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 P is a subset of NP

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inclusion P⊆NP is trivially true by definition, making it philosophically uninformative about computational tractability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The substantive open question—whether P=NP or P≠NP—cannot be resolved by definitional containment alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating the trivial set-theoretic inclusion with the deep complexity-theoretic question equivocates on the epistemic weight of the claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) demonstrated that relativized proofs cannot settle P vs NP, suggesting the question resists standard formal methods.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If standard proof techniques are systematically inadequate, the claim P⊆NP—while technically true—may obscure an unprovable or independent proposition about P=NP.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Gödel's incompleteness results establish precedent for mathematically well-formed questions that are formally undecidable within standard axiom systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • Every deterministic Turing machine is by definition a non-deterministic machine
      ?

      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.