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
    The claim 'at least one inclusion is proper' is presented... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→At least one of the inclusions among L, P, NP, PSPACE, and EXP must be proper

    The claim 'at least one inclusion is proper' is presented as established fact, yet it rests on no single proof that directly witnesses a proper inclusion within the chain L⊆P⊆NP⊆PSPACE.

    ?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.

    Key Terms

    Chain (in logic/mathematics)(as contrasted with a Boolean semilattice)
    An ordered sequence where each item clearly comes before or after every other item, like a ranked list where everything has a definite position.
    Established fact(epistemology/proof)
    Something that is presented as true or proven, without doubt.
    L, P, NP, PSPACE(computer science and mathematical logic)
    These are categories of computational problems with different difficulty levels—roughly speaking, problems get progressively harder (or possibly equally hard) as you go from L to PSPACE.
    Proper inclusion(in set theory and mathematics)
    When one set is completely contained inside another set, but they are not the same set. For example, all apples are in the fruit category, but apples are not the same as all fruits.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Witness (in logic)(as a logical concept)
    A specific example or instance that makes a statement true; for instance, the number 6 is a 'witness' to the claim that there exists a number greater than five.
    direct proof(Used in Prawitz's proof-theoretic semantics to define the standard for elimination rule justification.)
    A proof that proceeds by application of introduction rules, serving as the canonical form of proof against which elimination rules are justified.
    ⊆ (subset symbol)(mathematical notation)
    A mathematical symbol meaning 'is contained in' or 'is a part of'—so A⊆B means everything in A is also in B.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    At least one of the inclusions among L, P, NP, PSPACE, and EXP must be proper

    Details

    Type
    claim
    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