Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The claim that proof techniques are insufficient conflates contingent cryptographic assumptions with necessary logical limitations on mathematical method.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Cryptographic hardness *is* a necessary logical limitation when operating within bounded computational resources, not merely contingent.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Cryptographic hardness depends on unproven conjectures (P≠NP); logical limitations are independent of any computational assumptions.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.