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 αc ≈ 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 αc = 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 UCTPNPTheory. pdf 140 KB Theoretical paper: capacity bound, instability theorem, main theorem (Thm 13. 1), corollaries (BPP=P, PH non-collapse), 25 references 2 PNPᵥ7₃CompanionEN. pdf 77 KB Step-by-step proof logic: 16 sections, line-by-line Lean explanation, dependency graph, version evolution v1→v7. 3 3 PNPLayerAᵥ7₃FINAL. lean 23 KB Lean 4 source code: 0 sorry, 5 axioms, 36 theorems, pₙeₙp: PₙeqNP, All Messages (0) 4 UCTPNPVerification. py 22 KB Google Colab notebook: 34/34 tests passed, verifies all constants, αc, MiniSat data, certificates, Collatz drift, E₈ structure
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Novgorodtsev Aleksei
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Novgorodtsev Aleksei (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69bf3955c7b3c90b18b43d3c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19130457
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: