Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.12976

Fortune's Bounty: Taming Complexity by Trimming Trees --- A Hands-On Problem-Solving Experience in Advanced Complexity Suitable for Introductory Students

Kimberly Fluet·Lane A. Hemaspaandra·Christopher M. Homan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article provides an assignment designed to let undergraduate students who have completed an undergraduate CS1/CS2 sequence try to themselves, in groups, prove Fortune's Theorem. (Fortune's Theorem states that if the complement of the Boolean satisfiability problem polynomial-time reduces to a sparse set, then the Boolean satisfiability problem is polynomial-time computable. The assignment does not assume that students have previously seen the Boolean satisfiability problem, polynomial-time reductions, or sparse sets. Rather, it teaches those within the assignment. Note: Reworded into the technical vocabulary of complexity theory, Fortune's Theorem states that no sparse set is coNP-hard unless P=NP. Fortune's Theorem was a major advance in the understanding of the relationship between hardness and density.) We provide both the assignment handout (as the main body of this report plus Appendix A) and a solution to the assignment (as Appendix B, which would of course not be made available to the students until after they had handed in the assignment). The assignment handout, though the instructor can change this, is framed as having the students starting the assignment in teams in class for a whole class session, and then finishing it in those same teams as a take-home assignment, and handing it in before the next class session. We have found that student groups often succeed, partially or completely, in this challenge. This can mean a lot to the students: they see that they were able to make an advance that, when it was first obtained, appeared in what was arguably at the time the top journal venue for complexity theory research. This can give them confidence that they have substantial problem-solving skills (which basically means research skills) when they truly apply themselves to a given challenge.

Explore related subjects

cs.CCcs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kimberly Fluet, Lane A. Hemaspaandra, Christopher M. Homan. 2026-08-13. Fortune's Bounty: Taming Complexity by Trimming Trees --- A Hands-On Problem-Solving Experience in Advanced Complexity Suitable for Introductory Students. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12976

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↗