Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

I am, of course, very thankful that I, at least, have people to critique
me and interact with what I have done. I also understand that time is a
scarce resource, and there is no obligation to give me the benefit of
the doubt especially as I have not written the paper in any way that is
conventional.
It may also be the case that there are simpler ways to say the things I
have to say, and I am all for saying things as simply as possible
without compromising what is meant to be said. But I think that to
communicate what I mean to say with any accuracy, I would always have to
refer to the paper.
I guess technically I don't: whatever I can say in one language, I
should be able to say in any other. But I feel it would be more
expensive, inefficient and inaccurate to begin translation when I'm not
even sure of the lingua franca in vogue. I end up writing novellas
without being certain I've even made the point I'm trying to make.
What I'm suggesting then, is that, time permitting, might a better
strategy be for us to go through the document point by point (making
notes, asking for clarifications, giving critiques, etc.), and then when
we encounter an obstacle preventing us from going any further, we assess
whether there is a path forward or whether the entire thing is dead?
I'm in no hurry and can discuss a point over 2 weeks if that's what
works, but I've written so much, and I don't know how much I've
communicated.