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:
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.
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?
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
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.
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?