A classification scheme that systematically mislabels n^1000 computations as 'feasible' fails the philosophical criterion of extensional adequacy for any concept claiming empirical grounding.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Classification scheme(as used in logic and philosophy of science): A system for organizing things into categories based on shared characteristics.
Feasible (in computing)(The system wrongly calls problems 'feasible' when they actually aren't doable in practice.): Possible to solve or complete in a reasonable amount of time using a computer; practical rather than theoretically possible but impossibly slow.
Philosophical criterion(The statement applies a philosophical standard to evaluate the classification system.): A standard or rule that philosophers use to judge whether an idea, definition, or system is correct or good.
empirical grounding(as what the objection claims would undermine a priori justification): Basing a belief or claim on observations, experiences, or information gathered from the real world through our senses.
extensional adequacy(Used as a standard for evaluating the completeness of virtue ethical accounts): A theory's ability to correctly classify the full range of cases that fall under a normative concept (e.g., correctly identifying which actions are right)
n^1000(The statement is criticizing how a system mislabels an astronomically large number of problems.): A mathematical notation meaning 'n multiplied by itself 1000 times'—used here to represent an extremely large number of computations.

2 topics