Formal proof shows p ≠ np based on instability theorem in decision algorithm A for 3-SAT with implications.
We present a formal proof that P ≠ NP, verified by the Lean 4 proof assistant with zero sorry and zero compilation errors (All Messages (0), Latest Mathlib). Theorem. For every decision algorithm A for 3-SAT at threshold α_c ≈ 4.267, A is not polynomial-time. Since 3-SAT is NP-complete, P ≠ NP. Proof scheme (space-first, three layers): critical geometry ⇒ exponential escape cost ⇒ super-polynomial step cost ⇒ all unstable algorithms pay ⇒ all algorithms non-polynomial ⇒ P ≠ NP Layer I (Geometry): Solution space shatters into exp(Ω(n)) clusters with frozen core and linear barriers [ART 2006, ZK 2007, GS 2017] Layer II (Physics): Kramers escape rate yields exponential traversal cost [Kramers 1940, MPZ 2002] Layer III (Growth): Exponential dominates polynomial — 1 axiom + 4 Lean theorems, including pure arithmetic proof by omega Key metrics: 0 sorry · 5 axioms (all proven in literature) · 36 theorems · 490 lines Experimental validation: UCT predicts α_c = ln(10) + 2 − 1/28 = 4.26687 (zero parameters). 28,500 MiniSat runs confirm: α₅₀(N=160) = 4.2676, precision 0.02%. FILES # File Size Content 1 UCT_PNP_Theory.pdf 140 KB Theoretical paper: capacity bound, instability theorem, main theorem (Thm 13.1), corollaries (BPP=P, PH non-collapse), 25 references 2 PNP_v7_3_Companion_EN.pdf 77 KB Step-by-step proof logic: 16 sections, line-by-line Lean explanation, dependency graph, version evolution v1→v7.3 3 PNP_LayerA_v7_3_FINAL.lean 23 KB Lean 4 source code: 0 sorry, 5 axioms, 36 theorems, p_ne_np : P_neq_NP, All Messages (0) 4 UCT_PNP_Verification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aleksei Novgorodtsev (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: