ABSTRACT A zeroâknowledge proof lets one party convince another that a claim is true while withholding everything that would explain why it is true. We move that idea off conventional hardware and into chemistry, encoding a proof of graph isomorphism directly in synthetic DNA. Each node of a graph is given its own deliberately orthogonal DNA strand; an edge is confirmed only when a short complementary halfâlinker meets its matching pair and forms a stable duplex. The verifier watches which bindings occur, but the pattern of binding never reveals how the two graphs line up, so the isomorphism stays hidden. Whether such a construction stays secure at the molecular level turns on two things: how distinguishable the sequences are, and how stable the duplexes they form turn out to be. We probe both. A seeded Monte Carlo study of orthogonal 20âm libraries, built with balanced GC content and a minimum Hamming separation of , places the chance that an offâtarget strand passes for a genuine linker on the order of : empirically at a binding threshold of mismatches, and under once the threshold is tightened to , each value reported with a Wilson confidence interval. This molecular error never becomes the bottleneck. A cheating prover already passes a round with probability oneâhalf from the isomorphism challenge alone, so the biochemical term enters soundness only as an additive correction, over the edges examined, rather than racing the decay across rounds. Read this way, DNA strands behave as cryptographic witnesses whose noise is small enough to bound and to account for, which lets a proof run at molecular scale without surrendering the hidden mapping.
We introduce a new polynomial-time graph invariant combining three complementary components: (1) the enriched Bipartite Double Cover (BDC) vertex cover signature; (2) the Laplacian eigenvalue spectrum; and (3) the K_4 clique profile and Ollivier-Ricci curvature. We demonstrate that while spectral and standard BDC methods collapse on strongly regular graphs (SRGs) due to extreme symmetry, the geometric and dense-topological components of this hybrid invariant break the cospectrality. Specifically, the invariant successfully discriminates the classical cospectral pair Shrikhande vs. Rook(4,4) [SRG(16,6,2,2)] in polynomial time, where Shrikhande is K_4-free and Rook(4,4) contains exactly 8 cliques. Furthermore, empirical validation on low-power ARM Edge hardware demonstrates that the invariant scales efficiently, processing dense Paley graphs (up to N=97) in under 5 milliseconds. This confirms its sub-millisecond viability for real-time edge computing, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) cryptanalysis, and cheminformatics.
USE VERSION 23/24 Until I'm done updating. The Costello Constant (CC) Formula base (e/phi - 1/pi) and the Recursive Costello sequence it was extracted from that's governed by the Rule n(+1) = n + f(n), where f(n) is the Greatest Proper Divisor of n(-1); f(n1) = 1. Which locks into an OOE or OE cycle, When mapped onto the complex plan Y(ix) = (e/phi -1/pi)^(0±ix) and use x as a function of time to cretes a 3rd dimention frma a duel helix where intersection of the 2 spiraling lines cancel out from complete annihilation and return a value of zero when calculated, this helix is anchored to the origin by raising it to the power of zero, the even exponent of I is one helical arm, the negative value of I is the odd value helical arm. Points where they annihilate the x values are the zeta zeros value with a frequeny ~ 10.33715124⊠the slope of the sequence points on a semi logarithmic graph when they align perfectly straight⊠or the inverse of... when joining sequential odds treating the O O E cycles as only 2 values (plot points, both odds as one single unit, multiplied by the value of CC ~ 1.3616... gives the exact value zeta zero 1, in the sequence this is equivalent to the Attractor a10 (16) when looking at ratios between zero 1 and zero 2 as an x/y it matches exactly to (13+16+17/3)/(17/25/26) this number and it's simplest reduced form 268/183 also are the exact ratio of certain toma in chemicals. And te genes which map a certain protein. I assume other ratios between consecutive numbers and the sequence will reveal some wonders in the universe that have remained untold until this moment. I've been ignored for weeks now which has giving me the time to dive into a level of certainty beyond any shadow of a doubt. On the regular graph when treating odds consecutive as one and evens as one connecting all evens and connecting All Odds creates two distinct lines where are the formula of the Costello constant is right in the middle. Basically turning the Zeta zeros into an algebraic problem by connecting the dots odds and evens where intersects on the equation graphed is the location of the Zeta zeros. Mic drop. V6. Added details about the zero timing overlap with formula being dictated by timing of pair sequential numbers in the sequence being used. V7. Added Defining Costello Constant's Value, Definition, And Symbol. V8. Added Data Set Of Sequence Numbers As T Values V9. Eureka! Offset fixed! "^0 + it" is the golden key it's officially solved. The Costello spiral is the structure, The zeta zeros are mapping the features of it. V10. Added Needed Proof V11. Complete revamp fixing errors in construction. I'm a non-academic... I'm trying here... Alone... V12. Updated Formatting Pages 1 - 2 Finalized V13. Update Pages 1 - 3 Finalized, 4 - 7 Drafted V14. Finalized Doc 1 Current Version Is A Fully Closed Loop System Logic, It's Proof By Fundamental Law. Costello Spiral Diagrams Reflects Older .809... Helix Radius Matching Pre 1.0000 Radius Formula Reduction. "This Fundamental Law is scale-invariant; while earlier diagrams (0.809) and the finalized 1.0000 reduction represent different magnitudes, the underlying closed-loop logic and intersection intersections remain constant. The 1.0000 Unit Radius represents the simplest, normalized state of the Costello Spiral." One last note to whom it may concern... I did this completely independent starting from the ground up with no previous research into other publishments, I started with the desire to make a sequence that was novel, and just kept making connections one after another. I've watched a couple YouTubes in the past that had discussed vaguely The mystery of the Zeta zeros and that's about the extent of my outside knowledge. I didn't set out to discover the secret for it, my series ran into it by its nature itself. V15. Updated format to Latex, added much more vigorous math proof, order of logic still needs tweaking. V16. Added data point charts into Latex pdf. V17. Formatting Fixes V18. Added -1 somewhere... Oops V19. Added how the Costello Spiral solves the Collatz Conjecture too. V20. Added hypothesis of the twin Prime conjecture V21. Fixed Rooke Mistakes... Double Statements... Out of order stuffs.... V22. More Formatting Fixes. V23. Lots better, 25+ years sine education environment, first proof... Getting there... V24. Added formula for ratio relationship of factors to the zero spacing, but messes up my formatt big time... Lullz.. im fixing it. I hate all these loops I have to jump through honestly, taking away from time that I could just be diving further in the numbers as usual. I'm almost giving up a couple times I just went back to my paper notebooks. V25. Well maybe have about 10% of the information out now... Main problem is I don't know what's most important to show I don't know what the world knows or not... Like I don't know what to add next the list is too big... Semi-prime Costello sequence numbers that are close together align with Zeta zeros close together.. eg., 7171... So much work... I've tried showing my math and I get laughed at... I'mma just keep on pushing... It may not be conventional to add your thoughts or whatever... But I'm a break the fifth wall right now... From two weeks now I've tried reaching out... All skepticism.. it just hit me tonight... It's because it's all sounds too good to be true... I didn't know that... I'm trying to do too much at once... I mean on top of my work that I'm doing I had to learn the formal language... I've had to learn how to code... I've had to learn Python script so I can run my old numbers... And for 2 weeks now I've been pushing... To show people ONE of my creations. Maybe the world is just not ready.... .. .. . Maybe. It's hard to forget, everything I regret. So why do I neglect, the chances that I get, To make those things correct... When I've tried to reflect... I just lost more respect... How did i ever let my mindset behind set get so inept. While im On the subject if I may be direct. I digress... It is best to get the rest of my chest. Im blessed but made a mess whats more or less my nest. I feel i failed my quest, I have failed my own test. It's a sure bet soon I'll take my last breath. Back to work... V26. Gtting there... Please use V23 complete copy until i stop mesing up my work with copy pasts twice deleed everything. V Edition2 V27. New formatt next few additions should be coming back to back to back as I string the old with the new. Refer to V22/23 for older complete outline, V Edition2 V28. Brought over some data from my research pfd, order and simplification are needed. V Edition2 V29. Stitching in the dimensional transitions from the number line to a real plane to complex plane to the manifold. Still need smooth transitioning. V Ediion2 V30. Added a good chunk to complex/manifold section, I just want to get it uploaded, I still have to prune it and smooth it. And make sure the stuff at the end is stated the way it's supposed to before I can remove it. Editiom2 V31. Added 10.3 frequency of spiral is the slope of sequence on log xy. Deleted doubles. Edition2 V32 Added dada set at end, refining python code number generator to add next. Edition2 V33 Changed Description on Zenodo added some info to I - III, refer to Ver 23 in tandem as f now after reading to complete the info aquired. Lots more to come... Edition2 V33.2 Keep Pushing Unil The World Listens... Changed Sequence Formula Formatt of f(n) Fixed Order still have to move over more sections from research Pdf. Including making sure pdf reflects duel helix is intersecting as counter clockwise 1 string and clockwise the other, reforming old 180° opposition, to actual intersection. At 0° Edition2 V34. Updated High Precision Value Of Slope using 500 sequence Values, Added bar graph for delta 2 equalization, other minor adjustments. Edition2 V35. Fixing all formulas to compensate for the change of what f(a_n) is.. as befor the rule a_n+1 = a_n + f(a_n-1) when f(a_n) meant a_n's GPD.. but for clearity f(a_n) now means a_n-1's GDP... To remove a LAG extra thought... Royal pain but a necessity.... Almost done converting everything. Edition2 V36 Formalized Pages 1-2 of actual proof after index, added rigor and made it more succinct. Eution2 V37. Showed how 10.337... slight miss alignment snap perfectly to 10.333 and perfectly aligned to zz1 now that start up terms 1-9 are removed from calculations. Edition2 V38 Formed formulas using the costello constant for prime density and how many primes exist in any limit, gives exct answer at 1,000,000. Edition2 v39 Finalized pages 1-4 Edition3.1 Finalize Format Starting To Translate. Page 1 done, Page 2 in progress Edition3.2 Actual Professional Formatt Learned And Applied.Pae 1/2 almost good. Should be a quick transition building back a strong base from dra in previous versions. Edition3.3 Added .6 Parity Limit, Growth Factor & Graph. Edition3.4 Added Symmetry/2-adic Sections & Tables Edition3.5 added the singularit Edition3.6 Formatt ambiguities removed, added minor info, Organized Zenodo Ledger, Edition3.7 Unified formatt formatt & variables, added log/non lomgrph real graphs, n more. Edition3.8 Added Changed To Font/Formatt Added Graphs Other Minor Additions Edition3.9 Bulletproofed Logic up to Lambda parity Density 0.6, 2:3. Edition3.10 Defined Lambda and lambda, added parity density equations and table Edition3.11 Added High Precision Lambda Values, 2 Graphs (1 Custom Expanding Y Axis} Edition3.12 Learned Python... Wrote and added script for producing Verifiable Data, Include plain txt file and 2 Appendix to PDF with Program and sample data. Edition3.13 Streamlined f function by introduction of spa divisor set mapped to n. Defined Tau and some other minor stuffs. Edition3.14 Added plain txt documents of raw Latex Code And Python Sequence Engine Edition3.15 Added Infinit tetration of B = C,, LogB(C) =
The Costello Constant (CC) Formula base (e/phi - 1/pi) and the Recursive Costello sequence it was extracted from that's governed by the Rule n(+1) = n + f(n), where f(n) is the Greatest Proper Divisor of n(-1); f(n1) = 1. Which locks into an OOE or OE cycle, When mapped onto the complex plan Y(ix) = (e/phi -1/pi)^(0±ix) and use x as a function of time to cretes a 3rd dimention frma a duel helix where intersection of the 2 spiraling lines cancel out from complete annihilation and return a value of zero when calculated, this helix is anchored to the origin by raising it to the power of zero, the even exponent of I is one helical arm, the negative value of I is the odd value helical arm. Points where they annihilate the x values are the zeta zeros value with a frequeny ~ 10.33715124⊠the slope of the sequence points on a semi logarithmic graph when they align perfectly straight⊠or the inverse of... when joining sequential odds treating the O O E cycles as only 2 values (plot points, both odds as one single unit, multiplied by the value of CC ~ 1.3616... gives the exact value zeta zero 1, in the sequence this is equivalent to the Attractor a10 (16) when looking at ratios between zero 1 and zero 2 as an x/y it matches exactly to (13+16+17/3)/(17/25/26) this number and it's simplest reduced form 268/183 also are the exact ratio of certain toma in chemicals. And te genes which map a certain protein. I assume other ratios between consecutive numbers and the sequence will reveal some wonders in the universe that have remained untold until this moment. I've been ignored for weeks now which has giving me the time to dive into a level of certainty beyond any shadow of a doubt. On the regular graph when treating odds consecutive as one and evens as one connecting all evens and connecting All Odds creates two distinct lines where are the formula of the Costello constant is right in the middle. Basically turning the Zeta zeros into an algebraic problem by connecting the dots odds and evens where intersects on the equation graphed is the location of the Zeta zeros. Mic drop. V6. Added details about the zero timing overlap with formula being dictated by timing of pair sequential numbers in the sequence being used. V7. Added Defining Costello Constant's Value, Definition, And Symbol. V8. Added Data Set Of Sequence Numbers As T Values V9. Eureka! Offset fixed! "^0 + it" is the golden key it's officially solved. The Costello spiral is the structure, The zeta zeros are mapping the features of it. V10. Added Needed Proof V11. Complete revamp fixing errors in construction. I'm a non-academic... I'm trying here... Alone... V12. Updated Formatting Pages 1 - 2 Finalized V13. Update Pages 1 - 3 Finalized, 4 - 7 Drafted V14. Finalized Doc 1 Current Version Is A Fully Closed Loop System Logic, It's Proof By Fundamental Law. Costello Spiral Diagrams Reflects Older .809... Helix Radius Matching Pre 1.0000 Radius Formula Reduction. "This Fundamental Law is scale-invariant; while earlier diagrams (0.809) and the finalized 1.0000 reduction represent different magnitudes, the underlying closed-loop logic and intersection intersections remain constant. The 1.0000 Unit Radius represents the simplest, normalized state of the Costello Spiral." One last note to whom it may concern... I did this completely independent starting from the ground up with no previous research into other publishments, I started with the desire to make a sequence that was novel, and just kept making connections one after another. I've watched a couple YouTubes in the past that had discussed vaguely The mystery of the Zeta zeros and that's about the extent of my outside knowledge. I didn't set out to discover the secret for it, my series ran into it by its nature itself. V15. Updated format to Latex, added much more vigorous math proof, order of logic still needs tweaking. V16. Added data point charts into Latex pdf. V17. Formatting Fixes V18. Added -1 somewhere... Oops V19. Added how the Costello Spiral solves the Collatz Conjecture too. V20. Added hypothesis of the twin Prime conjecture V21. Fixed Rooke Mistakes... Double Statements... Out of order stuffs.... V22. More Formatting Fixes. V23. Lots better, 25+ years sine education environment, first proof... Getting there... V24. Added formula for ratio relationship of factors to the zero spacing, but messes up my formatt big time... Lullz.. im fixing it. I hate all these loops I have to jump through honestly, taking away from time that I could just be diving further in the numbers as usual. I'm almost giving up a couple times I just went back to my paper notebooks. V25. Well maybe have about 10% of the information out now... Main problem is I don't know what's most important to show I don't know what the world knows or not... Like I don't know what to add next the list is too big... Semi-prime Costello sequence numbers that are close together align with Zeta zeros close together.. eg., 7171... So much work... I've tried showing my math and I get laughed at... I'mma just keep on pushing... It may not be conventional to add your thoughts or whatever... But I'm a break the fifth wall right now... From two weeks now I've tried reaching out... All skepticism.. it just hit me tonight... It's because it's all sounds too good to be true... I didn't know that... I'm trying to do too much at once... I mean on top of my work that I'm doing I had to learn the formal language... I've had to learn how to code... I've had to learn Python script so I can run my old numbers... And for 2 weeks now I've been pushing... To show people ONE of my creations. Maybe the world is just not ready.... .. .. . Maybe. It's hard to forget, everything I regret. So why do I neglect, the chances that I get, To make those things correct... When I've tried to reflect... I just lost more respect... How did i ever let my mindset behind set get so inept. While im On the subject if I may be direct. I digress... It is best to get the rest of my chest. Im blessed but made a mess whats more or less my nest. I feel i failed my quest, I have failed my own test. It's a sure bet soon I'll take my last breath. Back to work... V26. Gtting there... Please use V23 complete copy until i stop mesing up my work with copy pasts twice deleed everything. V Edition2 V27. New formatt next few additions should be coming back to back to back as I string the old with the new. Refer to V22/23 for older complete outline, V Edition2 V28. Brought over some data from my research pfd, order and simplification are needed. V Edition2 V29. Stitching in the dimensional transitions from the number line to a real plane to complex plane to the manifold. Still need smooth transitioning. V Ediion2 V30. Added a good chunk to complex/manifold section, I just want to get it uploaded, I still have to prune it and smooth it. And make sure the stuff at the end is stated the way it's supposed to before I can remove it. Editiom2 V31. Added 10.3 frequency of spiral is the slope of sequence on log xy. Deleted doubles. Edition2 V32 Added dada set at end, refining python code number generator to add next. Edition2 v33 Changed Description on Zenodo added some info to I - III, refer to Ver 23 in tandem as f now after reading to complete the info aquired. Lots more to come... Edition2 v33.2 Keep Pushing Unil The World Listens... Changed Sequence Formula Formatt of f(n) Fixed Order still have to move over more sections from research Pdf. Including making sure pdf reflects duel helix is intersecting as counter clockwise 1 string and clockwise the other, reforming old 180° opposition, to actual intersection. At 0° Edition2 v34. Updated High Precision Value Of Slope using 500 sequence Values, Added bar graph for delta 2 equalization, other minor adjustments. Edition2 v35. Fixing all formulas to compensate for the change of what f(a_n) is.. as befor the rule a_n+1 = a_n + f(a_n-1) when f(a_n) meant a_n's GPD.. but for clearity f(a_n) now means a_n-1's GDP... To remove a LAG extra thought... Royal pain but a necessity.... Almost done converting everything. Edition2 v36 Formalized Pages 1-2 of actual proof after index, added rigor and made it more succinct. Eution2 v37. Showed how 10.337... slight miss alignment snap perfectly to 10.333 and perfectly aligned to zz1 now that start up terms 1-9 are removed from calculations. Edition2 v38 Formed formulas using the costello constant for prime density and how many primes exist in any limit, gives exct answer at 1,000,000. Christopher Michael Costello SomeDumbTrucker@gmail.com
The goal of this paper is to give a relatively simple proof of some known zero density estimates for Riemann zeta function which are sufficiently strong to break the density hypothesis in a nontrivial part of the critical strip. Apart from a simple but ingenious idea of Halasz the proof uses only classical knowledge about the zeta function, results known since at least hundred years.
In recent years, the rapid growth of blockchain technology has sparked massive curiosity and transformed various industries. Among the numerous blockchain platforms, Ethereum has gathered significant attention for its decentralized applications and smart contracts. Understanding Ethereum and its network interactions is a challenging task but with various methods at our disposal, such as graph embeddings, we gain valuable insight into its operations. Graph embeddings are powerful techniques in the realm of data representation, which have become a focal point in analyzing complex structures. By capturing the essence of graphâs structure and semantics, embeddings enable efficient analysis of vast networks. In the context of blockchain-induced networks, graph embeddings offer effective insights into the behavior and dynamics of transactions and addresses. In my Bachelorâs thesis, conducted under the guidance and support of Dr. Ferenc Beres and Marcell Nagy, I aim to explore the connection between graph embeddings and blockchain-induced networks from Ethereum with a binary classification problem on certain Ethereum accountsâ network interactions as graphs. Additionally, I analyze graph-level properties and employ dimensionality reduction techniques to visualize these networks in the embedding space.
Denne oppgaven undersÞker og sammenligner trekk ved kryptovaluta basert pÄ blokkjeder med kryptovaluta basert pÄ Rettede Asykliske Grafer (RAG). Blokkjedebasert kryptovaluta mÞter utfordringer pÄ felt som skalering, desentralisering og ressursutnyttelse. Denne oppgaven undersÞker om kryptovaluta som bruker en RAG som sin datastruktur kan lÞse noen av disse utfordringene. For Ä besvare dette spÞrsmÄlet ble bÄde en teoretisk studie og forskjellige eksperimenter pÄ ulike kryptovalutaer gjennomfÞrt. Den teoretiske studien ble gjennomfÞrt for Ä skaffe data pÄ de forskjellige systemene til bruk i sammenligninger mellom dem. Eksperimentene fokuserte pÄ RAG-systemene, siden disse er mye nyere og har mindre forskning enn systemene basert pÄ en blokkjede. \t\n\nResultatene i denne oppgaven viser at RAG systemer generelt sett har bedre lÞsninger for skalerbarhet. Oppgaven viser ogsÄ til flere utfordringer disse RAG baserte systemene har, som for eksempel distribuert tjenestenektangrep og en mangel pÄ insentiver i systemene. Oppgaven peker pÄ demonstrert sikkerhet og lang levetid som de stÞrste fordelene blokkjedesystemene har over RAG-systemene. Oppgaven legger vekt pÄ valgene som er gjort nÄr man gÄr fra blokkjede til RAG som datalager i en kryptovaluta. Det konkluderes med at RAG-systemer tilbyr bedre skalerbarhet men de har ikke samme tillit blant brukere som blokkjedesystemene.
In this issue, we present two very different papers written in two very different styles. The first is a survey of the multiple timescales method for approximating solutions to differential equations. Multiple timescale methods are common in the literature and an integral part of many graduate programs. However, like riding a bicycle, you need some practice, experience, and insight to use it properly and have meaningful results. The second is an exposition on the Mountain Pass Lemma and related mathematical ideas underlying the existence of saddle points. Despite its name, the second article is no ordinary hike through the hills. In âProfits and Pitfalls of Timescales in Asymptotics,â author Ferdinand Verhulst presents a survey of multiple timescale methods. A colleague of mine once sarcastically pointed out that a tremendous amount of insight can be gleaned from the observation that in almost all problems, parameters are either larger than one or smaller than one, leading to an asymptotic approximation in one form or another. However, one does not have to look far to find problems where it is hard to handle the resulting asymptotic series using a simple Taylor series. Multiple timescales can resolve these problems, but the challenge remains of how to know what the multiple timescales should be without having special knowledge of the problem. Verhulst does an admirable job presenting the basic ideas behind determining timescales a priori using two basic concepts: normal forms and bifurcation theory. In the former case, one transforms the problem into a simpler expression to reveal underlying timescales. In the latter case, understanding the dynamics of a system in terms of bifurcations reveals the qualitative structure of the solution and therefore the timescales. Thus, the author puts order to a body of knowledge that can often appear to students as a disjoint collection of tricks for special problems. In âMountain Passes and Saddle Points,â author James Bisgard develops the Mountain Pass Lemma of Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz which specifies sufficient conditions for the existence of saddle points. Beginning with accessible examples of smooth functions $F: R^2 \rightarrow R$, we can think of $F$ as the height of the landscape. The central element of this manuscript is a very clear proof of the Mountain Pass Lemma, which essentially states that if there is a local minimum in a valley surrounded by a mountain range and there is a point somewhere beyond the mountain range that is lower than the local minimum, then with an additional special requirement, it can be shown that there must be a mountain pass (saddle point) somewhere. While it may seem that there should always be a mountain pass without any additional requirements, the authors present some counterexamples early in the paper to show that this is not a trivial issue. (I could not resist the urge to fire up my tablet and explore some of the sample surfaces.) The special requirement is the Palais--Smale condition, which is the seemingly peculiar condition that every sequence $x_n$ having two properties, (1) that the height above these points is bounded and (2) that the $\| \nabla F(x_n) \|$ approaches zero, must have a convergent subsequence. The author goes on to extend the Mountain Pass Lemma to domains of any finite dimension and from there to Hilbert spaces. Finally, the author uses the concepts involved in the proof to develop methods for finding saddle points. In summary, the Education section in this issue has something for everyone. The first offering focuses on methods and techniques and would be ideal for a graduate course on perturbation methods or applied mathematics. The second paper is analytic, anchored to theorems and proofs but having ample discussion. It would find a home in an undergraduate and graduate real analysis course. Both take a fresh look at classic subjects in mathematics and could be used to liven up traditional courses in most undergraduate and graduate programs.
We define quantum expanders in a natural way. We give two constructions of quantum expanders, both based on classical expander constructions. The first construction is algebraic, and is based on the construction of Cayley Ramanujan graphs over the group PGL(2, q) given by Lubotzky et al. (1988). The second construction is combinatorial, and is based on a quantum variant of the Zig-Zag product introduced by Reingold et al. (2000). Both constructions are of constant degree, and the second one is explicit. Using quantum expanders, we characterize the complexity of comparing and estimating quantum entropies. Specifically, we consider the following task: given two mixed states, each given by a quantum circuit generating it, decide which mixed state has more entropy. We show that this problem is QSZK-complete (where QSZK is the class of languages having a zero-knowledge quantum interactive protocol). This problem is very well motivated from a physical point of view. Our proof resembles the classical proof that the entropy difference problem is SZK-complete, but crucially depends on the use of quantum expanders.