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 NP-hardness is established via polynomial-time many-one reductions, which themselves presuppose P ≠ NP is not provably false—a claim independent of ZFC under some interpretations.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.NP-hardness definitions presuppose only that NP is well-defined; they make no assumption about P≠NP being unprovable in ZFC.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No consensus model of computation suggests P vs NP is actually independent of ZFC; believed independence is speculative, not established.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reductions work identically under both P=NP and P≠NP; the practical notion of hardness doesn't depend on any metatheoretic claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Polynomial reductions define NP-hardness relative to computational models; this definition doesn't logically require P≠NP's truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some proof systems cannot decide P vs NP (Razborov-Rudich barrier); independence from ZFC is technically consistent with known results.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.NP-hardness classifications remain structurally valid even if P=NP holds, making the reduction framework independent of that outcome.
      ?

      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.