Universal First-Order Logic is Superfluous for NL, P, NP and coNP
Abstract
In this work we continue the syntactic study of completeness that began with the works of Immerman and Medina. In particular, we take a conjecture raised by Medina in his dissertation that says if a conjunction of a second-order and a first-order sentences defines an NP-complete problems via fops, then it must be the case that the second-order conjoint alone also defines a NP-complete problem. Although this claim looks very plausible and intuitive, currently we cannot provide a definite answer for it. However, we can solve in the affirmative a weaker claim that says that all ``consistent'' universal first-order sentences can be safely eliminated without the fear of losing completeness. Our methods are quite general and can be applied to complexity classes other than NP (in this paper: to NLSPACE, PTIME, and coNP), provided the class has a complete problem satisfying a certain combinatorial property.
Cite
@article{arxiv.1401.8046,
title = {Universal First-Order Logic is Superfluous for NL, P, NP and coNP},
author = {Nerio Borges and Blai Bonet},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.8046},
year = {2015}
}