Can you not?
The first line was intriguing but the rest of it is a mishmash of buzzwords and handwaving. It looks like you are bidding for consideration of a grand unified theory, and that's great, I am one of the people that enjoys considering new proposals that unify or align previously disconnected areas of physics or mathematics.
But even though I understood (most of) the individual assertions you are trying to cram into your abstract-of-an-abstract, showing which things you are combining, how you are combining them,and how you are keeping reproducibility and provability as your top priorities, the effect of trying to communicate so many data points at once comes off as earnest but incoherent, like a bus-stop conversation with a schizophrenic.
Ideas are not self-propagating. If you just want to feed your thoughts back into other AIs in a way that lets provide useful input toward an intellectual singularity, publish it on your own blog. If you are publishing it in a social space, take some time to articulate in plain language what you think you've found, why it's important, and why other people might find it worthwhile to invest some time in wrapping their heads around it. If that seems too vague go read some Quanta articles and ponder why they read a wider audience than hyper-technical abstracts in math journals.
> Can you not?
It's justified to mention GrC(2,4) for modeling orbital gravity here because the OP's (and Kepler's) methods will not ever derive the scattering amplitude basis for gravity or the Grassmannian geometric manifold for calculating the 1-loop scattering because of algorithmic insufficiency at the universal function approximation problem.
What I took the time to share here saves many years of false starts at modeling gravity; which - ironically - Kepler's doesn't sufficiently model either.
A question to research: What's wrong with Keplerian gravity?
GrC(2,4) is probably more efficient than for example how NASA SPICE toolkit models gravity rivers.
I'm not finding this feedback to be helpful. I wish you luck with your own approach.
> incoherent, like a bus-stop conversation with a schizophrenic.
This is impolite and disrespectful. Do you have code or math to contribute? What tools could you use to interpret for example this the first sentence of my post?
> I have a faster solution for N-body gravity with orbital resonance that predicts the perihelion of Mercury than gravity from QED scattering, with Gr_C(2,4) in Lean 4 and Rust/WASM that I haven't yet published
I also found your post lacked coherence, but I agree GP’s feedback is delivered a bit harshly
- the way you jump right in is kind of off topic with tons of details, your connecting sentence about Kepler would have been better framing context to lead with (but it also needs revision because it reads like you’re elbowing into the conversation)
- HN is a general (technical) audience, your opening statement and the rest of your post assumes a lot of specialized knowledge. It needs some scaffolding and some distillation for a broad audience to understand what’s important about what you did
- that opening sentence isn’t grammatical? Your solution is faster than some quantum theory of gravity? Or maybe you missed a word and mean it’s more accurate than QED? And it’s a theory of gravity that predicts orbital resonance?
- you’re mixing conceptual and implementation details with the effect of information overload. Is the interesting part the theory of gravitation or the fact that you used Rust and WASM? I would lead with the scientific part, then add a separate sentence on the computational tools you used so they both get the focus they deserve
- the rest of your post is long and kind of alternates between what looks like pasted autogenerated link summaries, jargon-filled descriptions of the research, and some descriptions of visualization tools that don’t clearly connect (to someone without expertise in this field) to the rest of the post
- there’s a flood of crap science being cranked out with agents. Maybe your project is not one of these, but you’re fighting an uphill battle against everyone’s heuristics to filter out the noise. If you want to be engaging you have to distill, clarify, and adapt to your audience
I think (looking also at his website) that he is trying to make some sort of honeypot for agents. The lean code is completely nonsensical- tons of broken latex, dense references in the docstrings and the proofs are all very long names to obscure the fact that there’s nothing there. All they do is instantiate structures with lots of arguments and then assert one of the arguments.
Wow!
Well, it's already better than Kepler.
Have you checked the table of check figures?
Do you understand that it is correct?
Have you shown any counterexamples, or have you offered subjective aesthetic diminishment?
What a mistake it was to mention it here.
Do you have specific feedback? Or just "I hait AI preprints, ugh!"
I would accept a PR if you have specific feedback regarding the code.
I don't hate AI preprints, I hate slop grenades, which is what this is. Either you did that on purpose (which was what I thought looking at your website - that you created a honeypot to trap agents) or you don't realise that's what you're doing, in which case this makes me very sad.
It's tragic that you spend time harassing and diminishing about your subjective aesthetic response instead of learning to check the machine-checkable proofs using the tools.
Test coverage in Lean might be a good feature to contribute.
Yeah, it reminds me of Timecube.