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 PRAM model is not considered a reasonable model of co... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The PRAM model is not considered a reasonable model of computation

    Proof of definition segmentsSkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A PRAM machine can simulate a non-deterministic Turing machine by recruiting sufficiently many processors to carry out all computation paths in parallel
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This places the PRAM in van Emde Boas's second machine class, which is not considered a reasonable model of computation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reasonableness of a computational model is relative to the physical substrate being modeled, not an absolute classification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Massively parallel architectures like GPUs and neural hardware increasingly approximate PRAM's concurrent memory access assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Van Emde Boas's machine class taxonomy was developed before modern parallel computing architectures made PRAM-like behavior physically realizable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The ability to simulate non-deterministic Turing machines efficiently is a feature, not a disqualification, if one's criterion for reasonableness is computational power relative to physical resources.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conflating 'unreasonable for sequential complexity theory' with 'unreasonable as a model of computation' commits a category error about the purpose of machine models.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismProof of definition segments

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge2 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A PRAM machine can simulate a non-deterministic Turing machine by recruiting suf...Conflating 'unreasonable for sequential complexity theory' with 'unreasonable as...Massively parallel architectures like GPUs and neural hardware increasingly appr...Reasonableness of a computational model is relative to the physical substrate be...
    +3 moreShow less
    The ability to simulate non-deterministic Turing machines efficiently is a featu...This places the PRAM in van Emde Boas's second machine class, which is not consi...Van Emde Boas's machine class taxonomy was developed before modern parallel comp...

    Similar

    A PRAM machine is not a reasonable model of computation92%PRAM machines are not considered a reasonable model of computation91%BHP's difficulty may be of little practical significance because BHP i...83%This places the PRAM in van Emde Boas's second machine class, which is...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    Consider, for instance the following variation on the standard rules of Go: (i) the game is played on an \(n \times n\) board; (ii) the winner of the game is the player with the most stones at the end of \(n^2\) rounds. e. the player who moves first)? [30] What these games have in common is that the definition of a winning strategy for the player who moves first involves the alternation of existential and universal quantifiers in a manner which mimics the definition of the classes \(\Sigma^P_n\)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit