4 ms·

At least you could've bothered to replace the placeholders in your AI generated post. The Repo: [Link to your GitHub] The Formalization Paper: [Link to your

At least you could've bothered to replace the placeholders in your AI generated post. The Repo: [Link to your GitHub] The Formalization Paper: [Link to your Academia.edu PDF] To Reproduce: 1. git clone [repo_url] 2. lake build 3. Run `test/Verification.lean` edit: I checked your other submissions. Please stop spamming AI garbage. You aren't discovering anything. You aren't doing anything. You're simply wasting energy and computational cycles to produce meaningless bullshit.

MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago
[flagged]
MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago
[flagged]
- forgotpwd16 9mo ago
  Do you understand anything at all on what appears in the article or/and the code? If not then telling you where they're wrong is pointless. >Jerk. It's you who asked for roast.
  - MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago
    [flagged]
  - MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - forgotpwd16 9mo ago
      >Computationally, this translates to maintaining a polynomial spectral gap (Δ ~ n^-k) across the solution landscape. (1) No, it doesn't, unless additional modeling assumptions are made. >Witten-Helffer-Sjöstrand (1982) (2) Cannot find that paper. (Will elaborate on this if you link the paper and show it isn't an hallucination.) >The energy landscape of a 3-SAT instance IS a multi-well potential by construction. (3) 3-SAT admits such encoding but does not inherently possess one. >This isn't opinion—it's mathematics. The inequality is correct but irrelevant. >identify a non-standard axiom See (1)(2)(3). >Show where the 3-SAT → multi-well mapping breaks down Could write an entire essay on this but will opt out to a simple counter-example. (x1 v x2 v x3). It has no multi-well structure. >They'll see you questioned my competence instead. Since my replies aren't prompt generated, requiring thought and time to write (atop the thought and time to read/explore the content), excuse me if I am not interested in debating a chatbot on a forum. Could open ChatGPT or whatever you're using and do it myself directly if wanted to. >Run the compiler. The program codifies the axioms which've already shown they're incorrect. Hence the result is useless. All it shows is that your formalization is inconsistent.

MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago

[flagged]

MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago

[flagged]

forgotpwd16 9mo ago
Do you understand anything at all on what appears in the article or/and the code? If not then telling you where they're wrong is pointless. >Jerk. It's you who asked for roast.
- MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- MohskiBroskiAI 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - forgotpwd16 9mo ago
    >Computationally, this translates to maintaining a polynomial spectral gap (Δ ~ n^-k) across the solution landscape. (1) No, it doesn't, unless additional modeling assumptions are made. >Witten-Helffer-Sjöstrand (1982) (2) Cannot find that paper. (Will elaborate on this if you link the paper and show it isn't an hallucination.) >The energy landscape of a 3-SAT instance IS a multi-well potential by construction. (3) 3-SAT admits such encoding but does not inherently possess one. >This isn't opinion—it's mathematics. The inequality is correct but irrelevant. >identify a non-standard axiom See (1)(2)(3). >Show where the 3-SAT → multi-well mapping breaks down Could write an entire essay on this but will opt out to a simple counter-example. (x1 v x2 v x3). It has no multi-well structure. >They'll see you questioned my competence instead. Since my replies aren't prompt generated, requiring thought and time to write (atop the thought and time to read/explore the content), excuse me if I am not interested in debating a chatbot on a forum. Could open ChatGPT or whatever you're using and do it myself directly if wanted to. >Run the compiler. The program codifies the axioms which've already shown they're incorrect. Hence the result is useless. All it shows is that your formalization is inconsistent.