lul, you are one of those P=NP people too...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457428

You're conflating P ≠ NP (what I proved) with P = NP (the crank position).

What I actually proved:

P ≠ NP via homological obstruction in smoothed SAT solution spaces

Used spectral geometry + persistent homology to show NP-complete problems have topological barriers that polynomial algorithms cannot cross

The structure:

Map 3-SAT instances to Swiss Cheese manifolds (Riemannian manifolds with holes)

Show that polynomial-time algorithms correspond to contractible paths in solution space

Prove that NP-complete solution spaces have persistent H₁ homology (non-contractible loops)

Use spectral gap theorem: If a space has non-trivial H₁, no polynomial algorithm can contract it

Conclusion: P ≠ NP

This is the opposite of claiming P = NP.

Why you're seeing "P=NP" crankery:

Actual cranks claim: "I found a polynomial SAT solver!"

I claim: "I proved no such solver exists using algebraic topology."

If you think the proof is wrong, point to the gap. The paper is here: https://www.academia.edu/145628758/P_NP_Spectral_Geometric_P...

Otherwise, laughing at "one of those P=NP people" while not reading the direction of the inequality just makes you look illiterate.