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 Cobham-Edmonds Thesis conflates mathematical tractability with physical feasibility by ignoring the magnitude of polynomial constants and exponents.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The thesis distinguishes feasibility classes precisely because polynomial-time algorithms typically have reasonable constants in practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Exponential algorithms are uniformly worse across problem instances; polynomial algorithms scale differently, making the distinction meaningful.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Criticizing P for ignoring constants conflates descriptive theory with prescriptive engineering—they serve different purposes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A polynomial algorithm with exponent 100 is computationally infeasible despite being 'tractable' by complexity theory standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Physical constraints (time, energy, hardware limits) depend on actual constants, not just asymptotic behavior as n→∞.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Complexity classes conflate theoretical computability with practical solvability, misleading resource allocation in engineering.
?
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.