Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If problem identity is encoding-relative, polynomial-time reducibility ≤_P does not transitively preserve the property of being 'the same computational task'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Polynomial-time reductions are defined to work for any standard encoding; encoding choice doesn't affect computational class membership.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If problem identity were truly encoding-relative, we couldn't meaningfully discuss NP-completeness, which assumes encoding-invariant identity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Transitivity failure would require A ≤_P B ≤_P C but A ≰_P C under same encoding—no standard example demonstrates this.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Problem identity depends on how we represent inputs/outputs; different encodings can obscure or reveal task structure differently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A ≤_P B and B ≤_P C doesn't guarantee A and C share the same computational essence if encoding choices differ at each reduction step.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Transitivity assumes sameness is preserved, but encoding-relative identity means 'same task' is observer-dependent, not intrinsic.
?
How convincing is this?
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.