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
    Members of the first machine class are reasonable models ... — Carmelics
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Members of the first machine class are reasonable models of computation for formulating the Cobham-Edmonds Thesis.

    Proof of definition segmentsTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • Experience has borne out that members of the first machine class are reasonable models of computation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Cobham-Edmonds Thesis equates feasibility with polynomial time, but parallel computation models like NC circuits challenge this identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Problems solvable efficiently in parallel but not sequentially in polynomial time suggest that sequential machine classes misrepresent tractability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A thesis grounding feasibility must remain invariant across plausible physical computation paradigms, not merely historically familiar sequential ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Empirical adequacy of a model class in past cases does not establish its principled correctness as a criterion for feasibility, per Goodman's new riddle of induction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'reasonableness' cited in Argument 1 is theory-laden, presupposing the very thesis it purports to support.
      ?

      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

    Truth & KnowledgeProof of definition segments

    Connections

    1 topic

    All sources support it1 linked

    Related

    A thesis grounding feasibility must remain invariant across plausible physical c...Empirical adequacy of a model class in past cases does not establish its princip...Experience has borne out that members of the first machine class are reasonable ...Problems solvable efficiently in parallel but not sequentially in polynomial tim...
    +2 moreShow less
    The 'reasonableness' cited in Argument 1 is theory-laden, presupposing the very ...The Cobham-Edmonds Thesis equates feasibility with polynomial time, but parallel...

    Similar

    Members of the first machine class should be considered reasonable mod...99%Experience has borne out that members of the first machine class are r...91%The first machine class includes the basic Turing machine model and al...85%The class P is defined relative to the deterministic Turing machine mo...82%

    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