AnonymousXipanga month ago
This is not a proof or a claimed solution.
The manuscript attempts to point out that one syntactic assumption inside the standard P vs NP formulation may behave inconsistently when it is expanded structurally.
I would appreciate refutation, counterexamples, or clarification from those familiar with complexity theory or formal logic.
- suspended_statea month ago
  I'm not sure I understand this article, but the argument you present seems to be that when considering P and NP as relational objects, they don't have the same signature, thus cannot be compared, so the statement "P = NP" is meaningless?
  - AnonymousXipang22 days ago
    “Not comparable” doesn’t necessarily mean “meaningless.” Focusing on the structure behind “=” can give a different view.
    If you want to explore it further, a place more suited to longer, multi-angle discussion would probably work better than here.
suspended_statea month ago
You should probably have linked the whole work which is briefly referenced at the end of the article, and isn't yet indexed by search engines. I found it by myself:
https://zenodo.org/records/18107880