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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Members of the first machine class should be considered 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 Invariance Thesis establishes polynomial equivalence in simulation overhead, but polynomial blowup can be practically significant for real-world computation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A model that requires n^6 steps to simulate another's n steps is technically 'reasonable' under the thesis yet computationally intractable in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Cobham-Edmonds Thesis requires models that track feasible computation, not merely polynomial-time computation in the abstract mathematical sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parallel computation models like PRAMs and circuit families satisfy the Invariance Thesis yet represent fundamentally different cost structures than sequential Turing machines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hartmanis and Simon demonstrated that parallelism can yield exponential speedups, meaning first machine class membership fails to capture the true cost of physically realizable computation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The first machine class includes the basic Turing machine model and all models satisfying the Invariance Thesis with respect to it, such as multi-tape, multi-head, and RAM models
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Experience has borne out that first machine class members accurately represent the costs of concretely embodied computation
      ?

      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.