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 Members of the first machine class are reasonable models of computation for formulating the Cobham-Edmonds Thesis.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The Cobham-Edmonds Thesis equates feasibility with polynomial time, but parallel computation models like NC circuits challenge this identification.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Experience has borne out that members of the first machine class are reasonable models of computation.
?
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.