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
    Super-polynomial functions such as 2^(n^0.0001) or 2^(log... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→P is a proper subset of TIME(f(n)) for any super-polynomial time bound f(n)

    Super-polynomial functions such as 2^(n^0.0001) or 2^(log(n)^2) satisfy the hypotheses of part i)

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    P is a proper subset of TIME(f(n)) for any super-polynomial time bound f(n)The Time Hierarchy Theorem part i) establishes proper containment between comple...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The functions n^k and n^(k+1) satisfy the hypotheses of the Time Hiera...86%The functions n^k and 2^(n^k) satisfy the hypothesis of the Determinis...83%The functions n^k and 2^(n^k) satisfy the conditions of the Nondetermi...81%The relevant polynomial and exponential functions satisfy this hypothe...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    These results may all be demonstrated by modifications of the diagonal argument by which Turing (1937) originally demonstrated the undecidability of the classical Halting Problem.[13] Nonetheless, Theorem 3.1 already has a number of interesting consequences about the relationships between the complexity classes introduced above. For instance, since the functions \(n^{k}\) and \(n^{k+1}\) satisfy the hypotheses of parts i), we can see that \(\textbf{TIME}(n^k)\) is always a proper subset of \

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective