Skip to main content

Which Algorithms are Feasible? Maxent Approach

  • Conference paper
Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods

Part of the book series: Fundamental Theories of Physics ((FTPH,volume 98))

Abstract

It is well known that not all algorithms are feasible; whether an algorithm is feasible or not depends on how many computational steps this algorithm requires. The problem with the existing definitions of feasibility is that they are rather ad hoc. Our goal is to use the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) approach and get more motivated definitions.

If an algorithm is feasible, then, intuitively, we would expect the following to be true: If we have a flow of problems with finite average length \( \bar{l} \), then we expect the average time \( \bar{t} \) to be finite as well.

Thus, we can say that an algorithm is necessarily feasible if \( \bar{t} \) is finite for every probability distribution for which \( \bar{l} \) is finite, and possibly feasible if \( \bar{t} \) is finite for some probability distribution for which \( \bar{l} \) is finite.

If we consider all possible probability distributions, then these definitions trivialize: every algorithm is possibly feasible, and only linear-time algorithms are necessarily feasible.

To make the definitions less trivial, we will use the main idea of MaxEnt and consider only distributions for which the entropy is the largest possible. Since we are interested in the distributions for which the average length is finite, it is reasonable to define MaxEnt distributions as follows: we fix a number l 0 and consider distributions for which the entropy is the largest among all distributions with the average length \( \bar{l} = {{l}_{0}} \).

If, in the above definitions, we only allow such “MaxEnt” distributions, then the above feasibility notions become non-trivial: an algorithm is possibly feasible if it takes exponential time (to be more precise, if and only if its average running time \( \bar{t} \)(n) over all inputs of length n grows slower than some exponential function C n), and necessarily feasible if it is sub-exponential (i.e., if \( \bar{t} \)(n) grows slower than any exponential function).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D. E. Cooke, Scientific Research: From the Particular to the General, El Paso Energy Award for Research Excellence Presentation, University of Texas at El Paso, April 9, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. H. Davenport and J. Heintz, “Real quantifier elimination is doubly exponential”, Journal of Symbolic Computations, 1988, Vol. 5, No. 1/2, pp. 29–35.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness, W. F. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, Freeman, N.Y., 1994.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. K. M. Hanson and R. N. Silver (Eds.), Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1996.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. E. T. Jaynes, “Information theory and statistical mechanics”, Phys. Rev., 1957, Vol. 108, pp. 171–190.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. E. T. Jaynes, “Where do we stand on maximum entropy?”, In: R. D. Levine and M. Tribus (Eds.) The maximum entropy formalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. Kreinovich, “Maximum entropy and interval computations”, Reliable Computing, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 63–79.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. H. R. Lewis and C. H. Papadimitriou, Elements of the Theory of Computation, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1981.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. J. C. Martin, Introduction to languages and the theory of computation, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. E. Moore, “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits”, Electronics Magazine, 1965, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. E. Moore, “Lithography and the Future of Moore’s Law”, In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Optical/Laser Microlithography, February 1995, SPIE Publ., Vol. 2440,1995, pp. 2–17.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Morgenstein and V. Kreinovich, “Which algorithms are feasible and which are not depends on the geometry of space-time”, Geombinatorics, 1995, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 80–97.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. H. T. Nguyen and V. Kreinovich, “When is an algorithm feasible? Soft computing approach”, Proceedings of the Joint 4th IEEE Conference on Fuzzy Systems and 2nd IFES, Yokohama, Japan, March 20–24, 1995, Vol. IV, pp. 2109–2112.

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. T. Nguyen and V. Kreinovich, “Towards theoretical foundations of soft computing applications”, International Journal on Uncertainty, Fuzziness, and Knowledge-Based Systems, 1995, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 341–373.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. R. R. Schaller, “Moore’s law: past, present, and future”, IEEE Spectrum, June 1997, pp. 53–59; see also discussion on p. 8 of the August 1997 issue of IEEE Spectrum.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. Schirmer and V. Kreinovich, “Towards a More Realistic Definition of Feasibility”, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS), 1996, Vol. 90, pp. 151–153.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Tarski, A decision method for elementary algebra and geometry, 2nd ed., Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1951.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cooke, D.E., Kreinovich, V., Longpré, L. (1998). Which Algorithms are Feasible? Maxent Approach. In: Erickson, G.J., Rychert, J.T., Smith, C.R. (eds) Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods. Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol 98. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5028-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5028-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6111-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5028-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics