6
$\begingroup$

This question was promptly closed. It is asking about theorems which were shown to be true with probability zero.

There are some classic results in complexity theory fitting the bill. For example, relative to a random oracle, all of P,NP,coNP are different. Put differently, the theorem P=NP is true with probability zero relative to a random oracle.

I therefore propose to reopen the question.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I second this. However, a clarification of the OPs intentions would be most welcome, because as stands there is a bit too much room for interpretation for my taste. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Jun 15, 2011 at 22:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am perfectly willing to reopen the question if the OP gives some indication that he/she is aware of some sense in which the question can be made precise, or if not, if he/she is explicitly asking for such a thing. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Jun 15, 2011 at 23:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ (Re: P=NP etc) OP asked for statements "actually proven to be true". Did I miss proof of P=NP? More seriously, I think you're trying to make sense of question that doesn't really make sense as stated. Well, it's possible to invent very sophisticated interpretation of most stupid question, of course, but I don't see a point in doing so. $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Jun 15, 2011 at 23:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

The fact that you have an interpretation that is valid does not imply the question is worth reopening. For all you know, OP might be looking for something completely different.

I suggest we wait till OP clarifies and makes the necessary edits, rather than reopening and adding an answer with our own interpretation that might not help OP at all.

In general, I think one should wait for the question to be edited first (by OP, or as a consequence of OP's comments), and only then vote/flag for reopening. Prematurely adding an answer with one's own interpretation will only serve to add noise.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Two alternative courses of action: 1. Yuval could edit the question by adding "I think what's being asked is...." and then answer it; if Yuval has misinterpreted OP's intentions, OP can rollback the edit. 2. Yuval could post a new question, beginning, "Inspired by the closed question 45594, I would like to ask the following...." $\endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Jun 16, 2011 at 0:54
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @Gerry: Option 2 is much better, IMO. OP might take days to roll back and we might have a bunch of answers in the meantime which become noise after the rollback. $\endgroup$
    – Aryabhata
    Jun 16, 2011 at 1:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .