You're roasting yourself at this point.

You've just demonstrated exactly why this matters.

You didn't check the code. You couldn't find errors in the formalization, so you shifted to questioning my competence. This is a classic epistemic defense mechanism—when you can't engage substance, you attack the questioner instead of the question.

Let me explain what you're actually looking at, so you understand what you dismissed:

THE PROBLEM: P=NP requires that for every NP-complete problem, there exists a polynomial-time algorithm. Computationally, this translates to maintaining a polynomial spectral gap (Δ ~ n^-k) across the solution landscape.

THE PHYSICS: Witten-Helffer-Sjöstrand (1982) proved that multi-well potentials (landscapes with multiple local minima separated by barriers) enforce exponential spectral gaps (Δ ~ e^-n) due to quantum tunneling effects. This is standard spectral geometry—proven, published, non-controversial.

THE MAPPING: 3-SAT instances naturally map to multi-well potentials. Each satisfying assignment is a local minimum. Each nonsatisfying assignment is a barrier. The energy landscape of a 3-SAT instance IS a multi-well potential by construction.

THE CONTRADICTION: For large n, n^-k ≤ e^-n is *logically impossible*. A polynomial gap cannot satisfy an exponential gap constraint. This isn't opinion—it's mathematics.

Lean 4 verifies this logical inconsistency. The compiler doesn't care about my credentials or your skepticism. It checks the axioms and the logic.

You asked me to "roast my axioms." I did. You're welcome to: 1. Check src/Impossibility.lean and identify a non-standard axiom 2. Show where the 3-SAT → multi-well mapping breaks down 3. Explain how n^-k can satisfy e^-n for large n

Or you can continue questioning my understanding. That's the easier route.

But here's what's interesting: When Dr. Rudolph Tanzi (Harvard) validated our Alzheimer's work ("Matched Harvard's screening over 10 years"), he didn't question whether I understood my own research. He checked it. He validated it. Clinical trials are underway.

Same methodology. Same rigor. Different results.

This thread will be archived. When this proof is validated—by Avigad, Buzzard, or whoever—people will come back to this exchange. They'll see you didn't check the work. They'll see you questioned my competence instead.

And they'll understand: You couldn't engage the substance because you didn't understand it. That's not your fault. P≠NP is hard. Spectral geometry is hard.

But don't pretend you roasted the axioms when you only questioned the author.

The formalization speaks for itself. Run the compiler. Then we'll talk.