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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A proof that P is strictly contained in BQP would not alone determine the bearing of quantum computation on the limits of feasible computation or on the Cobham-Edmonds thesis

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.If P ⊊ BQP were proven, it would establish that physical quantum systems transcend Church-Turing thesis constraints on feasible computation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Cobham-Edmonds thesis equates feasibility with polynomial-time computability, so any strict extension of P directly revises its scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A formal containment proof carries normative weight for the thesis independent of engineering robustness concerns.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Deutsch and Penrose both argue quantum computation's theoretical model is itself a physical thesis about what nature permits, not merely mathematical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If P ⊊ BQP is provable, the proof presupposes a physically realizable model, collapsing the gap between theoretical and empirical investigation the claim assumes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.No polynomial-time quantum algorithms have been found for NP-complete problems on widely accepted quantum computation models
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.There is considerable controversy about whether physical realizations of quantum models can be made sufficiently robust to reliably solve instances beyond classical hardware
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirical investigation beyond the theoretical proof would still be required
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.