Hartmanis and Stearns (1965) grounded complexity in resource-bounded computation where 'no harder than' requires a precise reduction type, but the claim leaves the reduction unspecified.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Complexity (in computation)(as the main subject of the statement): A measure of how many resources—like time or memory—a computer needs to solve a problem. Simple problems use fewer resources; complex problems use more.
Hartmanis and Stearns(as founders of computational complexity theory): Two computer scientists who developed an important framework for understanding how much computational effort (time or memory) different types of problems require to solve.
No harder than(as the comparative phrase being made precise): A way of comparing difficulty between two problems—saying problem A is 'no harder than' problem B means A is at least as easy as B, possibly easier.
Reduction (in logic and computation)(as the technical tool for comparing problem difficulty): A method of solving one problem by converting it into another problem you already know how to solve. It shows that if you can solve problem B, you can also solve problem A.
Reduction type(as what needs to be precise in complexity comparisons): A specific set of rules for how you're allowed to convert one problem into another—different types allow different kinds of conversions, making the comparison more or less strict.
resource-bounded computation(DRT's account of why human agents fail to be logically omniscient): Reasoning or inference performed by agents who have limited cognitive resources and therefore cannot derive all logical consequences of their representations

2 topics