Randomized trial confirms VP ≠ VNP using representation-theoretic and algebraic methods, indicating key implications in computational complexity.
We establish VP ≠ VNP via a self-contained obstruction combining representation-theoretic and computational-algebraic methods, requiring no unproved conjecture. The central object is the canonical complexity polynomial f𝒰(3) = perm(M𝒰(3)), defined by the Strong Complete Instance Access Property (CIAP⁺) applied to irredundant 2-SAT instances. Three geometric results are proved: the Exact Stabilizer Formula dim(StabGL₉(f𝒰(3))) = 31; the Rigidity Theorem ℂ[𝒱𝒰]d ≅ s(d)⊕3 as GL₃-modules for all d ≥ 3; and Uniform Generation, showing that Im is generated in degree 3 for all m ≥ 3, proved via an explicit seed construction and row-profile distance argument verified computationally for m = 3, 4, 5. The Trivial-Multiplicity Obstruction then compares two coordinate rings under the row action of GL₃ on ℂm² induced by the inclusion GL₉ ⊂ GLm². For the cylindrical SAT variety, the Rigidity Theorem gives multiplicity k(d) = 3 copies of s(d,0,0) at every degree d ≥ 3. For the determinant, the row action of GL₃ on ℂm² preserves no nonzero polynomial supported on the first-row variables alone within any GLm²-translate of detm, giving k(d) = 0 for every d ≥ 1 and every polynomial m. Complete reducibility then makes the inequality 0 ≥ 3 a contradiction under any hypothetical orbit containment. Since f𝒰(n) ∈ VNP as a p-projection of the permanent, this gives f𝒰(n) ∉ VP and therefore VP ≠ VNP. This paper is a self-contained extraction of the central result of the full technical report (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20950127). The full report contains the entanglement spectrum, orbital stratification within NPC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gilberto Ismael Ramirez (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: