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 Church-Turing thesis establishes model-invariance for computability, but no analogous thesis has been proven for computational complexity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Polynomial-time equivalence across reasonable models (RAM, Turing machines, circuits) is empirically robust, suggesting implicit complexity-level invariance exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Church-Turing thesis itself lacks formal proof—it's a conceptual claim. Complexity invariance may simply require different validation methods, not impossibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Encoding overhead (log-factor polynomials) are bounded across standard models, establishing practical model-invariance sufficient for complexity theory's purposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All known Turing-complete models (lambda calculus, register machines, etc.) compute identical function classes, validating Church-Turing's universality claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Complexity classes vary across models: polynomial-time on RAM differs from polynomial-time on Turing machines, preventing unified complexity theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.P vs NP remains open precisely because no complexity thesis guarantees hardness properties transfer across computational models and encodings.
      ?

      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.