0

I'm studying complexity classes and the diagram in NP-Hardness article is confusing to me.

NP-hard has all problems that can be reduced in polynomial time from a problem in NP to them. P is contained in NP. Then it is possible to reduce a problem X in P to a problem Y in NP-hard? This does not add up to me in the scenario P!=NP.

What am I missing here? Is P contained in NP-hard?

ShyPerson
  • 925
  • 6
  • 23
Heitor
  • 103
  • 3
  • Check our reference question. – Yuval Filmus Apr 24 '20 at 20:36
  • That a problem X can be reduced to an NP-hard problem does not mean that X itself is NP-hard. Also, the phrase "all problems that can be reduced in polynomial time from a problem in NP to them" does not really make sense to me, so think through what you mean by this and rephrase it in a way that makes sense; maybe doing so will simultaneously clear up your confusion. – HelloGoodbye Feb 11 '21 at 14:56

2 Answers2

2

NP-hard has all problems that can be reduced in polynomial time from an NP to them.

Not quite: NP-hard consists of all problems to which every NP problem reduces.

Suppose $X\in \mathsf{P}$. If $\mathsf{P}\not=\mathsf{NP}$, then $SAT$ (for example) is not reducible to $X$. So $X$ is not $\mathsf{NP}$-hard: there are some problems in $\mathsf{NP}$ which do not reduce to $X$.

Note that the class of problems to which some problem in $\mathsf{NP}$ reduces is ... the class of all problems whatsoever! This is because (as you observe) once we discard the "edge cases" $\emptyset$ and $\mathbb{N}$, every problem in $\mathsf{P}$ is also in $\mathsf{NP}$, and problems in $\mathsf{P}$ are trivially reducible$^1$ to everything.

$^1$With respect to polynomial-time many-one reducibility. Change the reducibility, and you potentially change the situation. E.g. $\mathsf{P}$ is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard with respect to exponential-time many-one reducibility, since with respect to this reducibility all problems in $\mathsf{NP}$ are trivial.

  • The "many-one" bit is why $\emptyset$ and $\mathbb{N}$ are problematic: no nonempty set is many-one reducible to $\emptyset$, and dually no no set other than $\mathbb{N}$ is many-one reducible to $\mathbb{N}$. This annoyance goes away with more intricate reducibilities, like (variations of) Turing reducibility: literally every problem in $\mathsf{P}$ is reducible to everything with respect to polynomial-time Turing reducibility.

In complexity theory, the default reducibility notion is polynomial-time many-one reducibility. So if we just say "$\mathsf{NP}$-hard" we mean with respect to that reducibility - in which case "there is an $\mathsf{NP}$-hard problem in $\mathsf{P}$" is equivalent to $\mathsf{P=NP}$.

Noah Schweber
  • 2,753
  • 8
  • 18
  • It is false that problems in $\mathsf{P}$ are trivially reducible to everything with respect to polynomial-time many-one reducibility. Consider for example the problem $A$ associated with the language ${0,1}^*$ and the problem $B$ associated with the language $\emptyset$. $A$ is in $\mathsf{P}$ but is not reducible to $B$. – Steven Apr 24 '20 at 17:49
  • @Steven Quite right, fixed! – Noah Schweber Apr 24 '20 at 19:05
  • Sorry for nitpicking :) – Steven Apr 24 '20 at 19:20
  • @Steven No, it's an important point, thanks for pointing it out! (I personally never work with m-reductions, so to me everything is Turing flavored.) – Noah Schweber Apr 24 '20 at 19:41
  • Thanks for the answer! After many days reading here and there, i think I finally got it. Can you give references to what are $\emptyset$ and $\mathbb{N}$? – Heitor Apr 29 '20 at 14:59
  • @Heitor Those are the standard notations for the emptyset (LaTeX code "$\emptyset$") and the set of natural numbers (LaTeX code "$\mathbb{N}$"), respectively. – Noah Schweber Apr 29 '20 at 15:22
1

Let $H$ be the set of $\textsf{NP}$-Hard problems, that is, the set of problems $A$ such that every problem $B \in \textsf{NP}$ can be reduced to $A$ via a Karp reduction.

Then $\textsf{P} \nsubseteq H$. Consider the problem $A$ associated with the language $\emptyset$ and let $B$ be the problem associated with the language $\{0,1\}^*$. Clearly $A \in \textsf{P}$ and $B \in \textsf{P} \subseteq \textsf{NP}$, but $B$ cannot be reduced to $A$ via Karp reduction. This shows that $A \not\in H$, therefore $\textsf{P} \setminus H \neq \emptyset$.

Notice that this is true regardless of whether $\textsf{P} = \textsf{NP}$.

Steven
  • 29,419
  • 2
  • 28
  • 49