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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Cook and Reckhow's framework conflates proof length with proof comprehensibility, obscuring that short formal derivations may require exponential search to discover.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cook-Reckhow defines proof systems formally by verification polynomial-time, not discovability; conflation claim misrepresents their framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Proof comprehensibility is about readable structure and logical clarity, which short proofs often provide better than long ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing search hardness from proof length is valuable but doesn't invalidate using proof length as a complexity measure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A proof's length measures output complexity, not the computational difficulty of finding it during derivation search.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.SAT solvers often discover exponentially-long execution paths to reach short proofs, indicating search cost ≠ proof length.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Comprehensibility requires understanding how to derive a result, which demands knowledge of the search process, not just final form.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42