[Dor_Elbaz]

I’m an undergrad student in Computer Science and I’ve been working on a new theoretical model — the Perfect Concurrency (PC) model — that tries to approach the P vs NP problem from a new angle.

The model assumes infinite parallelism and zero overhead, isolating only the total amount of “logical work” an algorithm must perform. Even in this idealized setting, I prove that for all sufficiently large n, any correct algorithm solving SAT must perform Ω(2ⁿ) total work. Then, using a simulation lemma, I show that this lower bound implies SAT ∉ P, and therefore P ≠ NP.

The argument avoids known barriers like relativization, natural proofs, and algebrization. It’s formal, self-contained, and includes two appendices: one for cross-validation against known results, and one FAQ addressing common objections.

Here is Version 3 of the paper, incorporating all revisions and reviewer feedback so far: https://zenodo.org/records/15263845

I’d be thrilled to hear what you think — and grateful for any feedback, critiques, or questions.

— Dor Elbaz

[mika6996]

Has your paper been peer-reviewed by leading scientists?

[Dor_Elbaz]

Not yet. I’ve just publicly released Version 3 of the paper, which addresses all prior critiques and includes formal proofs, simulation lemmas, and a cross-validation appendix.

It’s currently being submitted to the ECCC and arXiv for formal review. I’ve also reached out to a few experts (including Scott Aaronson) and am actively seeking feedback.

I’d be thrilled to hear any comments or critiques you might have — peer review begins with open dialogue. Thanks for asking.

[taylodl]

Has your paper been peer-reviewed by your own computer science department? As an undergraduate, you're much more likely to get their attention and consideration than you are to get the attention and consideration of experts who don't know you and have no association with you. If your paper looks good, your computer science department will know the next steps in getting it circulated and guide the process.

[Dor_Elbaz]

That’s a fair question. I’ve chosen to pursue this work independently because, in my experience, the academic environment I’m currently part of tends to be quite conservative when it comes to unconventional research — especially from undergraduates. I felt the work might not be given fair consideration internally due to its nontraditional model and the fact that it challenges a major open problem.

Instead, I’ve focused on making the argument as rigorous and transparent as possible, including formal proofs, a detailed appendix cross-validating the claims, and a public release for community scrutiny. I’m actively reaching out to experts in the field and submitting the work to appropriate venues.

If it becomes necessary to route through institutional channels — for example, to access formal peer review or academic endorsement — I’ll consider that step as well. For now, I’m hoping the merit of the argument will invite critical engagement on its own.

[taylodl]

Let me introduce you to "the game." You're an undergraduate, that means you're a nobody. You need to convince a "somebody" to consider your case and become the advocate. That's why I'm suggesting starting with your own computer science department. If they don't have any time on their docket, they may contact their colleagues from other universities whom they know may be interested in this problem.

Firing into the ether isn't the best way to go. I realize you'd like to believe that good ideas will rise on their own merit, but there's way too much being published for that to work. These people generally use one another to filter through the large volume of papers being published. When a colleague says hey, you should take a look at this, they tend to listen.

[mika6996]

This. Your work is very likely to be unintentionally ignored by the mass of work on this topic.