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
    Diagonalization cannot separate P from NP due to the rela... — 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 currently known proof techniques

    Diagonalization cannot separate P from NP due to the relativization barrier established by Baker, Gill, and Solovay

    Proof of definition segmentsSkepticism
    ?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

    SkepticismProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of currently known proof techniquesGeometric complexity theory and other proposed approaches are still in need of s...No existing method has succeeded in yielding the desired separations

    Similar

    Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P from NP.80%Diagonalization cannot be used to separate P from NP79%Real distinction, according to Scotus, requires separability78%Known proof methods such as diagonalization relativize and therefore c...77%

    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