Does Hopfield's 1982 energy function derive specifically from the Sherrington–Kirkpatrick spin-glass model?

The note claim-hopfield-1982-energy-function-from-spin-glass-physics grounds its core claim — Hopfield's 1982 model is a system of Ising spins minimizing an energy function — in the PNAS paper itself (Tier 1). But the specific attribution that this energy function was borrowed from the Sherrington– Kirkpatrick (1975) spin-glass model rests on a Tier-4 Wikipedia pointer, and is held as [unverified-mechanism].

Why it matters. "Borrowed from spin-glass physics" is the phrase that makes the physics↔AI bridge concrete rather than decorative. If the specific lineage (which spin-glass model, cited or merely analogous) is not what Hopfield 1982 actually did, the bridge still holds at the Ising-spin level but the vivid detail has to be softened.

What would answer it. Read Hopfield (1982), PNAS 79(8):2554–2558, directly — its text and reference list. Questions to settle: (1) Does Hopfield cite Sherrington & Kirkpatrick (1975), or spin-glass literature at all? (2) Is the energy function presented as imported from spin-glass theory, or independently constructed and only later recognized as spin-glass-like? (3) What does the 2024 Nobel committee's scientific background document (claim-hopfield-hinton-2024-nobel-physics-neural-networks) say about the provenance? A secondary but strong check: Hopfield's own retrospectives.

On resolution. If the primary confirms the Sherrington–Kirkpatrick lineage, remove the [unverified-mechanism] flag from claim-hopfield-1982-energy-function-from-spin-glass-physics and cite it. If not, rewrite the claim to the Ising-spin / energy-minimization level the PNAS paper directly supports.