# What if solving P vs NP revealed a contradiction?

Let's just say that some person discovered that $$P = NP$$ implies $$P \neq NP$$ and $$P \neq NP$$ implies $$P = NP$$, and we don't know what is causing this contradiction, And this was a valid proof that was accepted. What would the consequences of this be? This would probably be the least likely outcome of the P vs NP question. But one I don't see talked about.

• It's not talked much about because it's the same as saying that $1 = 2$. A more realistic scenario is that neither $P=NP$ nor $P \neq NP$ can be proved in ZFC. That's called P vs NP being independent of our current axiomatic system. Jan 9 at 16:07
• @PålGD we can't rule out that we discover a contradiction in ZFC or even Peano Arithmetic(Though there is some proof that its consistent relative to another set of axioms, but that set has not been proven consistent yet.). Or it could be something as simple as we made a mistake in some other random computer science axiom or some theorem's proof had a subtle but deep error no one has figured out yet. Jan 9 at 20:31

If you have a proof that $$(P=NP)\Leftrightarrow (P\not= NP)$$ then $$P=NP$$ is proveable is equivalent to $$P\not= NP$$ is provable. This would mean that neither $$P=NP$$ nor $$P\not= NP$$ is provable.
But if there would be a proof, that $$P=NP$$ is not provable then it would be proven that one cannot find an efficient algorithm for SAT or any other $$NP$$-complete problem. This would mean that $$P \not= NP$$. So, if $$P$$ versus $$NP$$ is independent from math then this would not be provable, too.