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
    Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) established oracles A and... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P and NP.

    Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) established oracles A and B such that P^A = NP^A and P^B ≠ NP^B

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & 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

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both oracle A and...Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P and NP.No single diagonalization argument can simultaneously yield P^A = NP^A and P^B ≠...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) established oracles A and B such that ...99%Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) established the existence of oracles A...98%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...76%A proof of P ≠ NP based on diagonalization would relativize to both or...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    But in a letter to von Neumann, Gödel (1956) observed that if we were able to efficiently decide \(n\text{-}\sc{PROVABILITY}_{\mathsf{T}}\), then this would already have enormous significance for mathematical practice. For note that it seems plausible to assume that no human mathematician will ever be able to comprehend a proof containing 100 million symbols (\(\approx 25000\) pages). If we were able to efficiently check if \(\phi \in n\text{-}\sc{PROVABILITY}_{\mathsf{T}}\) (say for \(n = 10^8\

    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