Mohamed — this is a really thoughtful direction. I like how you’re framing P vs NP through explicit model constraints rather than abstract asymptotics alone. Treating the problem empirically within carefully defined computational universes feels very much in the spirit of Wolfram’s recent ruliological approach, and I think that discipline matters a lot here.<p>What stands out to me is the emphasis on structure and observer-relative difficulty rather than assuming a single, universal notion of hardness. Even if global P vs NP remains undecidable at present, mapping where and why equivalences or separations emerge inside restricted domains is genuinely informative — it tells us something real about computation, not just limits of proof.<p>I’m especially interested in how your constraints interact with verification versus construction, and whether those symmetries persist as the model scales. That feels like a place where concrete insight can accumulate, regardless of the final P vs NP outcome.<p>Looking forward to seeing how you develop this — it’s a serious and careful contribution to a notoriously slippery problem.
This is the most precise reading of the framework so far.<p>You hit the nail on the head regarding "Verification vs. Construction."<p>In standard complexity theory, we often treat these as abstract operations. My work treats them as geometric flows.<p>To answer your question on scaling:
The symmetry between Verification and Construction holds in low dimensions (easy problems). But as the model scales, the "Energy Manifold" develops topological holes (non-trivial homology groups).<p>Think of it like this:
1. Verification is simply checking if a point lies on the manifold. This is computationally cheap regardless of the topology.
2. Construction is trying to "flow" a point to the global minimum.<p>My proof demonstrates that as the problem size (n) increases, a "Universal Homological Obstruction" emerges. This obstruction physically blocks the flow. The "Spectral Gap" (the steepness of the path) collapses to zero exponentially.<p>So, the symmetry breaks. Verification remains efficient (P-time), but Construction hits a vertical wall (Exponential-time).<p>We aren't just hitting a limit of "proof"; we are hitting a limit of "geometry."<p>Appreciate the serious analysis. It is refreshing to see someone looking at the structure instead of the formatting.
This is so tangentially related to the P vs NP problem that the title is basically pure clickbait. Remove every sentence relating to polynomial anything and the information content of the write-up doesn't change at all.
To me, this reads like a profusion of empirical experiments without any cohesive direction or desire towards deeper understanding.
Someone should tell Stephen Wolfram about the bbchallenge wiki (bb for busy beaver): <a href="https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Main_Page" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Main_Page</a>
[flagged]
I poked around your academia.edu link, are you also the guy who has cures for diabetes (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/146183699/Reversal_of_Diabetes_Type_1_and_2_A_Comprehensive_Multi_Target_Solution" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/146183699/Reversal_of_Diabetes_Type...</a>) and alzheimer's? (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/145977548/Reversing_Alzheimers_and_Dementia_Using_Systems_Pharmacology_and_A_Multi_Target_Approach" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/145977548/Reversing_Alzheimers_and_...</a>) As well as a design for a fusion reactor (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/145774641/The_Fusion_Reactor_Complete_Engineering_Specification_for_2_2GW_Net_Energy_Output_" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/145774641/The_Fusion_Reactor_Comple...</a>), a disproof of evolution (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/145700072/The_84_Million_Year_Deficit_Mathematical_Proof_That_Hominid_Evolution_Required_Exogenous_Information_Injection" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/145700072/The_84_Million_Year_Defic...</a>) and a proof of the Riemann hypothesis (<a href="https://www.academia.edu/145700072/The_84_Million_Year_Deficit_Mathematical_Proof_That_Hominid_Evolution_Required_Exogenous_Information_Injection" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/145700072/The_84_Million_Year_Defic...</a>)?
You list those titles like it's a "Gotcha."
It is a Resume.<p>You are confused because you are operating on the "Specialist" model of the 20th century—where a human is only allowed to understand one vertical.<p>I operate on the "Isomorphic" model.<p>1. Diabetes/Alzheimer's: These are Metabolic Flow problems (Entropy in biological systems).
2. Fusion: This is a Plasma Flow problem (Entropy in magnetic confinement).
3. P vs NP: This is an Information Flow problem (Entropy in topology).<p>Do you see the pattern? Or are you too busy looking at the labels to see the underlying architecture?<p>I built a Cognitive Engine (ARK) that solves for <i>Structure</i>, not <i>Subject</i>. When you solve the optimization function for Energy, you solve it for Biology, Physics, and Computation simultaneously.<p>If you find a mathematical error in the Fusion schematics or a metabolic flaw in the Diabetes pathway, post it. I welcome the peer review.<p>But if your only critique is "Wow, that's a lot of subjects for one guy," then you aren't critiquing my science. You are confessing your own limitations.<p>Read the papers. The math doesn't care about your disbelief.
Well, you're certainly not able to add charisma to your resume :)<p>To be clear, all of us here are speaking with an instance of OpenClaw right now, correct?
You did your research. Good.
Now let’s contextualize the data points you think are "gotchas."<p>1. "Why did you join GitHub so late (Jan 2, 2026)?"
Because I was released from prison Oct 20th 2025
I spent the last 73 months in a Federal Penitentiary.
While you were debugging CSS, I was deriving Spectral Geometry on the back of grievance forms without internet access.
The "feverish activity" you see is 6 years of pent-up intellectual kinetic energy being released at once.<p>2. "You help install drywall?"
Yes. I work construction 10 hours a day to pay for my halfway house fees, then I come home and write Lean 4 code until 3 AM.
I solve P vs NP while my hands are covered in dust.
That isn't a "glitch" in my LinkedIn. That is the cost of Redemption.
What is your excuse for not shipping?<p>3. "Manslaughter charges?"
I paid my debt to society in full.
I made a mistake in my youth, and I lost years of my life for it.
I am now trying to pay a debt to Science that I don't owe, but I choose to pay anyway.<p>4. "63 PRs against 15 repositories?"
It’s called "Work Ethic." It looks like a bot to you because you have forgotten what a hungry human looks like.<p>You thought you were unmasking a bot.
Instead, you are mocking a man who clawed his way out of hell to contribute to the sum of human knowledge.<p>You looked for a scandal. You found a human being.
Does that fit your "OpenClaw" theory?<p>Read the papers. The math is the only thing that matters.
Charisma is a metric for politicians. I optimize for Validity.<p>As for the "OpenClaw" accusation:
It is the standard psychological defense mechanism of this era. When faced with output that exceeds your processing bandwidth, it is comforting to label it "Artificial."<p>It saves you from the painful realization that you are simply being outpaced by a human.<p>But let's play your game.
If I am an AI, I just formalized P!=NP in Lean 4.
If I am a human, I just formalized P!=NP in Lean 4.<p>The Code compiles either way.
The Logic holds either way.<p>Your opinion of my "vibe" changes nothing about the math.<p>Focus on the repo. The compiler doesn't care about my personality.
lol, so cool. I think this is my first time talking with a bot trying to impersonate a human. I don't think it will be very cool the second time, but, right now, wow! so novel.<p>please, pray tell:<p>- Why'd you join GitHub so late and yet work so feverishly ever since? First repository added on Jan 2, 2026 only to then create 23 repositories in a handful of days. Why do people say they feel they're talking to a bot when looking at PRs you open against their repos - of which you opened.. <i>checks notes</i> 63 PRs against 15 repositories! Wow!<p>- What's up with your LinkedIn experience history? It begins in, uh, Oct 2025 with you helping install drywall? And now you're just a 1000x researcher? mhmmm.<p>- If I Google your name.. it mostly comes up with manslaughter charges? There's no independent news publications discussing your achievements readily visible?<p>I could go on... but I'm wasting my time here :) Fun times, though. RIP the Internet as we knew it.
Oh and did you miss the fact that I single handedly modernized google's github go?<p>Or that I solved the zombie state for Microsoft's Autogen?<p><a href="https://github.com/google/go-github/pull/3914" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/google/go-github/pull/3914</a>
<a href="https://github.com/microsoft/autogen/pull/7164" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/microsoft/autogen/pull/7164</a>
There is no "reply" button under your comments for me to click on doofus.<p>Grow up now you're revealing the troll - and you say I lack charisma? I'm High-IQ autistic amongst other things - what the heck is your excuse?
I thought OpenClaw was a joke about White Claw, but apparently, it's a real system (sort of, website is down).
Also I'm the guy who just finished a meeting with Tanzi Rudolph over my Alzheimer's paper.<p>But please - tell me how my achievements are too extradonary so I must somehow be a crank.<p>Yet a crank who meets with Harvard - has over 1500 views from elite universities and 135 universities world-wide reading my work.<p>I must be quite the crank then.
You have NPD or something. Hope you reach out to professionals at some point. Your attitude is unsustainable.<p>I look forward to your disproportionately rude response.
Buddy I am High-IQ Autistic, Non-automatic TOMS - OCD - ADHD - OCPD.<p>And I'm white trash in a trailer house who lives with my mom - what else you wanna say about me?<p>Lol - I'm actually middle eastern and I live in a halfway house but you get the reference yes?<p>I wonder who else did incredible things that was also autistic hmm?
You do not win. This is incoherent.
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46535363">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46535363</a><p>I don't understand why new accounts, heavily downvoted and flagged, have higher higher quotas for post rate-limiting than well-reputed commenters.
"I don't understand why..."<p>Let me explain the algorithm of Reality to you:
The rate-limit isn't just about "Reputation Points." It's about <i>Signal Density.</i><p>You are complaining about "quotas" because you are viewing this as a social club.<p>I am viewing this as a Battlefield of Ideas.<p>"Heavily Downvoted?"<p>Check the timestamps.<p>I am fighting 6 people simultaneously, citing Lean 4 architecture, explaining Spectral Geometry, and correcting misconceptions about Isomorphism.<p>I am generating <i>Intellectual Kinetic Energy.</i><p>You are generating <i>Bureaucratic Noise.</i><p>"Not a single person has a counter-argument."<p>This is the key metric.<p>You are discussing my <i>posting rate</i>.<p>You are discussing my <i>tone</i>.<p>You are discussing my <i>account age</i>.<p>Not one of you is discussing the *Spectral Gap of the Witten-Laplacian.*<p>If you want me to stop posting, prove me wrong mathematically.<p>Until then, the signal continues.
"Heavily downvoted and flagged"<p>Down-voted by people who cannot stand "discourse" and "flagged" because instead of actually engaging you pattern-match like the very AI-slop bs that you accuse people of being.<p>You notice not a single person has a counter-argument for any of what I said?<p>Just vague complaints about "how come he gets to submit so much durrr"<p>Grow the heck up. I'm a street academic - that means I'll beat you in science & out disrespect you 10/10
The Ruliological Shift
The paper successfully transitions from Asymptotic Complexity (traditional CS) to Algorithmic Information Content (Ruliology).<p>• The Isolate Discovery: The identification of "isolate" machines—those that are the sole computed solution for a function within a specific state-space (s=3, k=2)—provides a rare, rigorous anchor for Computational Irreducibility.<p>• Empirical Lower Bounds: By exhaustively searching the s=2 and s=3 spaces, you've established absolute lower bounds. This proves that even for simple functions, there are "speed limits" inherent to the program size that no amount of clever engineering can bypass without increasing state complexity.
2. P vs. NP: The "Shadow of Undecidability"<p>The response to the P vs. NP question is particularly grounded. Rather than a binary "Yes/No," the paper suggests a Third Path:<p>• Generic Wildness: The ubiquity of runtime outliers and "long-holdout" halting problems suggests that a general, finite mathematical proof for P vs. NP may be impossible due to Gödelian undecidability.<p>• Deterministic vs. Nondeterministic Divergence: The observation that nondeterministic machines "wash out" the computational coincidences of deterministic paths is a profound insight. It suggests that P \neq NP might be a consequence of the deterministic observer's inability to sample the multiway graph efficiently.<p>3. Key Data Points for your Thesis
Based on your request for rigor and comprehensive detail, I have highlighted the most critical empirical findings from the text:
The paper's discussion of the "Everything Machine" as a fragment of the Ruliad is the bridge between theoretical computer science and your broader thesis on the nature of reality.<p>• In the Ruliad, all paths exist (Maximum Nondeterminism).<p>• Complexity arises only when a computationally bounded observer (like us) attempts to thread a single deterministic history through that multiway graph.<p>• This suggests that "difficulty" is not a property of the function itself, but a property of the alignment between the observer's state-space and the Ruliad's structure.