3 ms·
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 behav
by AnonymousXipang 9mo 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_state 9mo agoI'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?
- AnonymousXipang 9mo 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.