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 oracle separation results of Baker, Gill, and Solovay... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→P equals coP

    The oracle separation results of Baker, Gill, and Solovay (1975) demonstrate that P=coP holds relative to some oracles and fails relative to others, undermining any purely structural proof.

    ?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.Oracle separations reveal that proof techniques depending only on abstract structural properties cannot settle P vs coP, limiting purely axiomatic approaches.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The existence of oracles where P≠coP shows these complexity classes are fundamentally different in some models, suggesting structural arguments alone are insufficient.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.BGS results establish that any resolution of P=coP must use non-relativizing techniques exploiting concrete computational properties, not generic reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Oracle results show which proof techniques fail, not that structural proofs are impossible—natural models may still permit structural arguments unavailable relativistically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim conflates 'relativizing proofs don't work' with 'structural proofs don't work,' but non-relativizing structural arguments could still exist and succeed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.BGS demonstrates limitations of one proof paradigm, not that all structural reasoning about complexity classes is futile or fundamentally undermined by oracles.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Baker, Gill, and Solovay(historical reference in complexity theory)
    Three computer scientists who published an important 1975 paper proving that certain fundamental questions in complexity theory cannot be solved by looking at simplified versions of the problem—a major limitation on what we can prove about computational difficulty.
    Oracle (in computational complexity)(as used in computer science and mathematical logic)
    A hypothetical all-knowing helper that can instantly answer specific questions, used by computer scientists to test whether certain problems are fundamentally different from each other.
    P=coP(computational complexity theory)
    A proposed equality between two classes of computational problems—P (problems solvable quickly) and coP (problems whose 'no' answers are verifiable quickly). The statement questions whether these two categories are actually the same.
    Purely structural proof(as used in mathematical proof theory)
    A proof that tries to solve a problem just by looking at how things are organized or put together, without needing extra information or tools.
    Relative to an oracle(as a testing method in theoretical computer science)
    Meaning 'in a hypothetical scenario where we have a magic helper that answers certain questions'—used to test ideas under different conditions.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    BGS demonstrates limitations of one proof paradigm, not that all structural reas...BGS results establish that any resolution of P=coP must use non-relativizing tec...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Oracle results show which proof techniques fail, not that structural proofs are ...
    Oracle separations reveal that proof techniques depending only on abstract struc...
    +3 moreShow less
    P equals coPThe claim conflates 'relativizing proofs don't work' with 'structural proofs don...The existence of oracles where P≠coP shows these complexity classes are fundamen...