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 restriction to finite model theory means SO-exists captures NP only under a non-standard semantics that smuggles in finiteness as a hidden assumption.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Finiteness isn't 'hidden'—it's an explicit parameter of finite model theory as a stated mathematical framework, not a smuggled assumption.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The NP-SO correspondence is a meaningful mathematical result *within* finite model theory; results needn't apply universally to be valuable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
All practical computation involves finite structures; restricting semantics to finite models aligns theory with the problems it claims to address.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Second-order logic without finiteness restriction can express properties (like well-foundedness) unprovable in any recursively enumerable system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
NP-completeness is defined only for finite inputs; extending SO to infinite models changes the problem class fundamentally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Standard semantics for SO allows quantification over all subsets; finite model theory artificially restricts this to make results tractable.
?
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.