Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0912.0741

A boundary between universality and non-universality in spiking neural P systems

Turlough Neary
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this work we offer a significant improvement on the previous smallest spiking neural P systems and solve the problem of finding the smallest possible extended spiking neural P system. Paun and Paun gave a universal spiking neural P system with 84 neurons and another that has extended rules with 49 neurons. Subsequently, Zhang et al. reduced the number of neurons used to give universality to 67 for spiking neural P systems and to 41 for the extended model. Here we give a small universal spiking neural P system that has only 17 neurons and another that has extended rules with 5 neurons. All of the above mentioned spiking neural P systems suffer from an exponential slow down when simulating Turing machines. Using a more relaxed encoding technique we get a universal spiking neural P system that has extended rules with only 4 neurons. This latter spiking neural P system simulates 2-counter machines in linear time and thus suffer from a double exponential time overhead when simulating Turing machines. We show that extended spiking neural P systems with 3 neurons are simulated by log-space bounded Turing machines, and so there exists no such universal system with 3 neurons. It immediately follows that our 4-neuron system is the smallest possible extended spiking neural P system that is universal. Finally, we show that if we generalise the output technique we can give a universal spiking neural P system with extended rules that has only 3 neurons. This system is also the smallest of its kind as a universal spiking neural P system with extended rules and generalised output is not possible with 2 neurons.

Explore related subjects

cs.CC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Turlough Neary. 2010-05-16. A boundary between universality and non-universality in spiking neural P systems. https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0741

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Formalizing PARITY Circuit Lower Bounds in Lean

We formalize Hastad's PARITY lower bound in Lean using the switching lemma. For every fixed d >= 2, formulas and DAG circuits of computation depth at most d computing PARITY on n inputs require size exp(Omega_d(n^(1/(d-1)))) for all sufficiently large n. This matches the classical upper bound up to constants in the exponent and implies that PARITY is not in nonuniform AC0. We also construct a polynomial-size, logarithmic-depth bounded-fan-in formula family for PARITY, providing a witness to NC1 is not a subset of AC0 for the formalized models. The Lean source code is available at https://github.com/formalcs/circuit-complexity and is checked with Lean 4.33.1 and mathlib 4.33.1.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Constant-Coin Complete-Information Debates for $\mathsf{P}$ with Arbitrarily Small Strong Error

We study complete-information debate systems in which a probabilistic finite-state verifier reads the alternating messages of a prover and a refuter. Demirci, Say, and Yakaryılmaz showed that every language in $\mathsf{P}$ has such debates checkable with a constant number of random bits and arbitrarily small weak error. Their strong-error construction, which also counts nontermination as failure, did not permit arbitrary error reduction. We close this gap: for every $L\in\mathsf{P}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a constant-space verifier using a constant number of private coin tosses that has perfect completeness and strong error at most $\varepsilon$. The verifier simulates a polynomial-time alternating multihead finite automaton, privately spot-checking one of its input heads. The key observation is that, on a nonmember, the refuter may concede any round in which the prover first misreports a head reading. This ensures termination against every prover when the refuter follows the specified strategy, and permits strong-error reduction by repetition.

cs.CC↗