AGI安全无法被验证，无论系统是否自我演化。

We establish the mathematical limits of AGI safety in two forms: verifying a fixed system, and verifying that a certified safety property persists once the system self-modifies. In the static case, no algorithm can certify a highly expressive AGI's safe behaviour infallibly, completely and tractably, whether over unbounded input domains (blocked by Rice's and Godel's theorems) or over all finite hardware configurations (blocked by Trakhtenbrot's theorem, which splits into a PSPACE-hardness barrier and a co-RE-completeness barrier), forcing a Soundness-Completeness-Tractability Trilemma as a structural, not statistical, necessity. In the dynamic case, we formalise self-modification as a computable transition operator and prove that no algorithm can determine, from a system's current certified safety, whether safety survives its next self-modification step: a result that reduces to Rice's Theorem one level up, making the static and dynamic barriers two faces of one obstruction. This forces an exclusive dichotomy: persistent certification is attainable only for systems that have stopped evolving semantically, i.e. only for narrow, not general, systems. Nor can the obstruction be delegated: any supervisor adequate to audit a general AGI is itself a general AGI, so the supervisory regress never terminates. Three practical risks (finite test coverage, bounded deliberation time, restricted observation) are one phenomenon: every bounded scheme that does not reject correct evidence admits an evolution trace it certifies at every stage while the property is persistently violated. These results give formal content to the unverifiability of AI, showing it is not an engineering target deferred by current limits but a structural tension, an Expressivity Invariant governed by the same computational laws as the Halting Problem and Rice's Theorem.