Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1603.00825

Comment on "On the uncomputability of the spectral gap"

Toby S. Cubitt, David Pérez-Garcı́a, Michael M. Wolf

Published Mar 2, 2016• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The aim of this short note is to clarify some of the claims made in the comparison made in [S. Lloyd, On the uncomputability of the spectral gap, arXiv:1602.05924] between our recent result [T.S. Cubitt, D. Perez-Garcia, M.M. Wolf, Undecidability of the spectral gap, Nature 528, 207-211 (2015), arXiv:1502.04573] and his 1994 paper [S. Lloyd, Necessary and sufficient conditions for quantum computation, J. Mod. Opt. 41(12), 2503-2520 (1994)].

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1603.00825

Related papers

Undecidability of the Spectral Gap

J.B. Houben

We treat the results of the 2015 paper by Cubitt et al. entitled “Undecidability of the Spectral Gap”, and the constructions required to arrive at these results. This paper showed that a specific quantum mechanical problem (the “spectral gap problem”) is algorithmically undecidable, using techniques from computer science. We also treat the theory from quantum mechanics and computer science that is required to understand these results and constructions.

•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

On the uncomputability of the spectral gap

Seth Lloyd

This paper reviews the 1994 proof that the spectral gap of Hamiltonian quantum systems capable of universal computation is uncomputable.

arXiv:1602.05924•Feb 18, 2016•4 citations

Undecidability of the spectral gap

Johannes Bausch

What happens to undecidability in the quantum computing paradigm?

XRDS Crossroads The ACM Magazine for Students•Sep 20, 2016•49 citations

Why Some Physicists Are Excited About the Undecidability of the Spectral Gap Problem and Why Should We

Владик Крейнович

Since Turing's time, many problems have been proven undecidable. It is interesting though that, arguably, none of the working physicist problems had been ever proven undecidable -- until T. Cubitt, D. Perez-Garcia and M. M. Wolf proved recently that, for a physically reasonable class of systems, no algorithm can decide whether a given system has a spectral gap. We explain the spectral gap problem, its importance for physics and possible consequences of this exciting new result.

Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science•Jun 1, 2017•2 citations

Quantum Spectral Gap Provably Undecidable, Linking Physics to Halting Problem — E8 Intelligence Research

Andrew Stewart Caldin

FINDING: The spectral gap problem — determining whether a quantum Hamiltonian's energy spectrum has a gap above the ground state — is provably undecidable in general, linking quantum many-body physics to the halting problem and Gödelian limits. | MATH: The key construction (Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, Wolf, 2015) reduces the halting problem to a family of 2D spin-lattice Hamiltonians \( H(n) \) on a fixed lattice, where the spectral gap (difference between ground state energy \( E_0 \) and first excited state \( E_1 \)) is either \( \Delta > 0 \) (gapped) or \( \Delta = 0 \) (gapless), depending on whether a Turing machine halts. The Hamiltonian is built from translationally invariant local terms with frustration-free ground states; the gap closes as \( \Delta \sim 1/\text{poly}(n) \) in the gapless case. No closed-form equation for \( \Delta \) exists — it is algorithmically uncomputable. | CONNECTION: The construction uses a lattice structure (square lattice, 2D) with local interaction ter Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com

•Oct 26, 2026•0 citations

Undecidability of Spectral Gaps via Turing Machine Encoding in Tilings — E8 Intelligence Research

Andrew Stewart Caldin

FINDING: The halting problem is undecidable for Turing machines, proven by diagonalization; recent work encodes this undecidability into spectral gaps of translation-invariant Hamiltonians via periodic tilings, linking computation to quantum many-body physics. | MATH: Halting problem undecidability (Turing 1936); spectral gap problem for 2D translation-invariant Hamiltonians is undecidable (Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, Wolf 2015); encoding uses aperiodic tilings (e.g., Wang tiles) to simulate Turing machine tape and state transitions, with Hamiltonian energy gap encoding halting condition. Key constants: none directly, but tiling rules involve local constraints with no simple ratio. | CONNECTION: The tiling construction inherently uses lattice structures (square lattice) and local constraint patterns reminiscent of crystallographic symmetry breaking. The aperiodic tilings that encode computation often exhibit self-similarity and scaling ratios (e.g., Penrose tilings have golden ratio φ = 1.61 Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com

•Jul 24, 2026•0 citations
The aim of this short note is to clarify some of the claims made in the comparison made in [S. Lloyd, On the uncomputability of the spectral gap, arXiv:1602.05924] between our recent result [T.S. Cubitt, D. Perez-Garcia, M.M. Wolf, Undecidability of the spectral gap, Nature 528, 207-211 (2015), arXiv:1502.04573] and his 1994 paper [S. Lloyd, Necessary and sufficient conditions for quantum computation, J. Mod. Opt. 41(12), 2503-2520 (1994)].
FINDING: The spectral gap problem — determining whether a quantum Hamiltonian's energy spectrum has a gap above the ground state — is provably undecidable in general, linking quantum many-body physics to the halting problem and Gödelian limits. | MATH: The key construction (Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, Wolf, 2015) reduces the halting problem to a family of 2D spin-lattice Hamiltonians H(n) H(n) H(n) on a fixed lattice, where the spectral gap (difference between ground state energy E0 E_0 E0​ and first excited state E1 E_1 E1​) is either Δ>0 \Delta > 0 Δ>0 (gapped) or Δ=0 \Delta = 0 Δ=0 (gapless), depending on whether a Turing machine halts. The Hamiltonian is built from translationally invariant local terms with frustration-free ground states; the gap closes as Δ∼1/poly(n) \Delta \sim 1/\text{poly}(n) Δ∼1/poly(n) in the gapless case. No closed-form equation for Δ \Delta Δ exists — it is algorithmically uncomputable. | CONNECTION: The construction uses a lattice structure (square lattice, 2D) with local interaction ter Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com
FINDING: The halting problem is undecidable for Turing machines, proven by diagonalization; recent work encodes this undecidability into spectral gaps of translation-invariant Hamiltonians via periodic tilings, linking computation to quantum many-body physics. | MATH: Halting problem undecidability (Turing 1936); spectral gap problem for 2D translation-invariant Hamiltonians is undecidable (Cubitt, Perez-Garcia, Wolf 2015); encoding uses aperiodic tilings (e.g., Wang tiles) to simulate Turing machine tape and state transitions, with Hamiltonian energy gap encoding halting condition. Key constants: none directly, but tiling rules involve local constraints with no simple ratio. | CONNECTION: The tiling construction inherently uses lattice structures (square lattice) and local constraint patterns reminiscent of crystallographic symmetry breaking. The aperiodic tilings that encode computation often exhibit self-similarity and scaling ratios (e.g., Penrose tilings have golden ratio φ = 1.61 Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com