I'm currently working on the full proof to my p vs np solution.
working on the paper I've spotted the follow on question to my proof.
all I'm solving in my proof is that the p vs np problem is a relativistic convergent paradox.
In my proof i should be able to prove that with enough time a relative p solution can be found.
This is crazy people might say why with bonic we could solve the riemann hypothesis and all end up with free wifi.
apart from the fact that issue is already a problem as all the current state and counter state hacking is demonstrating there is an even more critical p vs np problem not required to be solved in the melennium prize.

The p vs np avoidence and exclusion problem.
The problem goes like this say you were a programing hacking syndicate and you got your hands on a basic np too relative p solution finder package. you've only got 50 computers between you hacking other computers would arouse suspicion and you don't have the kind of resources the state has to generate counter attacks sniff you out and arrest you soon after your strike. lets say the east and west have settled a lot of differences and your a rouge group that just wants to expose financial abuse. well your np to relative p convergence package might get lucky if you all get your heads together and relate the encryption problem well with the convergence software this is true a spark of inginuity this time might get you quicker to a quick relative p all you need to do this time round is find a relative p for a particular rule 30 cellular automata.
you keep trying attempt after attempt and although your software is converging on a relative p solution your making little headway.
you end up trying to solve the problem using ever more of the problem to solve further stages of the problem and after a while it begins to help your quest but your relative p convergent is already slowing down your abilities.
suddenly a member of the group decides to test for modulations relative to 2^n and after a while you strike it lucky you find an actual relative p that only requires a low step increase of rule 30 ca that is relativly less the higher you go up the steps your relative p is predicting.
you do your hack and the financial group changes the complexity with something else with their step system your just about to give up when someone says what if you could make a np to relative p solver that converges on an optimal convergence you know converge on converging then someone says if we do that theyll just keep upping the complexity until our computers gain no benefit there the ones capable of working with high levels of complexity not us although well keep improving so will they.
Then a 15 yr old bright spark in the group says hang on you might be right if our software can converge on an optimal use of avoidence and exclusion during convergence of np to relative p's then eventually even my phone would kick the arse off the state super computers.

Theres no proof either way man the hippy of the group points out.

so could computing keep getting ever more efficient with p vs np issues yes is the answer but how alive could a smart phone seem working with live data and new data based intelligence yes but how much better well that depends on what the solution to
the p vs np avoidence and exclusion problem is.

so you can see its fundemental either your phone wont be a true smart phone for many years to come or maybe your phone could be in many ways as powerful as the worlds top supercomputers if people knew enough about coding but forgot to upgrade any big computers with such new level of ability.

it is entirly a possibility that if you actually knew what you were doing with that android ide that you could after a bit of programming and processing time be ready to hold the worlds powers to ransom.
it is also entirly possible that youll have to relly on others to keep up with the most efficient solutions if your lucky for ever more.
solving the original p vs np problem only proves a relative optimal and the benefits of having more power to relate with more complexity better.
the solution does not cover the optimisation of convergence very well its not a requirement of the proof and I have no idea how hard and how much extra time it would take to solve and ive already figured the orginal question out so im a writing up my paper.

lets not forget so far this is a world where the next windows and linux requires ever more powerful machines for ever less immediate relative benefit bar a few extra polygons and such we are of couse now converging on a higher degree of possible optimisation but at what rate by how much and who gets what when and how well will this machine intelligence evolve will it become more smart at being dumb and brutal or amazing or something else.