Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Razborov and Rudich's natural proofs barrier presupposes strong pseudorandom function assumptions; if one-way functions do not exist, the barrier dissolves.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Natural proofs restrictions apply structurally regardless of PRF existence; they constrain proof techniques, not only cryptographic assumptions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even without one-way functions, combinatorial barriers from natural proofs remain because they follow from relativization and algebrization principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The barrier's hardness derives partly from definitional obstacles to analyzing circuits, independent of whether PRFs or OWFs exist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Natural proofs rely on constructivity: they need efficient algorithms to recognize hard functions, which PRFs provide by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If one-way functions don't exist, P=NP becomes plausible, making all functions efficiently computable and barriers to lower bounds moot.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The barrier's core mechanism—avoiding help from non-constructive properties—presupposes cryptographic hardness assumptions.
?
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