Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) demonstrated that relativized proofs cannot settle P vs NP, suggesting the question resists standard formal methods.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Relativization limitations don't preclude non-relativizing proof techniques; arithmetic circuit lower bounds have bypassed relativization barriers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates 'standard relativizable methods fail' with 'the problem resists all formal methods,' which is an unwarranted leap.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural proofs and other metamathematical barriers are separate obstacles; relativization alone doesn't establish fundamental unsolvability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Relativization shows that many proof techniques (diagonalization, algebraic methods) provably fail to distinguish P from NP in relativized worlds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Multiple decades of failed attempts using standard formal systems suggest fundamental obstacles rather than mere technical difficulty.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The existence of natural oracles where P=NP and others where P≠NP demonstrates the question transcends relativizable reasoning.
?
How convincing is this?
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.