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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is currently an open problem whether the second machin... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is currently an open problem whether the second machine class properly extends the first machine class.

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Formally demonstrating that the second machine class does not provide realistic complexity representations would require proving separation results for complexity classes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relevant complexity class separation results are currently unresolved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The openness of P vs NP does not entail epistemic neutrality; asymmetric evidence can justify provisional theoretical commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Decades of failed attempts to collapse complexity classes constitute inductive evidence favoring separation, per Lakatosian research programme logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Computational indistinguishability results and oracle separations already demonstrate that the classes behave differently under relativization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment implies that if our best physical and mathematical theories treat the classes as distinct, we are justified in asserting their separation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Computational indistinguishability results and oracle separations already demons...Decades of failed attempts to collapse complexity classes constitute inductive e...Formally demonstrating that the second machine class does not provide realistic ...Quine's criterion of ontological commitment implies that if our best physical an...
    +2 moreShow less
    The openness of P vs NP does not entail epistemic neutrality; asymmetric evidenc...The relevant complexity class separation results are currently unresolved.

    Similar

    It is currently an open problem whether the second machine class prope...99%Whether the second machine class properly extends the first machine cl...96%Demonstrating formally that the second machine class is not realistic ...78%Formally demonstrating that second machine class models are unrealisti...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    Experience has borne out that members of the first machine class are the ones which we should consider reasonable models of computation in the course of formulating the Cobham-Edmonds Thesis. It is also widely believed that members of the second machine class do not provide realistic representations of the complexity costs involved in concretely embodied computation (Chazelle and Monier (1983), Schorr (1983), Vitányi (1986)). Demonstrating this formally would, however, require proving separation
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit