Comment by forgotpwd16
23 days 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.
23 days 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.
[flagged]
[flagged]
>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.