Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

Basic question: 1.What is the P and NP in the paper? 2.What kind of
contribution is to the P-NP
question?

I define supersets of P and NP, Pr and NPr, and argue that Pr != NPr.
Then I say that if P = NP, NP is in Pr, and I give an example of a
language in NP that is not in Pr.