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
    Despite widespread belief in P ≠ NP and no known formal i... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of current techniques

    Despite widespread belief in P ≠ NP and no known formal independence, no proof has been found

    SkepticismTruth & 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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of current techniquesThe problem is considered by the research community to exceed the capability of ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Although its logical form cannot exclude independence from PA or ZFC, ...80%It is believed that P ≠ NP is unlikely to be independent of strong the...79%The Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC, as proved by Cohen in ...77%Such statements are generally believed unlikely to be independent of s...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    It thus seems reasonable to summarize the current status of the \(\textbf{P} \neq \textbf{NP}\)? problem as follows: (i) \(\textbf{P} \neq \textbf{NP}\) is widely believed to be true on the basis of convergent inductive and heuristic evidence; (ii) we currently have no reason to suspect that this statement is formally independent of the mathematical theories which we accept in practice; but (iii) a proof \(\textbf{P} \neq \textbf{NP}\) is still considered to be beyond the reach of current techni

    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