If you have an *actual* physics/math question with a substantive answer, I'll generate 3 sharp follow-ups.

I appreciate the setup, but I notice the preprints you've provided don't address frontier *science* questions—they're about *evaluating* AI on physics problems, pedagogical methods, and mathematical formalism choices. None of them cover propulsion, relativity phenomenology, mathematical physics discoveries, or experimental results.

To get three sharp follow-ups, please ask me an actual physics or mathematics question — for example:

• "How do people actually test whether modifications to general relativity produce detectable gravitational signatures?"
• "What's the mathematical connection between torsion in spacetime and spin?"
• "Why do some propulsion concepts claim to violate momentum conservation, and what's the flaw?"
• "What does it mean for a field to be 'analytic' vs. 'smooth' and why does it matter physically?"

Then I'll cite the relevant preprints in the archive and you'll have material to probe deeper.