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 SAT is NP-complete.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cook's 1971 proof presupposes a fixed computational model (Turing machines), but the notion of 'reduction' is model-relative, not an absolute mathematical fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Church-Turing thesis fails for certain physical or hypercomputational systems, the completeness result loses its claimed universality across all possible computation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.NP-completeness proofs rely on an encoding of problem instances as strings, but the choice of encoding is conventional and can alter polynomial-time reducibility relations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Since the claim 'SAT is NP-complete' is only provably true relative to a chosen encoding scheme, it is a representational artifact rather than an intrinsic mathematical truth about satisfiability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.SAT is in NP.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For any X ∈ NP, there exists a non-deterministic Turing machine N accepting X with polynomial time complexity p(n), and all problems in NP are polynomial time reducible to SAT.
      ?

      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.