People like Scott Aaronson who spouse this view use it as a fundamental reason why NP=P should be false. The problem is exactly that it is a flawed argument. It could be an argument for the impossibility of finding "efficient" algorithms, but this is not what P=NP is about. For all we know, some problems in P could be so difficult as to preclude any practical algorithm.
> For all we know, some problems in P could be so difficult as to preclude any practical algorithm.
You can actually prove that given any (concrete) subclass of P that there is a language in both in P and harder, by a simple application of the time hierarchy theorem.
That's true: it's essentially conflating "efficient" meaning in polynomial time with "efficient" in the colloquial sense. Still is enough to make me skeptical!
I am in no way saying that this indicates that P=NP, so I am also skeptic. I am just pointing out that you should be skeptic for the right reasons, not because of a misused argument.
