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 that proof techniques are insufficient conflate... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of currently known proof techniques.

    The claim that proof techniques are insufficient conflates contingent cryptographic assumptions with necessary logical limitations on mathematical method.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Cryptographic hardness depends on unproven conjectures (P≠NP); logical limitations are independent of any computational assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Gödel's incompleteness concerns formal system expressiveness, not the power of proof techniques given sufficient axioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating these categories obscures that some mathematical problems lack proofs due to axiom choice, not method inadequacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Cryptographic hardness *is* a necessary logical limitation when operating within bounded computational resources, not merely contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinction between contingent and necessary breaks down: no proof technique succeeds without some implicit assumptions about the world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming proof techniques suffice requires showing all true statements are provable—a claim Gödel refuted for any consistent formal system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A proof of P ≠ NP is beyond the reach of currently known proof techniques.Claiming proof techniques suffice requires showing all true statements are prova...Conflating these categories obscures that some mathematical problems lack proofs...Cryptographic hardness *is* a necessary logical limitation when operating within...
    +3 moreShow less
    Cryptographic hardness depends on unproven conjectures (P≠NP); logical limitatio...Gödel's incompleteness concerns formal system expressiveness, not the power of p...The distinction between contingent and necessary breaks down: no proof technique...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit