Re: Yet another contribution to the P-NP question

'Superset of NP' is a problem.
>

Why is this so? I think that so long as the inclusion and exclusion
properties pan out, it should be fine.

Why not just give an example L, such that L∈NP and L∉P.

Mostly because of the strategy I use. If I present an L, and I say that
that L is not in P because there are a metric ton of choices that need
checking, I have to show (beyond any reasonable doubt) that all those
choices need checking.
But if I work backwards and define a situation where I think that there
is no way to avoid checking all cases (e.g., a conjunction of a priori
undecided statements), then I think I can make a better argument.
But working backwards does not lead us to the same starting points of P
and NP, so when I re-run the argument from the precedents, I need to
define new notions.