  Existing models of computation, such as a Turing machine (hereafter, TM), do
not consider the agent involved in interpreting the outcome of the computation.
We argue that a TM, or any other computation model, has no significance if its
output is not interpreted by some agent. Furthermore, we argue that including
the interpreter in the model definition sheds light on some of the difficult
problems faced in computation and mathematics. We provide an analytic process
framework to address this limitation. The framework can be overlaid on existing
concepts of computation to address many practical and philosophical concerns
such as the P vs NP problem. In addition, we argue that the P vs NP problem is
reminiscent of existing computation model which does not account for the person
that initiates the computation and interprets the intermediate and final
output. We utilize the observation that deterministic computational procedures
lack fundamental capacity to fully simulate their non-deterministic variant to
conclude that the set NP cannot be fully contained in P. Deterministic
procedure can approximate non-deterministic variant to some degree. However,
the logical implication of the fundamental differences between determinism and
non-determinism is that equivalence of the two classes is impossible to
establish.
