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 The Baker-Gill-Solovay result shows diagonalization-based proofs cannot resolve P vs NP, not that diagonalization itself is categorically excluded as a component of a hybrid proof.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If diagonalization fails in relativized worlds, incorporating it into a hybrid proof still carries those same relativization obstacles that remain unresolved.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No hybrid proof using diagonalization has emerged in 50+ years despite intense effort, suggesting the barrier is deeper than mere proof-technique combination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling diagonalization a 'component' of a hybrid proof risks shifting burden: we'd need new techniques so powerful they overcome the BGS obstacle independently.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Baker-Gill-Solovay proves *pure* diagonalization fails relativistically, not that diagonalization combined with non-relativizing techniques is impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many deep theorems use multiple proof methods together; restricting to non-diagonalizing methods arbitrarily excludes potentially powerful hybrid approaches.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The result shows a specific limitation of diagonalization's reach, not a universal incompatibility with P vs NP resolution strategies.
      ?

      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.