One of the more significant achievements of twentieth century mathematics, especially from the viewpoints of logic and computer science, was the work of Church, Gödel and Turing in the 1930's which provided a precise and robust definition of what it means for a problem to be computationally solvable, or decidable, and which showed that there are undecidable problems which arise naturally in logic and computer science. Indeed, when one is faced with a new computational problem, one of the first questions to be answered is whether the problem is decidable or undecidable. A problem is usually defined to be decidable if and only if it can be solved by some Turing machine, and the class of decidable problems defined in this way remains unchanged if “Turing machine” is replaced by any of a variety of other formal models of computation. The division of all problems into two classes, decidable or undecidable, is very coarse, and refinements have been made on both sides of the boundary. On the undecidable side, work in recursive function theory, using tools such as effective reducibility, has exposed much additional structure such as degrees of unsolvability. The main purpose of this survey article is to describe a branch of computational complexity theory which attempts to expose more structure within the decidable side of the boundary.Motivated in part by practical considerations, the additional structure is obtained by placing upper bounds on the amounts of computational resources which are needed to solve the problem. Two common measures of the computational resources used by an algorithm are time, the number of steps executed by the algorithm, and space, the amount of memory used by the algorithm.
Computational Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Mathematics†
