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 NTIME(f(n)) is a subset of SPACE(f(n))

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The simulation argument conflates computational resource bounds with epistemic accessibility: knowing f(n) bounds time does not entail f(n) suffices for space in all models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constructibility assumptions smuggle in a non-trivial ontological commitment — that resources are measurable by the same machine — which fails for non-uniform or oracle-augmented complexity classes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hartmanis and Stearns's original resource-bounded framework presupposes a fixed machine model, making the subset relation model-relative rather than an absolute inclusion claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument structure equivocates between 'simulation' as logical reduction and 'simulation' as physical realizability, a distinction Turing himself acknowledged in his 1950 distinction between discrete and continuous machines.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If space reuse across computation branches is permitted in the deterministic simulation, the correctness of the simulation depends on confluence properties that are not guaranteed by f(n)-time bounds alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.f(n) is both time and space constructible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-deterministic machine with running time f(n) can be simulated by a deterministic machine using space proportional to f(n)
      ?

      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.