Theoretical exploration shows finite-grain blindness creates challenges in decision problems, suggesting deeper structural insights are necessary.
Why do so many promising approaches to P vs NP fail before they even begin to touch the real difficulty? This paper proposes a new structural answer. Instead of treating P vs NP only as a question about algorithms or proof techniques, it studies the entire space of decision problems through a topology induced by finite-grain computational observability. In this setting, P and NP appear as stable regions, while the true difficulty is localized on their boundary. The first main result is a no-go theorem: every monotone separator determined at a finite observational level is necessarily blind exactly where the separation problem lives. This isolates a common structural core behind broad families of limited approaches. The paper then takes the next natural step: if no finite level is enough, what happens when one passes to the full inverse-limit completion of the observational tower? The answer is striking. The obstruction does not automatically disappear. At the completion level, the problem becomes one of canonicity: even when all compatible finite observations are assembled, the resulting object may still fail to admit a canonical realization. The contribution is therefore twofold: it identifies finite-grain blindness as a topological obstruction; it shows that the natural limit object of the filtration may preserve the difficulty as failure of canonical realization. This does not resolve P vs NP. It does something different and important: it sharpens the structural description of what any successful approach would have to overcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fabrizio De Palma (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: