I had done some search on this but I was not able to find an answer either way.
Huck answered it fully. Thanks :)
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
1$\begingroup$ Can you move your "comment inside the question" to an actual comment. $\endgroup$– Suresh VenkatOct 12, 2011 at 22:56
-
$\begingroup$ @Suresh, I do not think there is enough room for it? I am not sure. $\endgroup$– Tayfun PayOct 12, 2011 at 22:59
-
2$\begingroup$ Can you perhaps remove the "comment" part entirely? I do not think that it is appropriate. $\endgroup$– Jukka SuomelaOct 12, 2011 at 23:14
-
1$\begingroup$ Put whatever you can and remove the rest. And post this in Huck's answer. It's not appropriate to insert an answer comment inside the original question $\endgroup$– Suresh VenkatOct 12, 2011 at 23:29
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
Here's a simple argument that shows that QP is not known to be in PSPACE:
Assume $QP \subseteq PSPACE$. Then we have $P \subsetneq QP \subseteq PSPACE$, where the first inclusion is proper by the time hierarchy theorem.
This separates $P$ from $PSPACE$, which is not known to hold, so $QP \subseteq PSPACE$ must also not be known to hold.
Indeed we have that $PSPACE \subseteq QP \Rightarrow PSPACE \subsetneq EXP$, but $QP \nsubseteq PSPACE$ does not separate the two classes by the THT (as stated in the question).
answered Oct 12, 2011 at 22:25