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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that NC is expected to be properly contained in P (NC ≠ P)

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'certain problems appear inherently sequential' to 'NC ≠ P' commits the same epistemic error Lakatos identified in naive falsificationism: apparent resistance to a method does not establish principled impossibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.History of complexity theory shows that problems once deemed inherently hard (e.g., primality testing) later yielded to unexpected algorithmic techniques, undermining inductive confidence in current parallelization barriers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim that NC ≠ P is epistemically on par with P ≠ NP: both are unproven conjectures elevated to working assumptions, a practice Quine's holism warns conflates pragmatic utility with ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a relativizing barrier result or algebrizing argument specifically ruling out NC = P, the conjecture rests on absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence, violating standards of warranted assertibility Dummett defended for mathematical claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If NC = P, then every problem with a polynomial-time sequential algorithm could be sped up to a parallel algorithm running in polylogarithmic time with polynomially many processors
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Certain problems in P appear to be inherently sequential, exhibiting structure that makes them resistant to parallelization
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It is considered unlikely that all sequential polynomial-time problems admit such parallel speedup
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42