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
    Convergent inductive evidence supports P ≠ NP — Carmelics
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→P ≠ NP is widely believed to be true

    Convergent inductive evidence supports P ≠ NP

    All sources support itTruth & 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

    Truth & KnowledgeAll sources support it

    Related

    Convergent heuristic evidence supports P ≠ NPP ≠ NP is widely believed to be true

    Similar

    There is convergent inductive evidence supporting P ≠ NP

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Truth & Knowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    87%
    A proof that P ≠ NP would validate existing inductive evidence for P ≠...87%
    A proof that P ≠ NP would validate existing inductive evidence for P ≠...86%
    The inductive justification shows that inductive inferences are reliab...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    For note that although this statement originates in theoretical computer science, it may be easily formulated as statements about natural numbers. In particular, \(\textbf{P} \neq \textbf{NP}\) is equivalent to the statement that for all indices \(e\) and exponents \(k\), there exists a propositional formula \(\phi\) such that the deterministic Turing machine \(T_e\) does not correctly decide \(\phi\)’s membership in \(\sc{SAT}\) in \(\lvert \phi\rvert^k\) steps. e. a statement \(\Theta\) of the

    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