Scott Aaronson and others have shown that known proof techniques (algebrization, relativization, natural proofs) are formally blocked from resolving P≠NP, suggesting the statement resists standard mathematical machinery.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
A famous unsolved question asking whether problems that are quick to check are also quick to solve. Most computer scientists believe they're different, but no one has proven it yet.
Scott Aaronson(cited as an authority on computational complexity)
A computer scientist who studies the theoretical limits of computation and has made important discoveries about what kinds of problems computers can and cannot solve.
Standard mathematical machinery(the conventional approaches that don't seem to work for this problem)
The usual, well-established methods and tools that mathematicians typically rely on to solve problems.
relativization(Used here as a technique for defining metaphysical necessity from epistemic necessity by relativizing to some suitable class)
A method for defining one form of necessity in terms of another by restricting to a suitable class, applicable when the extension of the target property is broader than the base property