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:
“If we view our children as stupid, naughty, disturbed, or guilty of their misdeeds, they will learn to behold themselves as foolish, faulty, or shameful specimens of humanity. They will regard us as judges from whom they wish to hide, and they will interpret everything we say as further proof of their unworthiness. If we view them as innocent, or at least merely ignorant, they will gain understanding from their experiences, and they will continue to regard us as wise partners.”
—Polly Berrien Berends (20th century)
“Such is the remorseless progression of human society, shedding lives and souls as it goes on its way. It is an ocean into which men sink who have been cast out by the law and consigned, with help most cruelly withheld, to moral death. The sea is the pitiless social darkness into which the penal system casts those it has condemned, an unfathomable waste of misery. The human soul, lost in those depths, may become a corpse. Who shall revive it?”
—Victor Hugo (1802–1885)