there is mountains written on the P vs NP problem. its a great/awesome/formidable/worthwhile problem to study. many or even most people working or studying CS have some interest in it. but, many neophytes get interested thinking it might be like other problems they have encountered from their experience. it is deceptive that way. easy to state, very difficult to prove. there are many problems like that in math and computer science. some pros in the field even call them "diseases" for this & related reasons.
its of course impossible to read a large part of all that is written on P vs NP. however, there are many good surveys. there are basics about the problem that even neophytes should be aware of and can learn without too much trouble. it can be approached. one should realize that many basic questions about P vs NP have already been asked in the literature or in these forums. search for the related questions.
questions do not exist here out of a background context. there are a few experts that "hang out" in these forums. they notice who is asking what questions and what their backgrounds are. if you dont follow up on their answers, they will begin to think they are wasting their time answering your questions. this includes reading and familiarizing yourself with the basics on the problem. actually much of it can be found on wikipedia. if you dont read anything outside of what is posted in these forums (esp on an extremely challenging problem of this type), your attitude will be judged as not serious and you will only continue to frustrate yourself & others in their interactions with you & the spirit of generosity in cyberspace will only be degraded over time...
"you have to crawl/walk before you can run" applies in the CS field as in any other field.
for example here are a few basics that one should be able to answer before attempting to work on P vs NP
what is the page on the internet that lists flawed proofs? have you looked at any on this list? how many are on this list? have you found any errors in them? do you think your talent exceeds those who have written them?
answer basic questions about big-oh O(n) notation. for example, explain why if it is known that a program runs in O(n^k) time, it is not guaranteed that one can also run it in O(n^(k-1)) time.
be aware of the cook-levin proof and be able to describe roughly how it works.
stuff like this is all taught in basic undergraduate courses (and what arrogance/narcissism would make anyone think they have anything to contribute on it if they havent even passed an undergraduate CS course...?)