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
    A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would be expec... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P from NP

    A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would be expected to relativize to both oracle A and oracle B

    Modality & PossibilitySkepticism
    ?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

    SkepticismModality & Possibility

    Connections

    3 topics

    Proof of definition segments2 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    All sources support it
    1 linked
    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) established the existence of oracles A and B suc...Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P from NPNo single proof can both separate and fail to separate P from NP relative to ora...

    Similar

    A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...99%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...98%Known proof methods such as diagonalization relativize and therefore c...80%If propositions are correlated with the classes they mention, then dia...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    For note that although this statement originates in theoretical computer science, it may be easily formulated as statements about natural numbers. In particular, \(\textbf{P} \neq \textbf{NP}\) is equivalent to the statement that for all indices \(e\) and exponents \(k\), there exists a propositional formula \(\phi\) such that the deterministic Turing machine \(T_e\) does not correctly decide \(\phi\)’s membership in \(\sc{SAT}\) in \(\lvert \phi\rvert^k\) steps. e. a statement \(\Theta\) of the

    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