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•4w 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?
AnonymousXipang•3w 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_state•4w 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:
AnonymousXipang•4w ago
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•4w ago
AnonymousXipang•3w ago
If you want to explore it further, a place more suited to longer, multi-angle discussion would probably work better than here.