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
    Every problem X in NP can be reduced in polynomial time t... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→SAT is NP-complete

    Every problem X in NP can be reduced in polynomial time to SAT by encoding the computation of the accepting nondeterministic Turing machine for X as a propositional formula

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    All sources support it1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    SAT is NP-completeSAT is in NPSAT is therefore NP-hard

    Similar

    Every problem Y in NP is accepted by some nondeterministic machine N w...86%Every problem X in NP is polynomial-time reducible to SAT via a reduct...85%SAT can be solved in polynomial time by a non-deterministic Turing mac...83%A non-deterministic machine can non-deterministically construct a trut...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    Similarly, parts i) and ii) respectively implies that \(\textbf{P} \subsetneq \textbf{EXP}\) and \(\textbf{NP} \subsetneq \textbf{NEXP}\). And it similarly follows from part iii) that \(\textbf{L} \subsetneq \textbf{PSPACE}\). Note that since every deterministic Turing machine is, by definition, a non-deterministic machine, we clearly have \(\textbf{P} \subseteq \textbf{NP}\) and \(\textbf{PSPACE} \subseteq \textbf{NPSPACE}\). 2 Suppose that \(f(n)\) is both time and space constructible. Then

    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