Sorry, the key point is that the assertion: "Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B" does not necessar

Sorry, the key point is that the assertion: "Therefore, P is not equal to NP, is true and provable in a simply consistent extension B" of B" does not necessarily imply P \neq NP (the caveat being the B" and B stuff). I'm not really a complexity theory guy, but I would say WHP that this either (a) does not apply to the most general forms of computation (e.g., what people mean when they ask P =? NP) (b) is wrong