Article View: sci.logic
Article #511Re: Logic and Mathematicians
From: Vaughan R. Pratt
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:30
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:30
9 lines
1038 bytes
1038 bytes
In article <1992Nov16.165221.5725@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes: >This is exactly what I was thinking about. There would also have to >be some algorithm that one could not prove to not be in P. Would this >algorithm have to be "objectively" in P? P consists of sets, not algorithms. A slow algorithm says nothing about the complexity of the set it accepts. -- Vaughan Pratt A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Nov16.193017.25867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Sunburn.Stanford.EDU!prattReferences:
<1992Nov15.191744.17481@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Nov16.050846.15982@infodev.cam.ac.uk> <1992Nov16.165221.5725@guinness.idbsu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Sunburn.Stanford.EDU!pratt From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) Subject: Re: Logic and Mathematicians Message-ID: <1992Nov16.193017.25867@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. References: <1992Nov15.191744.17481@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Nov16.050846.15982@infodev.cam.ac.uk> <1992Nov16.165221.5725@guinness.idbsu.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:30:17 GMT Lines: 9