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
    Confirming P ≠ NP would mean NP-hard problems are uncondi... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A proof that P ≠ NP would provide additional evidence that the Cobham-Edmonds Thesis correctly analyzes the pre-theoretical notion of feasibility.

    Confirming P ≠ NP would mean NP-hard problems are unconditionally intractable in the general case, consistent with the Thesis.

    ConsequentialismTruth & 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

    ConsequentialismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    All sources support it1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consequentialism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Causation
    1 linked

    Related

    A proof that P ≠ NP would provide additional evidence that the Cobham-Edmonds Th...A proof that P ≠ NP would validate existing inductive evidence for P ≠ NP.The Cobham-Edmonds thesis identifies feasibility with polynomial-time computabil...

    Similar

    It would allow unconditional assertion that NP-hard problems are intra...95%Confirming P ≠ NP would allow us to unconditionally assert that NP-har...94%Such a proof would allow us to unconditionally assert that NP-hard pro...90%coNP-complete problems are very likely intractable.86%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    For in this case a demonstration that \(\phi \not\in n\text{-}\sc{PROVABILITY}_{\mathsf{T}}\) (for a sufficiently large \(n\) and a sufficiently powerful \(\mathsf{T}\)) would be sufficient to show that we have no hope of ever comprehending a proof of \(\phi\) even if one were to exist. But now note that since \(n\text{-}\sc{PROVABILITY}_{\mathsf{T}} \in \textbf{NP}\), if it so happened that \(\textbf{P} = \textbf{NP}\) then the task of determining whether a mathematical formula is derivable in

    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