CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Aug 04, 2026

What Syntax Cannot See: The Dynamic Syntactic Invariance Principle and Several Instances of the Same Hidden Assumption, and a Contradiction

arXiv Security Archived Aug 04, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2608.00958v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper develops a single method, find what an accepted result silently assumed, make it a variable, and prove what follows once it is dropped, and shows it keeps working across domains with nothing in common. Its formal core is the Dynamic Syntactic Invariance Principle: a known static inaccessibility result survives when a system's rules evolve in time, under one sharp necessary condition. A direct cryptographic payoff follows: the secrecy of

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 2 Aug 2026] What Syntax Cannot See: The Dynamic Syntactic Invariance Principle and Several Instances of the Same Hidden Assumption, and a Contradiction Fabio F.G. Buono This paper develops a single method, find what an accepted result silently assumed, make it a variable, and prove what follows once it is dropped, and shows it keeps working across domains with nothing in common. Its formal core is the Dynamic Syntactic Invariance Principle: a known static inaccessibility result survives when a system's rules evolve in time, under one sharp necessary condition. A direct cryptographic payoff follows: the secrecy of a rolling-key scheme persists across sessions under a structural update, strengthening a static guarantee from earlier work. The same move is then carried into settings far from each other, special relativity, the reach of a formal theory of physical law, and computable output that is fully meaningful yet indistinguishable from noise to every observer, each established on its own terms, so the recurring structure beneath them is found, not imposed: a distinction real at a full level of description can be invisible at a restricted one. Applied to \textsc{SAT}, this yields a contradiction from which coherence forces P≠NP , derived from what standard theory already admits rather than assumed,offered with one reservation, about the proof, not the answer. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO) Cite as: arXiv:2608.00958 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2608.00958v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.00958 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Fabio Francesco Gabriele Buono [view email] [v1] Sun, 2 Aug 2026 03:10:44 UTC (122 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.LO References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Aug 04, 2026
    Archived
    Aug 04, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗