Scribd
Upload
29 views14 pages

Need To Show L Formalizing Computation:: 3SAT For All L

The document shows that 3SAT is NP-complete by providing reductions from CSAT and SAT to 3SAT. It first defines a RAM model of computation and establishes that CSAT, the problem of determining if a Boolean circuit evaluates to 1, is NP-complete. It then gives a polynomial-time reduction from any NP language to CSAT. Finally, it reduces CSAT to SAT and shows 3SAT is a special case of SAT, proving 3SAT is NP-complete.

Uploaded by

bhashkar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views14 pages

Need To Show L Formalizing Computation:: 3SAT For All L

The document shows that 3SAT is NP-complete by providing reductions from CSAT and SAT to 3SAT. It first defines a RAM model of computation and establishes that CSAT, the problem of determining if a Boolean circuit evaluates to 1, is NP-complete. It then gives a polynomial-time reduction from any NP language to CSAT. Finally, it reduces CSAT to SAT and shows 3SAT is a special case of SAT, proving 3SAT is NP-complete.

Uploaded by

bhashkar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 14

Goal: show 3SAT is NP-complete

Need to show L0 ≤P 3SAT for all L0 ∈ NP


Formalizing computation:
• Define an idealized model of computation
• RAM: Random Access Machine
• Reads bits from an input tape
• Writes bits to an output tape
• Random access memory
• Simple instruction set

1
Random Access Machine (RAM)

Input Tape

Random
Control
Access
Unit
Memory

Output Tape

2
Instruction Set:
• add 17, 18, 20 # m[20] ← m[17] + m[18]
• sub 17, 18, 20 # m[20] ← m[17] − m[18]
• mul 17, 18, 20 # m[20] ← m[17] · m[18]
• div 17, 18, 20 # m[20] ← bm[17]/ m[18]c
• ldc 17, 20 # m[20] ← 17
• ldd 17, 20 # m[20] ← m[17]
• ldi 17, 20 # m[20] ← m[m[17]]
• sti 17, 20 # m[m[20]] ← m[17]
• b 100 # branch to 100
• bpos 17, 100 # branch to 100 if m[17] > 0
• bz 17, 100 # branch to 100 if m[17] = 0
• halt
• read 20 # m[20] ← read bit
• write 17 # write m[17]
3
Polynomial time:
• n = input length
• Requirement: Number of instructions executed
≤ nb + c for constants , b, c
• Requirement: Number in each memory cell
0
≤ 0 nb + c0 in absolute value for constants
0 , b0 , c0
• Implication: highest memory cell addressed is
0
≤ 0 nb + c00 for constant c00

4
Circuit Satisfiability (CSAT)
a first NP-complete problem
Instance:
• A Boolean circuit C:
◦ inputs 1 , . . . , m
◦ constant gates (0, 1)
◦ AND, OR, NOT gates
◦ AND, OR take 2 inputs
◦ unrestricted “fan out”
◦ A single bit output
Question:
• Is there an assignment to the inputs 1 , . . . , m
such that C(1 , . . . , m ) = 1?
5
3
OR

1
AND
2 AND

OR
1 NOT

Linearized representation:
4 ← 1 ∧ 2
5 ← 1
6 ← 3 ∨ 4
7 ← 4 ∨ 5
8 ← 6 ∧ 7
6
Proof that CSAT is NP-complete
• Clearly CSAT ∈ NP: a witness is just a
satisfying assignment
• Need to show that CSAT is NP-hard, i.e.,
L ≤P CSAT for all L ∈ NP
• Let L ∈ NP
• We know there is a language L0 ∈ P and
constants , b, c such that ∀ ∈ {0, 1}∗ :
b +c
 ∈ L ⇐⇒ ∃ ∈ {0, 1}|| : 〈, 〉 ∈ L0
• Let M0 be the polynomial time RAM that
recognizes L0

7
Proof (cont’d):
• The current configuration of M0 is
α = (m, p, r, y, z), where
◦ m: contents of all memory cells
◦ p: program counter
◦ r: position of input “read head”
◦ y: contents of input tape
◦ z: contents of output tape
• There is a function ƒnext that maps a
configuration α to the successor configuration
ƒnext (α)
• Configurations can be encoded as
polynomial-sized bit strings
• The function ƒnext can be realized by a
polynomial-sized circuit Cnext
8
input: 

``pairing circuit''
〈, ·〉 x is ``hardwired''

α0 m p r y z

Cnext

α1 m p r y z

Cnext

..
.

αt m p r y z

output
9
Satisfiability (SAT)
Instance:
• A Boolean formula ϕ:
◦ variables 1 , . . . , m
◦ constants 0, 1
◦ operators ∨, ∧, ·
◦ Parentheses
Question:
• Is there an assignment to the variables
1 , . . . , m such that ϕ(1 , . . . , m ) = 1?
Formulas are essentially circuits with fan-out
restricted to 1
10
A simple reduction: CSAT ≤P SAT
• Let “ϕ1 ⇔ ϕ2 ” be shorthand for
“(ϕ1 ∧ ϕ2 ) ∨ (ϕ̄1 ∧ ϕ̄2 )”
Circuit C: Formula ϕ:
4 ← 1 ∧ 2 (4 ⇔ (1 ∧ 2 ))∧
5 ← 1 (5 ⇔ (1 ))∧
6 ← 3 ∨ 4 (6 ⇔ (3 ∨ 4 ))∧
7 ← 4 ∨ 5 (7 ⇔ (4 ∨ 5 ))∧
8 ← 6 ∧ 7 (8 ⇔ (6 ∧ 7 ))∧
8
• It is clear that C is satisfiable ⇔ ϕ is satisfiable

11
3SAT: a special case of SAT
Conjunctive Normal Form:
• a conjunction (∧) of clauses
• each clause is a disjunction (∨) of literals
• each literal is a variable  or its complement 
Examples:
 ∧ y,  ∧ (y ∨ z), ( ∨ y ∨ z) ∧ ( ∨  ∨ z)
A special form: 3-CNF
• Each clause consists of 3 distinct literals
n o
• 3SAT := 〈ϕ〉 : ϕ is a satisfiable 3-CNF formula

12
Fact: every formula ψ in 1–3 variables can be
rewritten as a 3-CNF formula (with at most 8
clauses)
• Add extra variables to make # of variables = 3
• Write down truth table for ψ
• Read off disjunctive normal form formula from
truth table
• Negate this formula, using DeMorgan’s law to
get 3-CNF

13
Proof that 3SAT is NP-hard
• Reduction: CSAT ≤P 3SAT
• Let N(ψ) be a 3-CNF formula representing ψ
Circuit C: Formula ϕ:
4 ← 1 ∧ 2 N(4 ⇔ (1 ∧ 2 ))∧
5 ← 1 N(5 ⇔ (1 ))∧
6 ← 3 ∨ 4 N(6 ⇔ (3 ∨ 4 ))∧
7 ← 4 ∨ 5 N(7 ⇔ (4 ∨ 5 ))∧
8 ← 6 ∧ 7 N(8 ⇔ (6 ∧ 7 ))∧
N(8 )

14

You might also like