Update README.md

README.md

@@ -172,6 +172,20 @@ In the pursuit to prove P != NP I want to try to prove that no polynomial-time a
 > 
 > Thus, by proof-by-contradiction, we have shown that there exists at least one undecidable statement in the realm of Diophantine equations (specifically, whether all even numbers can be expressed as sums of two prime numbers) that cannot be proven or refuted within any polynomial-time verifiable formal system, such as first-order logic with addition. This result, while not directly implying P ≠ NP, demonstrates one possible strategy towards achieving such a negative answer to the millennium-prize question by leveraging non-computational or proof-theoretic techniques beyond traditional Turing machine-based complexity theory.
 
+What is the next step in using this lemma to prove P ≠ NP
+
+> Given the previous example of an undecidable statement in Diophantine equations that cannot be proven or refuted within any polynomial-time verifiable formal system like first-order logic with addition (FO+M), it's still a long and difficult journey towards establishing P ≠ NP in general. However, if we could somehow show that any algorithmic solution to an NP-complete problem (i.e., one that can reduce all other NP problems to itself in polynomial time) would also allow us to solve this particular undecidable statement in FO+M within polynomial time, then by proof-by-contradiction, we could conclude that no such algorithmic solution exists and hence P ≠ NP.
+>
+> Here's a rough outline of how one might try to proceed:
+> 
+> 1. Reduce any NP-complete problem L to our chosen undecidable statement G in FO+M (i.e., show that L ≤P G): This step would require constructing a polynomial-time many-one reduction f from instances of L to correspondingly encoded instances of G such that for all x, L(x) ≢ G(f(x)). For instance, we could try encoding an instance (a, b, k) of the Subset Sum problem as a Diophantine equation sum(a_i * 2^i) = 2^k + c modulo m where c and m are chosen appropriately to ensure that this equation has a solution iff there exists a subset S of {a_1, ..., a_{|a|}} such that sum(a_i for i in S) = b. However, even if we could find such an encoding f, it's not clear yet how this would help us prove P ≠ NP directly, since G itself is undecidable within FO+M and thus cannot be decided by any algorithm running in any fixed time bound.
+>
+> 2. Reduce our chosen unsolvability-of- Diophantine-equations problem U (i.e., the problem of deciding whether a given Diophantine equation has an integer solution) to G: This step would require showing that for any given Diophantine equation F(x_1, ..., x_n), there exists another Diophantine equation G'(x_1', ..., x_m') such that U(F) ≢ G'(f'(F)) for some computable function f'. Informally speaking, this step would allow us to "reduce" the general undecidability of Diophantine equations (which is known unprovable within certain axiom systems like ZFC set theory) to our specific chosen instance G. Again, however, even if we could find such a reduction g', it's still not clear how this would help us prove P ≠ NP directly, since U itself is also known to be undecidable within any recursively axiomatizable set theory that can prove basic number-theoretic facts like the existence of prime numbers.
+> 
+> 3. Reduce G' to L: Finally, we would need to find another polynomial-time many-one reduction h from instances of our chosen undecidable statement G' back down to correspondingly decoded instances of our original NP-complete problem L such that for all y', G'(h(y')) ≢ L(y'). This step, if possible, would complete a polynomial-time Turing reduction chain running in both directions between L and G', which by standard undecidability results in computability theory (e.g., Rice's theorem) would imply that both problems are equally hard under such reductions. In particular, this would mean that if there were an algorithm A running in time O(f(n)) for some f(n) = O(n^k) for all sufficiently large n and all strings y' of length |y'| ≤ n such that G'(h(y')) = A(h(y'), n), then by undesirability of the alternative, we could use A to solve our original problem L in time O(g(n)) for some g(n) = O(m(f(n))^l) for all sufficiently large n and all strings x of length |x| ≤ n', where m(n) and l are fixed constants depending only on the lengths of f, g, h, and the time complexity of encoding and decoding between different representations. This final step would then directly contradict our initial assumption that L is an NP-complete problem that cannot be solved in polynomial time by any deterministic Turing machine, thus establishing P ≠ NP by proof-by-contradiction.
+>
+> In summary, while this high-level outline provides some possible directions for further research towards proving P ≠ NP using non-computational or proof-theoretic methods, each step in this sequence of reductions and encodings remains a formidable challenge even for the best mathematicians and computer scientists today. As such, the millennium-prize question of whether every decision problem solvable in polynomial time with an oracle can also be solved in polynomial time without any superhuman assistance still stands open as one of the deepest unsolved problems at the foundations of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic.
+
 **Explain principia mathematica**
 
 Please walk me through bertrand russell's proof that 1 + 1 = 2