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
    Yessenin-Volpin explicitly states that feasible numbers s... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Feasible numbers should not be closed under exponentiation under strict finitism.

    Yessenin-Volpin explicitly states that feasible numbers should not be regarded as closed under exponentiation.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Feasible numbers should not be closed under exponentiation under strict finitism...The paradigm examples of infeasible numbers given by strict finitists employ exp...Van Dantzig holds feasible numbers are closed under addition and multiplication,...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Yessenin-Volpin explicitly states that feasible numbers should not be ...99%Yessenin-Volpin (1970) explicitly stated that feasible numbers should ...96%Van Dantzig holds that feasible numbers are closed under addition and ...94%Van Dantzig holds feasible numbers are closed under addition and multi...92%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    Nonetheless, Parikh showed that for appropriate choices of \(\tau\), any proof of a contradiction in \(\mathsf{PA}^F\) must itself be very long. For instance, if we consider the super-exponential function \(2 \Uparrow 0 = 1\) and \(2 \Uparrow (x+1) = 2^{2 \Uparrow x}\) and let \(\tau\) be the primitive recursive term \(2 \Uparrow 2^k\), it is a consequence of Parikh’s result that any proof of a contradiction in \(\mathsf{PA}^F\) must be on the order of \(2^k\) steps long. e. non-vague) property

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective