleity theory can also refer to compleity theory of the use of analog
computation, which uses continuous dynamical systems and differential equations.
L(:M
0ontrol
theory can be considered a form of computation and differential equations are used in the
modelling of continuous#time and hybrid discrete#continuous#time systems.
L(
+efore the actual research eplicitly devoted to the compleity of algorithmic problems started
off, numerous foundations were laid out by various researchers. )ost influential among these
was the definition of Turing machines by Alan Turing in (;:Q, which turned out to be a very
robust and fleible notion of computer.
Fortnow ? Aomer ,&'':- date the beginning of systematic studies in computational compleity
to the seminal paper DCn the 0omputational 0ompleity of AlgorithmsD by Wuris Aartmanis and
6ichard Stearns ,(;Q1-, which laid out the definitions of time and space compleity and proved
the hierarchy theorems.
According to Fortnow ? Aomer ,&'':-, earlier papers studying problems solvable by Turing
machines with specific bounded resources include Wohn )yhill3s definition of linear bounded
automata ,)yhill (;Q'-, 6aymond Smullyan3s study of rudimentary sets ,(;Q(-, as well as Aisao
Xamada3s paper
L(1M
on real#time computations ,(;Q&-. Somewhat earlier, +oris Trakhtenbrot
,(;1Q-, a pioneer in the field from the BSS6, studied another specific compleity measure.
L(QM
As
he remembers*
Aowever, LmyM initial interest Lin automata theoryM was increasingly set aside in favor of
computational compleity, an eciting fusion of combinatorial methods, inherited from switching
theory, with the conceptual arsenal of the theory of algorithms. These ideas had occurred to me
earlier in (;11 when " coined the term Dsignali=ing functionD, which is nowadays commonly
known as Dcompleity measureD.
H+oris Trakhtenbrot, From ogic to T!eoretical Computer Science " #n $pdate% &n: Pillars of
Computer Science' (CS )*++' Springer ,++*%
"n (;Q2, )anuel +lum developed an aiomatic compleity theory based on his aioms and
proved an important result, the so called, speed#up theorem. The field really began to flourish
when the BS researcher Stephen 0ook and, working independently, 7eonid 7evin in the BSS6,
proved that there eist practically relevant problems that are @9#complete. "n (;2&, 6ichard
Yarp took this idea a leap forward with his landmark paper, D6educibility Among 0ombinatorial
9roblemsD, in which he showed that &( diverse combinatorial and graph theoretical problems,
each infamous for its computational intractability, are @9#complete.