In 1985, D. Deutsch introduced quantum Turing machines (QTMs for short) as Turing machines which can perform so called quantum parallel computations. Then, in 1994, P. Shor showed that QTM can factor integers with arbitrary small error probability in polynomial time. The quantum complexity theory is the computational complexity theory based on QTMs. In this paper, we first review the definitions of the QTM and major quantum complexity classes EQP, BQP, ZQP, etc. Then, we present the known results and major open questions in this field.
In 1985, D. Deutsch introduced quantum Turing machines (QTMs for short) as Turing machines which can perform so called quantum parallel computations. Then, in 1994, P. Shor showed that QTM can factor integers with arbitrary small error probability in polynomial time. The quantum complexity theory is the computational complexity theory based on QTMs. In this paper, we first review the definitions of the QTM and major quantum complexity classes EQP, BQP, ZQP, etc. Then, we present the known results and major open questions in this field.
In this paper some theoretical and (potentially) practical aspects of quantum computing are considered. Using the tools of transcendental number theory it is demonstrated that quantum Turing machines (QTM) with rational amplitudes are sufficient to define the class of bounded error quantum polynomial time (BQP) introduced by Bernstein and Vazirani [Proc. 25th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation, 1993, pp. 11--20, SIAM J. Comput., 26 (1997), pp. 1277--1339]. On the other hand, if quantum Turing machines are allowed unrestricted amplitudes (i.e., arbitrary complex amplitudes), then the corresponding BQP class has uncountable cardinality and contains sets of all Turing degrees. In contrast, allowing unrestricted amplitudes does not increase the power of computation for error-free quantum polynomial time (EQP). Moreover, with unrestricted amplitudes, BQP is not equal to EQP. The relationship between quantum complexity classes and classical complexity classes is also investigated. It is shown that when quantum Turing machines are restricted to have transition amplitudes which are algebraic numbers, BQP, EQP, and nondeterministic quantum polynomial time (NQP) are all contained in PP, hence in ${\rm P}^{#{\rm P}}$ and PSPACE. A potentially practical issue of designing "machine independent" quantum programs is also addressed. A single ("almost universal") quantum algorithm based on Shor's method for factoring integers is developed which would run correctly on almost all quantum computers, even if the underlying unitary transformations are unknown to the programmer and the device builder.
Abstract. In this paper we study quantum computation from a complexity theoretic viewpoint. Our rst result is the existence of an ecient universal quantum Turing machine in Deutsch’s model of a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97{117]. This construction is substantially more complicated than the corresponding construction for classical Turing machines (TMs); in fact, even simple primitives such as looping, branching, and composition are not straightforward in the context of quantum Turing machines. We establish how these familiar primitives can be implemented and introduce some new, purely quantum mechanical primitives, such as changing the computational basis and carrying out an arbitrary unitary transformation of polynomially bounded dimension. We also consider the precision to which the transition amplitudes of a quantum Turing machine need to be specied. We prove that O(log T) bits of precision suce to support a T step computation. This justies the claim that the quantum Turing machine model should be regarded as a discrete model of computation and not an analog one. We give the rst formal evidence that quantum Turing machines violate the modern (complexity theoretic) formulation of the Church{Turing thesis. We show the existence of a problem, relative to an oracle, that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but requires superpolynomial time on a bounded-error probabilistic Turing machine, and thus not in the class BPP. The class BQP of languages that are eciently decidable (with small error-probability) on a quantum Turing machine satises BPP ⊆ BQP ⊆ P]P. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving a mathematical proof that quantum Turing machines are more powerful than classical probabilistic Turing machines (in the unrelativized setting) unless there is a major breakthrough in complexity theory.
In this paper we study quantum computation from a complexity theoretic viewpoint. Our first result is the existence of an efficient universal quantum Turing machine in Deutsch's model of a quantum Turing machine (QTM) [Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A, 400 (1985), pp. 97--117]. This construction is substantially more complicated than the corresponding construction for classical Turing machines (TMs); in fact, even simple primitives such as looping, branching, and composition are not straightforward in the context of quantum Turing machines. We establish how these familiar primitives can be implemented and introduce some new, purely quantum mechanical primitives, such as changing the computational basis and carrying out an arbitrary unitary transformation of polynomially bounded dimension. We also consider the precision to which the transition amplitudes of a quantum Turing machine need to be specified. We prove that O(logT) bits of precision suffice to support a T step computation. This justifies the claim that the quantum Turing machine model should be regarded as a discrete model of computation and not an analog one. We give the first formal evidence that quantum Turing machines violate the modern (complexity theoretic) formulation of the Church--Turing thesis. We show the existence of a problem, relative to an oracle, that can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but requires superpolynomial time on a bounded-error probabilistic Turing machine, and thus not in the class $\BPP$. The class $\BQP$ of languages that are efficiently decidable (with small error-probability) on a quantum Turing machine satisfies $\BPP \subseteq \BQP \subseteq \Ptime^{\SP}$. Therefore, there is no possibility of giving a mathematical proof that quantum Turing machines are more powerful than classical probabilistic Turing machines (in the unrelativized setting) unless there is a major breakthrough in complexity theory.
In 1985, David Deutsch introduced quantum Turing machines (QTMs for short) as Turing machines which can perform so called quantum parallel computations. Algorithms executed on QTMs are called quantum algorithms. It is well known that Peter Shor designed a polynomial time quantum algorithm for integer factoring in 1994. In this paper, we first illustrate several major methods of designing efficient quantum algorithms with Shor's algorithm as an example. On the other hand, many researchers are studying how to physically implement quantum computers based on QTM. Among others, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) offers an appealing prospect for implementation of quantum computers because of a number of reasons. But, quantum computations performed on NMR is slightly different from those performed on QTMs. For example, Shor's factoring algorithm cannot be executed on an NMR quantum computer as it is. In this paper, we show how to factor integers in polynomial time by using NMR quantum computers.
Deutsch proposed two sorts of models of quantum computers, quantum Turing machines (QTMs) and quantum circuit families (QCFs). In this paper we explore the computational powers of these models and re-examine the claim of the computational equivalence of these models often made in the literature without detailed investigations. For this purpose, we formulate the notion of the codes of QCFs and the uniformity of QCFs by the computability of the codes. Various complexity classes are introduced for QTMs and QCFs according to constraints on the error probability of algorithms or transition amplitudes. Their interrelations are examined in detail. For Monte Carlo algorithms, it is proved that the complexity classes based on uniform QCFs are identical with the corresponding classes based on QTMs. However, for Las Vegas algorithms, it is still open whether the two models are equivalent. We indicate the possibility that they are not equivalent. In addition, we give a complete proof of the existence of a universal QTM simulating multi-tape QTMs efficiently. We also examine the simulation of various types of QTMs such as multi-tape QTMs, single tape QTMs, stationary, normal form QTMs (SNQTMs), and QTMs with the binary tapes. As a result, we show that these QTMs are computationally equivalent one another as computing models implementing not only Monte Carlo algorithms but exact (or error-free) ones.
Contrary to the classical case, the relation between quantum programming languages and quantum Turing Machines (QTM) has not been fully investigated. In particular, there are features of QTMs that have not been exploited, a notable example being the intrinsic infinite nature of any quantum computation. In this paper, we propose a definition of QTM, which extends and unifies the notions of Deutsch and Bernstein & Vazirani. In particular, we allow both arbitrary quantum input, and meaningful superpositions of computations, where some of them are “terminated” with an “output”, while others are not. For some infinite computations an “output” is obtained as a limit of finite portions of the computation. We propose a natural and robust observation protocol for our QTMs, which does not modify the probability of the possible outcomes of the machines. Finally, we use QTMs to define a class of quantum computable functions—any such function is a mapping from a general quantum state to a probability distribution of natural numbers. We expect that our class of functions, when restricted to classical input-output, will not be different from the set of the recursive functions.