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
    Conflating 'unreasonable for sequential complexity theory... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The PRAM model is not considered a reasonable model of computation

    Conflating 'unreasonable for sequential complexity theory' with 'unreasonable as a model of computation' commits a category error about the purpose of machine models.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Computational models serve distinct purposes: theoretical analysis vs. practical implementation. Conflating them misapplies standards from one domain to another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A model can be unreasonable for complexity analysis (e.g., too permissive about operations) yet remain a valid abstract computation framework for other purposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Category errors occur precisely when we judge tools by criteria irrelevant to their intended function, so distinguishing purposes prevents such errors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a model fails as a computation model (violates Church-Turing thesis, allows hypercomputation), it's inadequate for *any* theoretical purpose, not just complexity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between 'purpose in complexity theory' and 'purpose as computation model' may not be genuinely separable—both depend on what computation fundamentally is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling something a 'category error' can obscure that the critic has substantive concerns about the model's coherence, not just about mismatched evaluation criteria.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Proof of definition segments1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A model can be unreasonable for complexity analysis (e.g., too permissive about ...Calling something a 'category error' can obscure that the critic has substantive...Category errors occur precisely when we judge tools by criteria irrelevant to th...Computational models serve distinct purposes: theoretical analysis vs. practical...
    +3 moreShow less
    If a model fails as a computation model (violates Church-Turing thesis, allows h...The PRAM model is not considered a reasonable model of computationThe distinction between 'purpose in complexity theory' and 'purpose as computati...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit