Volume-Uniform Finite-Volume Bounds with the Representation Cutoff Removed: a Reconstruction and Computer-Assisted Improvement of Creation-Operator Constants We study the Kogut–Susskind Hamiltonian of pure SU(2) and SU(3) lattice gauge theory on three-dimensional cubic boxes, H = aΣ_e L_e + bΣ_p (1 - F_p), with L_e the electric Casimir on link e and F_p = N⁻¹Re tr U_p, at strong coupling (small b/a). An unrefereed preprint by Gauvin adapts the creation-operator method of Bravyi, DiVincenzo and Loss to this setting and states, for SU(3), a physical gap uniform in the volume, with the representation cutoff removed, for b/a ≤ 1/648. We give a self-contained reconstruction of the finite-volume argument, identify its external analytic inputs, and reproduce its constants. We then prove a sequence of refinements of the commutator estimate: a selection rule of Wilson-loop multiplication that restricts admissible creation placements, fractional witness counting, orthogonality of output sectors, Haar-measure bounds for vacuum projections before and after the plaquette multiplication, a two-link sandwich identity, a joint vacuum-row bound, and a size-weighted norm. The finite tuple constants and final sufficient inequalities are checked in exact rational arithmetic by two author implementations and a separate verifier written from the stated definitions. The operator inequalities that justify these arithmetic definitions are proved analytically. On open boxes the physical gap is at least 3a/2 for SU(2) whenever b/a ≤ 2/95, and at least 8a/3 for SU(3) whenever b/a ≤ 2/35 (1/16 with a sharper representation-theoretic bound), uniformly in the box. These sufficient couplings are 3072/95 and 1296/35 times those obtained from the preprint's constants (for SU(2), our transfer of them). The corresponding open-box endpoints in Hamiltonian units are β_H=√(4/95) ≈ 0.205 for SU(2) and β_H=√(6/35) ≈ 0.414 for SU(3), or √(3/16) ≈ 0.433 with the strengthened SU(3) bound. The basic open-box certificates also bound the static fundamental potential below linearly: for static charges at graph distance L ≥ 6, Ex,y - E_vac ≥ σ L with σ = 5/16 a for SU(2) at b/a ≤ 2/95 and σ = 5/9 a for SU(3) at b/a ≤ 2/35, uniformly in the box. A variable exclusion fraction and an independent local-decoupling upper bound bracket the first physical excitation energy above the vacuum. On open boxes containing an elementary plaquette, at b/a = 1/5000 this energy lies in [2.990, 3.050] a (SU(2)) and [5.326, 5.390] a (SU(3)). These are strong-coupling statements at fixed lattice spacing, not continuum statements. Files ym_strong_coupling_gaps.pdf: the paper. zenodo_ymgap_v1.0.0_2026-10-23.zip: the certificate bundle: two independent implementations of the certified tuple constants, the verifier, the tamper-test driver, the Section 8 upper-bound program and its exact checker, the number generator, manifests and verifier outputs for all 34 certificate configurations, the complete tuple files, and the paper source with every number generated from these files. Its SHA-256 is in the adjacent .sha256 file; SHA256SUMS inside covers every file. README.md, LICENSE.md: copies of the bundle's front matter. Verification ./replay.sh (Python 3, standard library only; a few minutes) regenerates every tuple file, compares it entry by entry with the second implementation, verifies every manifest in exact rational arithmetic, runs the tamper tests and the exact check of the two-sided bracket upper bounds, and regenerates every number of the paper; it exits non-zero on any failure. Scope: strong-coupling statements for the Kogut–Susskind lattice Hamiltonian at fixed lattice spacing, uniform in the volume, with the representation cutoff removed. They are not continuum statements and do not address the continuum Yang–Mills mass gap problem. Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0 (LICENSE.md), licensed by SmartLedger Solutions. Commercial-use enquiries: labs@smartledger.solutions. No patent licence is granted by this release.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daugherty et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: