We are currently working on new rules for what content should and shouldn't be allowed on this website, and are looking for feedback! See Esolang:2026 topicality proposal to view and give feedback on the current draft.
Talk:Computational reducibility
If this were coherent then this should be folded into existing pages on computational complexity. But it's not even coherent! Corbin (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
My mistake. I felt the wiki needing a note about it, but its definitely a struggle to present the relevant facets. Miui (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, what was the angle that you wanted to portray? Cobordisms are plenty interesting but ultimately a distraction, as the category of (1D) cobordisms isn't the category of NP-complete problems and certainly isn't a Turing category or computational universe. We do care about computational class (see also list of complexity classes, Turing-complete, NP-complete) and monoid rank, because those are properties of languages and this wiki is about languages.
I also wonder whether this is Wolfram-coded. Computer scientists usually use terms like "reduction" or "reduced" to discuss reductions, while Wolfram uses "irreducible" or "reducibility". One of your citations is to Jonathan Gorard, a known Wolfram collaborator. On this wiki, when documenting concepts, we try to avoid crackpots and plagiarists; while Gorard himself is fine, Wolfram is not. Corbin (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)