HN Guidelines: "Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."

I'm not being "generically" negative, I'm being very specifically negative.

We have a paper from someone not working in the field, with no affiliation, and with an abstract that claims to "solve the longstanding enigma with groundbreaking clarity", a sentence never before uttered by a human being in flesh and blood, and that feels like it takes 4 (four) citations to justify that lambda calculus is Turing-complete, a fact that's well-known to every undergraduate student.

I'm sorry if this gives reviewer #2 vibes, but this doesn't look right to me and I'm asking if someone with actual expertise in the field can clarify what's happening.