I'm sorry, incoherent was a little mean. I do find it very hard to follow though I think the main problem is you are using terms wrong. When i was reading i wa

I'm sorry, incoherent was a little mean. I do find it very hard to follow though I think the main problem is you are using terms wrong. When i was reading i was substituting correct meanings in, and then getting confused when nothing you said made sense. Some examples: * using incorrect/misleading definitions of terms, e.g. consider the first sentence of section 2: > The difference between “p” and “np” hinges on the difference between solving problems without solutions, and checking if given solutions solve a problem There is a certain sense this is true, but its very misleading because it doesn't mention time. The amount of time taken is very key here. If you don't account for that, there is no difference between np vs p. As another example > Therefore, it is almost surely possible to convert “np” problems into “p” problems: generate candidate solutions from the problem itself, then check them. Suggests you don't know what NP means, since (speaking informally) one of the definitions of NP is the set of problems that could be solved that way in polynomial time if you had a computer that was good at guessing. > The antithesis to “p != np” is “p equals np” which implies all “np” problems are exactly equally easy to solve as all “p” problems This is just a straight up false statement. P=NP means that NP problems are no harder than the hardest problem in P. It doesn't mean exactly equal. > We generate secret keys using problems we believe are easy to check, but hard to solve (“np”), because we support the thesis “p != np” RSA is not known to be np-complete. P!=NP does not imply RSA is secure. ----- Anyways, i think fundamentally you basically redefined np to be something that is equal to p, and used circular logic to prove that it was (e.g. you talk about generating a "category" of simple correct solutions to an NP problem, and just presume you can do that. Well obviously if you had a polynomial time algorithm to do that, P=NP because the entire question is whether it is possible to do such a thing)