Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that NTIME(t1(n)) is a proper subset of NTIME(t2(n)) when t2(n) grows sufficiently faster than t1(n+1)
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
The condition 'sufficiently faster' is semantically underspecified absent a formal characterization of the growth rate threshold.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without a precise boundary condition, the claim functions as a schema rather than a determinate mathematical proposition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Schemas of this form inherit modal ambiguity that prevents them from serving as proper foundations for complexity-theoretic inference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
The Nondeterministic Time Hierarchy Theorem requires that t2(n) be fully time-constructible, a condition that is not universally satisfiable for arbitrary growth functions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the constructibility requirement fails for edge cases near the growth boundary, the proper subset relation cannot be guaranteed to hold universally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
t1(n) and t2(n) are time constructible functions
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The limit of t1(n+1) / t2(n) as n approaches infinity equals 0
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42