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:2308.09549

Probabilistic Computers (and Hence Quantum Computers) Are Rigorously More Powerful Than Classical Deterministic Computers, and Derandomization

Tianrong Lin

Published Aug 18, 2023• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this paper, we extend the techniques developed in our previous work to construct a probabilistic Turing machine that runs within time $O(n^k)$ for every $k\in\mathbb{N}_1$ and accepts a language $L_d\notin\mathcal{P}$. We further show that $L_d\in\mathcal{BPP}$, thereby separating $\mathcal{BPP}$ from $\mathcal{P}$ (i.e., $\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{BPP}$). Since the complexity class $\mathcal{BQP}$ of {\em bounded error quantum polynomial-time computation} contains $\mathcal{BPP}$ (i.e., $\mathcal{BPP}\subseteq\mathcal{BQP}$), our result confirms the long-standing conjecture that quantum computers are {\em rigorously more powerful} than classical deterministic computers (i.e., $\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{BQP}$). As an important consequence of the above results, we disprove the {\bf Extended Church-Turing Thesis}. Furthermore, we establish the following separations: (1) $\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{RP}$; (2) $\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq{\rm co}\mathcal{RP}$; (3) $\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{ZPP}$. These relationships were long-standing open questions in complexity theory. In addition, the separation $\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{BPP}$ demonstrates that {\em randomness} plays an essential role in probabilistic computation. In particular, we prove the following: (4) The number of random bits used by any probabilistic algorithm accepting $L_d$ cannot be reduced to $O(\log n)$; (5) There exists no efficient (complexity-theoretic) {\em pseudorandom generator} (PRG): $$ G:\{0,1\}^{O(\log n)}\rightarrow \{0,1\}^n;$$ (6) There exists no quick HSG $H:k(n)\rightarrow n$ with $k(n)=O(\log n)$.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2308.09549

Related papers

Turing in Quantumland

Harry Buhrman

. We revisit the notion of a quantum Turing-machine , whose design is based on the laws of quantum mechanics. It turns out that such a machine is not more powerful, in the sense of computability, than the machine originally constructed by Turing. Quantum Turing-machines do not violate the Church–Turing thesis. The benefit of quantum computing lies in efficiency . Quantum computers appear to be more efficient, in time, than classical Turing-machines, however its exact additional computational power is unclear, as this question ties in with deep open problems in complexity theory. We will sketch where BQP, the quantum analogue of the complexity class P, resides in the realm of complexity classes. §1. Introduction . A decade before Turing developed his theory of computing, physicists struggled with the advent of quantum mechanics. During the famous 5th Solvay Conference in 1927 it was clear that a new era of physics had surfaced. Its strange features like superposition and entanglement still lead to heated discussions and much confusion. However strange and counter-intuitive, the theory has never been refuted by experiments that are performed daily and in great numbers throughout laboratories around the world. Time after time the predictions of quantum mechanics are in full agreement with experiment. Shortly after the advent of quantum mechanics, Church, Turing and Post developed the notion of computability [Chu36, Tur36, Pos36]. Less than 10 years later these formal ideas would be put to practice resulting in the ENIAC, the first general purpose machine.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•May 1, 2014•0 citations

Computational models

Riccardo Manenti, Mário Motta

Abstract In this chapter, we introduce the definitions of automata Turing machines. We present different flavors of Turing machines including deterministic, probabilistic, and multi-tape machines. We present several complexity classes, i.e. collections of problems that can be solved by a machine with similar resources, including the P and NP classes. We present the Church-Turing thesis, which states that if a problem can be solved by a physical machine, then it can also be solved by any deterministic Turing machine. In the last part of the chapter, we introduce quantum Turing machines and the quantum circuit model. We study the complexity class BQP. This is the class of problems that can be solved by a quantum computer with polynomial resources and a small error probability. Finally, we introduce QMA, the quantum version of the complexity class NP. We present the k-LOCAL problem, and we show that this problem is in QMA

•Aug 25, 2023•0 citations

Critique of fault-tolerant quantum information processing

Robert Alicki

Introduction The idea of fault-tolerant quantum computation presents a bold challenge to the rather well established principles called the strong Church–Turing thesis and the Bohr correspondence principle. One of the variations of the strong Church–Turing thesis (SCTT), which is not due to Church or Turing, but rather gradually developed in the field of computational complexity theory, is the following [BV97]: Any “reasonable” model of computation can be efficiently simulated on a probabilistic Turing machine. This can be expressed even less formally but more practically as: No computer can be more efficient than a digital one equipped with a random number generator. Here, a computer A is “more efficient” than a computer B if A can solve, in polynomial time, a problem that cannot be solved in a polynomial time by computer B. On the other hand the Bohr correspondence principle (BCP) demands that: Classical physics and quantum physics give the same answer when the systems become large. A more rigorous form of the BCP is the following: For large systems the experimental data are consistent with classical probabilistic models . Here, by a classical probabilistic model we mean a model in which all observables are described by real functions, and all states by probability distributions on a certain set (“phase-space”).

arXiv:1310.8457•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Sep 5, 2013•4 citations

Guest Column

Carlo Mereghetti, Beatrice Palano

Quantum computing is a prolific research area, halfway between physics and computer science [27, 29, 52]. Most likely, its origins may be dated back to 70's, when some works on quantum information began to appear (see, e.g., [34, 37]). In early 80's, R.P. Feynman suggested that the computational power of quantum mechanical processes might be beyond that of traditional computation models [25]. Almost at the same time, P. Benioff already proved that such processes are at least as powerful as Turing machines [9]. In 1985, D. Deutsch [22] proposed the notion of a quantum Turing machine as a physically realizable model for a quantum computer. From the point of view of structural complexity, E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani introduced in [20] the class BQP of problems solvable in polynomial time on quantum Turing machines, focusing attention on relations with the corresponding deterministic and probabilistic classes P and BPP, respectively. Several works in the literature explored classical issues in complexity theory from the quantum paradigm perspective (see, e.g., [7, 60, 61]).

ACM SIGACT News•Oct 17, 2021•4 citations

The Power of the Lorentz Quantum Computer

Qi Zhang, Biao Wu

We analyze the power of the recently proposed Lorentz quantum computer (LQC), a theoretical model leveraging hyperbolic bits (hybits) governed by complex Lorentz transformations. We define the complexity class BLQP (bounded-error Lorentz quantum polynomial-time) and demonstrate its equivalence to the complexity class P♯P (the class of problems solvable by a deterministic polynomial-time Turing machine with access to a ♯P oracle). LQC algorithms are shown to solve NP-hard problems, such as the maximum independent set (MIS), in polynomial time, thereby placing NP and co-NP within BLQP. Furthermore, we establish that LQC can efficiently simulate quantum computing with postselection (PostBQP), while the reverse is not possible, highlighting LQC's unique "super-postselection" capability. By proving BLQP =P♯P, we situate the entire polynomial hierarchy (PH) within BLQP and reveal profound connections between computational complexity and physical frameworks like Lorentz quantum mechanics. These results underscore LQC's theoretical superiority over conventional quantum computing models and its potential to redefine boundaries in complexity theory.

Entropy•Feb 28, 2026•2 citations

Universality of quantum Turing machines with deterministic control

Paulo Mateus, Amı́lcar Sernadas, André Souto

A simple notion of quantum Turing machine with deterministic, classical control is proposed and shown to be powerful enough to compute any unitary transformation that is computable by a finitely generated quantum circuit. An efficient universal machine with the s-m-n property is presented. The BQP class is recovered. A robust notion of plain Kolmogorov complexity of quantum states is proposed and compared with those previously reported in the literature.

Journal of Logic and Computation•Feb 26, 2015•9 citations
In this paper, we extend the techniques developed in our previous work to construct a probabilistic Turing machine that runs within time O(nk)O(n^k)O(nk) for every k∈N1k\in\mathbb{N}_1k∈N1​ and accepts a language Ld∉PL_d\notin\mathcal{P}Ld​∈/P. We further show that Ld∈BPPL_d\in\mathcal{BPP}Ld​∈BPP, thereby separating BPP\mathcal{BPP}BPP from P\mathcal{P}P (i.e., P⫋BPP\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{BPP}P⫋BPP). Since the complexity class BQP\mathcal{BQP}BQP of {\em bounded error quantum polynomial-time computation} contains BPP\mathcal{BPP}BPP (i.e., BPP⊆BQP\mathcal{BPP}\subseteq\mathcal{BQP}BPP⊆BQP), our result confirms the long-standing conjecture that quantum computers are {\em rigorously more powerful} than classical deterministic computers (i.e., P⫋BQP\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{BQP}P⫋BQP). As an important consequence of the above results, we disprove the {\bf Extended Church-Turing Thesis}. Furthermore, we establish the following separations: (1) P⫋RP\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{RP}P⫋RP; (2) P⫋coRP\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq{\rm co}\mathcal{RP}P⫋coRP; (3) P⫋ZPP\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{ZPP}P⫋ZPP. These relationships were long-standing open questions in complexity theory. In addition, the separation P⫋BPP\mathcal{P}\subsetneqq\mathcal{BPP}P⫋BPP demonstrates that {\em randomness} plays an essential role in probabilistic computation. In particular, we prove the following: (4) The number of random bits used by any probabilistic algorithm accepting LdL_dLd​ cannot be reduced to O(log⁡n)O(\log n)O(logn); (5) There exists no efficient (complexity-theoretic) {\em pseudorandom generator} (PRG): G:{0,1}O(log⁡n)→{0,1}n; G:\{0,1\}^{O(\log n)}\rightarrow \{0,1\}^n;G:{0,1}O(logn)→{0,1}n; (6) There exists no quick HSG H:k(n)→nH:k(n)\rightarrow nH:k(n)→n with k(n)=O(log⁡n)k(n)=O(\log n)k(n)=O(logn).
. We revisit the notion of a quantum Turing-machine , whose design is based on the laws of quantum mechanics. It turns out that such a machine is not more powerful, in the sense of computability, than the machine originally constructed by Turing. Quantum Turing-machines do not violate the Church–Turing thesis. The benefit of quantum computing lies in efficiency . Quantum computers appear to be more efficient, in time, than classical Turing-machines, however its exact additional computational power is unclear, as this question ties in with deep open problems in complexity theory. We will sketch where BQP, the quantum analogue of the complexity class P, resides in the realm of complexity classes. §1. Introduction . A decade before Turing developed his theory of computing, physicists struggled with the advent of quantum mechanics. During the famous 5th Solvay Conference in 1927 it was clear that a new era of physics had surfaced. Its strange features like superposition and entanglement still lead to heated discussions and much confusion. However strange and counter-intuitive, the theory has never been refuted by experiments that are performed daily and in great numbers throughout laboratories around the world. Time after time the predictions of quantum mechanics are in full agreement with experiment. Shortly after the advent of quantum mechanics, Church, Turing and Post developed the notion of computability [Chu36, Tur36, Pos36]. Less than 10 years later these formal ideas would be put to practice resulting in the ENIAC, the first general purpose machine.
Abstract In this chapter, we introduce the definitions of automata Turing machines. We present different flavors of Turing machines including deterministic, probabilistic, and multi-tape machines. We present several complexity classes, i.e. collections of problems that can be solved by a machine with similar resources, including the P and NP classes. We present the Church-Turing thesis, which states that if a problem can be solved by a physical machine, then it can also be solved by any deterministic Turing machine. In the last part of the chapter, we introduce quantum Turing machines and the quantum circuit model. We study the complexity class BQP. This is the class of problems that can be solved by a quantum computer with polynomial resources and a small error probability. Finally, we introduce QMA, the quantum version of the complexity class NP. We present the k-LOCAL problem, and we show that this problem is in QMA
Introduction The idea of fault-tolerant quantum computation presents a bold challenge to the rather well established principles called the strong Church–Turing thesis and the Bohr correspondence principle. One of the variations of the strong Church–Turing thesis (SCTT), which is not due to Church or Turing, but rather gradually developed in the field of computational complexity theory, is the following [BV97]: Any “reasonable” model of computation can be efficiently simulated on a probabilistic Turing machine. This can be expressed even less formally but more practically as: No computer can be more efficient than a digital one equipped with a random number generator. Here, a computer A is “more efficient” than a computer B if A can solve, in polynomial time, a problem that cannot be solved in a polynomial time by computer B. On the other hand the Bohr correspondence principle (BCP) demands that: Classical physics and quantum physics give the same answer when the systems become large. A more rigorous form of the BCP is the following: For large systems the experimental data are consistent with classical probabilistic models . Here, by a classical probabilistic model we mean a model in which all observables are described by real functions, and all states by probability distributions on a certain set (“phase-space”).
Quantum computing is a prolific research area, halfway between physics and computer science [27, 29, 52]. Most likely, its origins may be dated back to 70's, when some works on quantum information began to appear (see, e.g., [34, 37]). In early 80's, R.P. Feynman suggested that the computational power of quantum mechanical processes might be beyond that of traditional computation models [25]. Almost at the same time, P. Benioff already proved that such processes are at least as powerful as Turing machines [9]. In 1985, D. Deutsch [22] proposed the notion of a quantum Turing machine as a physically realizable model for a quantum computer. From the point of view of structural complexity, E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani introduced in [20] the class BQP of problems solvable in polynomial time on quantum Turing machines, focusing attention on relations with the corresponding deterministic and probabilistic classes P and BPP, respectively. Several works in the literature explored classical issues in complexity theory from the quantum paradigm perspective (see, e.g., [7, 60, 61]).
We analyze the power of the recently proposed Lorentz quantum computer (LQC), a theoretical model leveraging hyperbolic bits (hybits) governed by complex Lorentz transformations. We define the complexity class BLQP (bounded-error Lorentz quantum polynomial-time) and demonstrate its equivalence to the complexity class P♯P (the class of problems solvable by a deterministic polynomial-time Turing machine with access to a ♯P oracle). LQC algorithms are shown to solve NP-hard problems, such as the maximum independent set (MIS), in polynomial time, thereby placing NP and co-NP within BLQP. Furthermore, we establish that LQC can efficiently simulate quantum computing with postselection (PostBQP), while the reverse is not possible, highlighting LQC's unique "super-postselection" capability. By proving BLQP =P♯P, we situate the entire polynomial hierarchy (PH) within BLQP and reveal profound connections between computational complexity and physical frameworks like Lorentz quantum mechanics. These results underscore LQC's theoretical superiority over conventional quantum computing models and its potential to redefine boundaries in complexity theory.