In computational complexity theory, an interactive proof system is an abstract machine that models computation as the exchange of messages between two parties. The parties, the verifier and the prover, interact by exchanging messages in order to ascertain whether a given string belongs to a language or not. The prover is all-powerful and possesses unlimited computational resources, but cannot be trusted, while the verifier has bounded computation power. Messages are sent between the verifier and prover until the verifier has an answer to the problem and has "convinced" itself that it is correct.
All interactive proof systems have two requirements:
- Completeness: if the statement is true, the honest verifier (that is, one following the protocol properly) will be convinced of this fact by an honest prover.
- Soundness: if the statement is false, no prover, even if it doesn't follow the protocol, can convince the honest verifier that it is true, except with some small probability.
Notice that we don't care what happens if the verifier is dishonest; we trust the verifier.
The specific nature of the system, and so the complexity class of languages it can recognize, depends on what sort of bounds are put on the verifier, as well as what abilities it is given — for example, most interactive proof systems depend critically on the verifier's ability to make random choices. It also depends on the nature of the messages exchanged — how many and what they can contain. Interactive proof systems have been found to have some surprisingly profound implications for traditional complexity classes defined using only one machine. The main complexity classes describing interactive proof systems are AM and IP.
Read more about Interactive Proof System: NP, Arthur–Merlin and Merlin–Arthur Protocols, Public Coins Versus Private Coins, IP, QIP, Zero Knowledge, MIP, PCP
Famous quotes containing the words proof and/or system:
“a meek humble Man of modest sense,
Who preaching peace does practice continence;
Whose pious life’s a proof he does believe,
Mysterious truths, which no Man can conceive.”
—John Wilmot, 2d Earl Of Rochester (1647–1680)
“UG [universal grammar] may be regarded as a characterization of the genetically determined language faculty. One may think of this faculty as a ‘language acquisition device,’ an innate component of the human mind that yields a particular language through interaction with present experience, a device that converts experience into a system of knowledge attained: knowledge of one or another language.”
—Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)