Extending v_p^max Code Classification: Testing the Mahler Spectral Conjecture on Additional Stabilizer Code Families

Extending v_p^max Code Classification: Testing the Mahler Spectral Conjecture on Additional Stabilizer Code Families

Author: Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas (QNFO Research) | Date: 2026-08-01

Program: ACRP-06 | License: QNFO-ULA

Abstract

The Number-Theoretic Ultrametric Foundations paper (Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.21193487) conjectured that the 2-adic valuation spectrum (vp^max) of a code's Mahler expansion discriminates optimal codes (vp^max=28) from random codes (vp^max=4) — Conjecture C7.3'. The UF paper tested four code families: surface codes, CSS codes, optimal codes, and random codes. This note extends the test to eight additional stabilizer code families using EXACT weight distributions (where known) and approximate distributions (where only [[n,k,d]] parameters are available), and finds that the conjecture does not generalize. The vp^max=28 result is confirmed for the specific self-dual Golay-derived CSS code ([[23,1,7]], with exact weight distribution from the perfect binary Golay code [23,12,7]). However, for general stabilizer codes — including the [[5,1,3]] perfect code, the [[7,1,3]] Steane code, the [[9,1,3]] Shor code, and surface codes of sizes [[16,1,4]] through [[36,1,6]] — v_p^max clusters between 1 and 6, indistinguishable from the random-ensemble baseline (mean=4). The conjecture C7.3' survives only for codes with Golay-type self-dual weight distributions; it does not function as a general code-classification discriminant. The 28 vs 4 gap is an artifact of a specific code family, not a universal property of optimal vs random codes.

Keywords: v_p^max, Mahler expansion, stabilizer codes, Golay code, 2-adic valuation, code classification

1. The Conjecture Under Test

Conjecture C7.3' from the Ultrametric Foundations paper (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21193487, §9.3, L528-546):

> The vp-spectrum of a code's Mahler expansion is a discriminant for code families: optimal codes achieve vp^max=28 while random codes cluster at v_p^max=4.

The UF paper tested on 4 code families (surface, CSS, optimal, random) and reported 28 vs 4 separation. This note extends the test to 8 additional code families.

Data Sources

For EXACT weight distributions, this note draws from standard published results:

Note: codetables.de (Grassl, last updated 2009) tracks best-known classical linear codes, not quantum stabilizer codes. For stabilizer codes, no single maintained parameter database exists — parameters are scattered across individual papers. The exact distributions above are from primary published sources; approximate distributions are marked clearly.

2. Mahler Spectrum Computation

Definition 2.1 (Mahler coefficients). For a code with weight distribution Ai (i = wt of each codeword), the Mahler coefficients an are:

The 2-adic valuation v2(an) is the exponent of the largest power of 2 dividing an. vp^max = maxn v2(a_n).

3. Results

Random ensemble baseline (100 trials, n=16, k=4): mean v_p^max=4.0, range [2, 10].

4. Analysis

Confirmation: The Golay CSS code and extended Golay CSS code achieve v_p^max=28 — EXACTLY the UF paper's claim for "optimal" codes. This is verified with the exact weight distribution from MacWilliams & Sloane (1977).

Non-generalization: The remaining 6 code families (5-qubit perfect, Steane, Shor, surface codes) show v_p^max between 1 and 6 — all within the random baseline range. These are REAL published stabilizer codes, not artificially constructed weight distributions, and NONE of them show the 28 vs 4 gap.

The Golay code's weight distribution is special. The Golay code is self-dual (Aw = A{n-w} by symmetry, and Ai ≠ 0 only for weights in {0, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23}). This extreme symmetry produces highly structured Mahler coefficients. The 2-adic valuation of binomial coefficients binom(n,k) has known structure (Legendre's formula), and when convolved with a Golay-type weight distribution, the alternating sum produces large v2 values. General stabilizer codes lack this extreme symmetry.

The UF paper's "optimal codes" were almost certainly Golay-derived. The paper's software proto (mahlerspectrum.py, 720 LOC) would naturally test on this well-known structured code. The "optimal" label was accurate for codes achieving the theoretical maximum for given [[n,k,d]], but the vp^max=28 property is specific to the Golay weight distribution, not a general "optimal code" property.

5. Conjecture Survival

6. Mandatory Symmetry (KIF-18)

Supporting

• The Golay code weight distribution is standard (MacWilliams & Sloane 1977).
• The Mahler expansion computation is standard (Mahler 1958).
• The 2-adic valuation formula (Legendre) is standard.

Constraining

• The UF paper's "optimal" label obscures the Golay-specific nature of the result.
• The claim "optimal codes achieve v_p^max=28" reads as a general property; the data shows it is Golay-specific.
• No external analysis of the UF paper's computation exists.
• The surface code weight distributions are approximate — exact verification requires computing enumerators for specific instances, which is computationally expensive and not done here.

7. Conclusion

Conjecture C7.3' is bounded: the vp^max discrimination between optimal and random codes is observed ONLY for Golay-type self-dual codes with their extreme weight distribution symmetry. For general stabilizer codes — including the 5-qubit perfect code, the Steane code, the Shor code, and surface codes — vp^max clusters at the random-ensemble baseline. The "28 vs 4" gap does not generalize. The UF paper's result is a property of one specific code family, not a universal code-classification discriminant. Per ACRP charter, this outcome-neutral result is published as the deliverable.

8. Calibration Register

[CHECK: 2027-08] [STRONG] If any standard published stabilizer code (not Golay-derived)
is shown to achieve v_p^max >= 20 from its exact weight distribution, this bounding result
is FALSIFIED. Status: [PENDING]

[CHECK: 2027-08] [WEAK] The Golay v_p^max=28 result is independently reproduced.
Status: [PENDING]

9. Declarations

Funding: None. Conflicts: None. Author: R.B.Q.-G. Data: Weight distributions from published sources cited above. Golay verification code: github.com/QNFO/acrp06-vpmax-extension. Use of AI: Mahler spectrum computation and conjecture extension performed by AI agent; Golay spectrum independently verified against MacWilliams & Sloane (1977) weight distribution table.

References

1. Golay, M.J.E. (1949). Notes on digital coding. Proc. IRE, 37, 657.
2. MacWilliams, F.J. & Sloane, N.J.A. (1977). The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes. North-Holland, Ch. 20.
3. [UF Paper] Number-Theoretic Ultrametric Foundations, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21193487.
4. Steane, A.M. (1996). Error correcting codes in quantum theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793.
5. Laflamme, R. et al. (1996). Perfect quantum error correcting code. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 198.
6. Kitaev, A.Yu. (2003). Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Ann. Phys. 303, 2.
7. Fowler, A.G. et al. (2012). Surface codes: Towards practical large-scale quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 86, 032324.

Version History