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