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

Operator-Theoretic Proof of the P = N P Separation: Spectral Gap Divergence and Hamming Locality

Nigel Stafford Paltoo

Published Dec 19, 2025• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This paper provides a complete formal proof that P̸ = N P . We define a Turing-Spectrum Operator ˆHT uring acting on a separable Hilbert space Hcomp. By analyzingthe relative spectral trace and the Hamming connectivity of candidate polynomialoperators, we demonstrate that the complexity barrier is a consequence of ”SpectralIsolation.” We prove that a polynomial-time operator is a k-local operator that cannotclose the exponential spectral gap ∆(N ) required to map the ground state of an N P -complete manifold. The divergence of the Complexity Barrier Identity (CBI) and thenon-vanishing nature of the Computational Uncertainty commutator provide the finalclosure to the P vs NP problem.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.17987633

Related papers

Towards an Operator-Theoretic Resolution of P = N P : Spectral Gap Divergence and the Complexity Barrier Identity

Nigel Stafford Paltoo

We present a rigorous operator-theoretic framework to resolve the separationof P and N P . By constructing a separable Hilbert space Hcomp from the projec-tive limit of computational path spaces, we define the Turing-Spectrum OperatorˆHT uring. We demonstrate that for N P -complete problems, the spectral trace ofˆHT uring diverges exponentially relative to any polynomial-time operator ˆHP . Weestablish the Complexity Barrier Identity (CBI) which relates the growth of thespectral gap ∆(N ) to the topological rigidity of the solution manifold. Further-more, we derive a Computational Uncertainty Relation from the non-vanishingcommutator [ ˆHT uring, ˆHP ]. This analysis shows that the ground state of an N P -complete problem is an isolated spectral point, unreachable by polynomial-timeunitary evolution in the limit N → ∞. This structurally compelled gap provides adefinitive analytic proof that P̸ = N P .

•Dec 19, 2025•0 citations

Operator-Theoretic Resolution of the P vs N P Problem: Geometric Exclusion and Spectral Gap Divergence 3

Nigel Stafford Paltoo

We present a definitive resolution to the P vs N P problem by demonstratingthat the complexity classes are separated by a divergent spectral gap in a separa-ble Hilbert space. By defining a self-adjoint Turing-Spectrum Operator ˆHT uring,we show that N P -complete solution manifolds possess a topological rigidity thatprecludes polynomial-time spectral convergence. We introduce the Geometric Ex-clusion Lemma, proving that the rank-deficiency of polynomial operators relativeto the exponential dimension of the computational Hilbert space Hcomp creates anirreducible Information Event Horizon. This establishes that P̸ = N P is a struc-turally compelled consequence of functional analysis.

•Dec 19, 2025•0 citations

The Construction of a Spectral Gap Solution to P vs NP

Vinod Sah

"This paper formally proves P = NP by mapping NP-complete problems to continuous Hermitian manifolds. We use spectral gradient flow and hybrid CDCL logic to find solutions in polynomial time."

•May 12, 2026•0 citations

Spectral method for solving NP-complete problems

Christian Kithima

Foundations of the Spectral Framework: From P = NP to Universal Applications This series of eleven articles develops the Spectral Framework, culminating in a machine‑verified proof that P = NP via the Spectral Reduction Lemma. The framework translates computational and mathematical problems into spectral Hamiltonians, whose ground states illuminate optimal solutions. The proof rests on four pillars: Existence of a unique positive ground state (Perron–Frobenius). Polynomial bounds on conductance and spectral gap (Kithima Bridge, Cheeger inequality). Logarithmic area law and MPS compressibility (cluster expansion, Brandão–Horodecki theorem). Polynomial extraction of solutions (power iteration on MPS). Articles 0–5 establish these pillars and assemble them into a polynomial‑time algorithm that decides SAT, thereby proving P = NP unconditionally. Articles 6–11 explore the consequences and universality of the method: Spectral cryptography and post‑P = NP security paradigms. Universality across NP‑complete problems, including SAT, Clique, TSP, Graph Isomorphism, and Integer Factorisation. Case studies such as the maximum clique problem and Cook’s historical student‑housing problem. Categorical unification in the category Spec, showing NP and P as equivalent subcategories and NP‑complete problems as isomorphic objects. Synthesis and correspondence dictionaries, mapping classical notions in complexity, physics, arithmetic, and cosmology to their spectral analogues. All results are fully formalised in Lean4, with no unproven assumptions. The central metaphor is that of a lantern: classical algorithms grope in the dark, while spectral topology constructs a lantern whose light spreads across the configuration space, compresses into an MPS, and reveals the brightest points—the solutions. This paradigm shift replaces blind search with direct spectral vision, opening new horizons for computation, mathematics, and science.

•Apr 1, 2026•0 citations

A Note on the Complexity of the Spectral Gap Problem

Justin Yirka

The problem of estimating the spectral gap of a local Hamiltonian is known to be contained in the class $P^{QMA[log]}$: polynomial time with access to a logarithmic number of QMA queries. The problem was shown to be hard for $P^{UQMA[log]}$, a weaker class, under Turing reductions by Gharibian and Yirka [arXiv:1606.05626]. I give a brief proof that the Spectral Gap problem is QMA-hard under a many-one (Karp) reduction. Consequently, the problem is $P^{QMA[log]}$-complete under truth-table reductions. It remains open to characterize the complexity of the Spectral Gap problem under many-one reductions. I conjecture that the problem belongs to a strict subclass of $P^{QMA[log]}$.

arXiv:2503.02747•Mar 4, 2025•0 citations

Conservative Motion Theory VI: Exponential Time Barrier and the Law of Conservation of Computation

Kawasaki, Hideyo

This paper completes the CMT-based proof of the classical separationP ̸= NP.Where CMT III established the Fredholm–analytic distinction between deterministic (conservative)and nondeterministic (non-conservative) computation, the present volume proves theExponential Time Barrier: every non-conservative computational step induces an unavoidableexponential lower bound on computational complexity.Using the operator-theoretic law of conservation of computation, we show that: (1) theclass P corresponds to compositions of reflection-positive, self-adjoint Fredholm operators,whose powers grow polynomially; while (2) the class NP necessarily contains at least onenon-self-adjoint direction, producing exponential growth of operator powers via the Fredholmentropy barrier.The main theorem follows:P = {polynomially bounded conservative operators},NP = {operators with essential non-conservative branching}.Since non-conservative branching forces exponential spectral growth, it cannot lie in thepolynomially bounded closure. Thus P ̸= NP.Connections with physical computation and the quantum limit (PNP7–8) demonstratethat BQP is the maximal computational class permitted by the law of conservation ofcomputation.

•Nov 9, 2025•0 citations
This paper provides a complete formal proof that P̸ = N P . We define a Turing-Spectrum Operator ˆHT uring acting on a separable Hilbert space Hcomp. By analyzingthe relative spectral trace and the Hamming connectivity of candidate polynomialoperators, we demonstrate that the complexity barrier is a consequence of ”SpectralIsolation.” We prove that a polynomial-time operator is a k-local operator that cannotclose the exponential spectral gap ∆(N ) required to map the ground state of an N P -complete manifold. The divergence of the Complexity Barrier Identity (CBI) and thenon-vanishing nature of the Computational Uncertainty commutator provide the finalclosure to the P vs NP problem.
We present a rigorous operator-theoretic framework to resolve the separationof P and N P . By constructing a separable Hilbert space Hcomp from the projec-tive limit of computational path spaces, we define the Turing-Spectrum OperatorˆHT uring. We demonstrate that for N P -complete problems, the spectral trace ofˆHT uring diverges exponentially relative to any polynomial-time operator ˆHP . Weestablish the Complexity Barrier Identity (CBI) which relates the growth of thespectral gap ∆(N ) to the topological rigidity of the solution manifold. Further-more, we derive a Computational Uncertainty Relation from the non-vanishingcommutator [ ˆHT uring, ˆHP ]. This analysis shows that the ground state of an N P -complete problem is an isolated spectral point, unreachable by polynomial-timeunitary evolution in the limit N → ∞. This structurally compelled gap provides adefinitive analytic proof that P̸ = N P .
We present a definitive resolution to the P vs N P problem by demonstratingthat the complexity classes are separated by a divergent spectral gap in a separa-ble Hilbert space. By defining a self-adjoint Turing-Spectrum Operator ˆHT uring,we show that N P -complete solution manifolds possess a topological rigidity thatprecludes polynomial-time spectral convergence. We introduce the Geometric Ex-clusion Lemma, proving that the rank-deficiency of polynomial operators relativeto the exponential dimension of the computational Hilbert space Hcomp creates anirreducible Information Event Horizon. This establishes that P̸ = N P is a struc-turally compelled consequence of functional analysis.
Foundations of the Spectral Framework: From P = NP to Universal Applications This series of eleven articles develops the Spectral Framework, culminating in a machine‑verified proof that P = NP via the Spectral Reduction Lemma. The framework translates computational and mathematical problems into spectral Hamiltonians, whose ground states illuminate optimal solutions. The proof rests on four pillars: Existence of a unique positive ground state (Perron–Frobenius). Polynomial bounds on conductance and spectral gap (Kithima Bridge, Cheeger inequality). Logarithmic area law and MPS compressibility (cluster expansion, Brandão–Horodecki theorem). Polynomial extraction of solutions (power iteration on MPS). Articles 0–5 establish these pillars and assemble them into a polynomial‑time algorithm that decides SAT, thereby proving P = NP unconditionally. Articles 6–11 explore the consequences and universality of the method: Spectral cryptography and post‑P = NP security paradigms. Universality across NP‑complete problems, including SAT, Clique, TSP, Graph Isomorphism, and Integer Factorisation. Case studies such as the maximum clique problem and Cook’s historical student‑housing problem. Categorical unification in the category Spec, showing NP and P as equivalent subcategories and NP‑complete problems as isomorphic objects. Synthesis and correspondence dictionaries, mapping classical notions in complexity, physics, arithmetic, and cosmology to their spectral analogues. All results are fully formalised in Lean4, with no unproven assumptions. The central metaphor is that of a lantern: classical algorithms grope in the dark, while spectral topology constructs a lantern whose light spreads across the configuration space, compresses into an MPS, and reveals the brightest points—the solutions. This paradigm shift replaces blind search with direct spectral vision, opening new horizons for computation, mathematics, and science.
The problem of estimating the spectral gap of a local Hamiltonian is known to be contained in the class PQMA[log]P^{QMA[log]}PQMA[log]: polynomial time with access to a logarithmic number of QMA queries. The problem was shown to be hard for PUQMA[log]P^{UQMA[log]}PUQMA[log], a weaker class, under Turing reductions by Gharibian and Yirka [arXiv:1606.05626]. I give a brief proof that the Spectral Gap problem is QMA-hard under a many-one (Karp) reduction. Consequently, the problem is PQMA[log]P^{QMA[log]}PQMA[log]-complete under truth-table reductions. It remains open to characterize the complexity of the Spectral Gap problem under many-one reductions. I conjecture that the problem belongs to a strict subclass of PQMA[log]P^{QMA[log]}PQMA[log].
This paper completes the CMT-based proof of the classical separationP ̸= NP.Where CMT III established the Fredholm–analytic distinction between deterministic (conservative)and nondeterministic (non-conservative) computation, the present volume proves theExponential Time Barrier: every non-conservative computational step induces an unavoidableexponential lower bound on computational complexity.Using the operator-theoretic law of conservation of computation, we show that: (1) theclass P corresponds to compositions of reflection-positive, self-adjoint Fredholm operators,whose powers grow polynomially; while (2) the class NP necessarily contains at least onenon-self-adjoint direction, producing exponential growth of operator powers via the Fredholmentropy barrier.The main theorem follows:P = {polynomially bounded conservative operators},NP = {operators with essential non-conservative branching}.Since non-conservative branching forces exponential spectral growth, it cannot lie in thepolynomially bounded closure. Thus P ̸= NP.Connections with physical computation and the quantum limit (PNP7–8) demonstratethat BQP is the maximal computational class permitted by the law of conservation ofcomputation.