Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    A problem complete for a class that properly contains P c... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Problems complete for EXP or NEXP can be classified as infeasible regardless of how the P vs NP question is resolved

    A problem complete for a class that properly contains P cannot be in P

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    EXP and NEXP both properly extend PProblems complete for EXP or NEXP can be classified as infeasible regardless of ...

    Similar

    Problems complete for a class that properly contains P cannot be in P.92%Any problem complete for a class that properly extends P cannot be in ...90%AoB is true if and only if the class A does not contain the class B79%A problem reducible from a complete problem for a class, and itself in...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    For on the one hand, a number \(1 \lt d \leq m\) which divides \(n\) serves as a certificate for the membership of \(\langle n,m \rangle\) in \(\sc{FACTORIZATION}\). And on the other hand, in order to demonstrate the membership of \(\langle n,m \rangle\) in \(\overline{\sc{FACTORIZATION}}\), it suffices to exhibit a prime factorization of \(n\) in which no factor is less than \(m\). , falsifying valuations in the case of \(\sc{VALIDITY}\)) and because the primality of the individual factors can

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective