Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The inference from known endpoint separations (L⊊PSPACE, P⊊EXP) to an intermediate proper inclusion commits the fallacy of assuming transitivity of witness.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Transitivity of ⊊ is valid set-theoretically; the claim conflates a proof technique with the logical relation itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Known separations (oracles, diagonalization limits) actually constrain intermediate class positions without requiring 'intermediate witnesses.'
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The fallacy diagnosis conflates assumptions about proof methods with illegitimate inferences about the classes themselves.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Knowing A⊊B and B⊊C permits only that A⊊C; intermediate containments require separate witness constructions, not transitivity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A witness separating L from PSPACE differs fundamentally from a witness separating PSPACE from EXP; conflating them commits category error.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The logical structure P⊊EXP doesn't constrain PSPACE's position without explicit lower bounds, making its intermediate status unwarranted.
?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42