= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
benelliott comments on Reflection in Probabilistic Logic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (171)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but it seems like we have no particular reason to suppose P=NP is independent of ZFC. Unless it is independent, its probability under this scheme must already be 1 or 0, and the only way to find out which is to prove or disprove it.
I think shminux is talking about the possibility of future research addressing bounded reasoners, who could be uncertain of P=NP even if it followed from ZFC.
I fully agree that is an interesting avenue of discussion, but it doesn't look much like what the paper is offering us.