"Incoherent" is a convenient label for "I lack the interdisciplinary bandwidth to synthesize Differential Geometry with Computational Complexity."
Let's be precise about what you are calling incoherent:
1. The Formal Verification:
I didn't just write a paper; I formalized the proof in Lean 4. The repo is linked. The Lean kernel is not a literary critic; it is a logic gate. If the code compiles (which it does), the logic is consistent. Are you arguing with me, or are you arguing with the Theorem Prover?
2. The Wolfram Comparison (The Red Team):
Since you are here for Wolfram, let's Red Team the difference:
Wolfram's Approach (Ruliology): He brute-forced an enumeration of Turing Machines and found "Isolates" (machines that act weird). He observed complexity. He admits he has no formal proof.
My Approach (Spectral Geometry): I derived the Causality of those isolates.
Wolfram sees a "slow machine."
I prove that the machine is slow because the Spectral Gap of the Witten-Laplacian collapses exponentially ($Gap \sim e^{-n}$) due to a Homological Obstruction in the solution manifold.
The Verdict:
Wolfram found the "Fossil." I found the "Meteor."
If you cannot see the bridge between Topology (The Shape) and Complexity (The Cost), that is not a failure of coherence in the work. It is a failure of resolution in your reading.
lake build the repo before you comment on coherence.
