The central problem in computer science is the conjecture that two complexity classes, P (polynomial time) and NP (nondeterministic polynomial time-roughly those decision problems for which a proposed solution can be checked in polynomial time), are distinct in the standard Turing model of computation: P not equal NP. As a generality, we propose that each physical theory supports computational models whose power is limited by the physical theory. It is well known that classical physics supports a multitude of implementation of the Turing machine. Non-Abelian topological quantum field theories exhibit the mathematical features necessary to support a model capable of solving all #P problems, a computationally intractable class, in polynomial time. Specifically, Witten [Witten, E. (1989) Commun. Math. Phys. 121, 351-391] has identified expectation values in a certain SU(2)-field theory with values of the Jones polynomial [Jones, V. (1985) Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 12, 103-111] that are #P-hard [Jaeger, F., Vertigen, D. & Welsh, D. (1990) Math. Proc. Comb. Philos. Soc. 108, 35-53]. This suggests that some physical system whose effective Lagrangian contains a non-Abelian topological term might be manipulated to serve as an analog computer capable of solving NP or even #P-hard problems in polynomial time. Defining such a system and addressing the accuracy issues inherent in preparation and measurement is a major unsolved problem.
The rapid evolution of computers in the half century since their invention has resulted in dramatically smaller and faster computers. However, from a computational point of view, all these computers look alike; for example, they are built out of simple logic gates. A fundamental thesis of computer science---the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis---asserts that this is inevitable in a deep sense. Any computer can be simulated with at most a polynomial factor slowdown by a probabilistic Turing machine. Quantum computation poses the first credible challenge to this thesis. It goes back to a suggestion by Feynman [4], who pointed out that there appears to be no efficient way of simulating a quantum mechanical system on a computer, and suggested that, perhaps, a computer based on quantum physical principles might be able to carry out the simulation efficiently. Two formal models for quantum computers---the quantum Turing machine [2] and quantum computational networks [3]---were defined by Deutsch. The first three papers in this issue describe efficient quantum algorithms for computational tasks that we do not know how to solve classically. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani give the first formal evidence that quantum computers violate the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis. They show that a certain problem---the recursive Fourier sampling problem---can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but relative to an oracle, requires superpolynomial time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. Simon, in the paper "On the Power of Quantum Computation" introduces a fundamental projection technique and uses it to design an efficient quantum algorithm to determine whether a certain type of function is 2-1 or 1-1. He further shows that, relative to an oracle, this problem requires exponential time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. In the paper "Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer," Shor gives remarkable polynomial time quantum algorithms for two of the most famous problems in computer science: factoring and discrete log. Since the computational hardness of these problems is the basis of several famous cryptosystems, Shor's paper very dramatically underlines the power of quantum computers. To understand the computational power of quantum computers, it is helpful to consider a quantum mechanical system of n particles, each of which can be in one of two states, labeled
∣0⟩ and
∣1⟩. If this were a classical system, then its instantaneous state could be described by n bits. However, in quantum physics, the system is allowed to be in a linear superposition of configurations, and indeed the instantaneous state of the system is described by a unit vector in the 2n dimensional vector space, whose basis vectors correspond to all the2n classical configurations. Therefore, to describe the instantaneous state of the system, we must specify 2n complex numbers. Nature must update 2n complex numbers at each instant to evolve the system in time. This is an extraordinary amount of effort, since even for n = 200, 2n is larger than estimates of the number of elementary particles in the visible universe. Nonetheless, there are limits to the power of quantum computers. In "Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing," Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, and Vazirani show that, relative to a random oracle, with probability 1, the class NP cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine in time o(2n/2). This bound is tight, since recent work of Grover [5] has shown how to accept any language in NP in time O(2n/2) on a quantum Turing machine. Quantum computers are necessarily time reversible. Indeed, Bennett's work [1] on reversible computation inspired early work on quantum computation that preceded Feynman's paper [4]. The reversibility requirement makes it quite complex to implement even basic computational primitives such as looping or composition. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani show how to implement quantum programming primitives and give a construction for an efficient universal quantum Turing machine. The structure of the universal quantum Turing machine is quite simple: it consists of a deterministic Turing machine with a single "quantum coin flip." In "Quantum Computability," Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang greatly simplify this further by showing that a very simple type of coin flip is sufficient---a rotation by an angle
θ such that
sinθ=3/5. Making quantum computers robust against noise and decoherence is an important and challenging problem. In "Stabilization of Quantum Computations by Symmetrization," Barenco, Berthiaume, Deutsch, Ekert, Jozsa, and Macchiavello show how to use the quantum watchdog effect to stabilize a quantum computation against noise. Their method is based on running several copies of the quantum computer in parallel and projecting its state into the symmetric subspace at frequent intervals. They show that the quantum watchdog effect results in the suppression of errors that lie outside the symmetric subspace. Quantum computation touches upon the foundations of both computer science and quantum physics. It is not unlikely that the issues raised by quantum computation will stimulate further research into the foundations of quantum physics. I wish to express my gratitude to several people who made this special section possible. Oded Goldreich acted as editor for two of the papers in the issue and dealt with them with his characteristic efficiency and judgment. The editorial staff at SIAM, most notably Lisa Dougherty, Beth Gallagher, Deidre Wunderlich, and Sam Young, were extremely helpful, patient, and resourceful. Finally, I would like to thank a number of referees whose careful and timely reviews were critical to putting together this issue. Umesh Vazirani
It is indicated that principal models of computation are indeed significantly related. The quantum field computation model contains the quantum computation model of Feynman. (The term "quantum field computer" was used by Freedman.) Quantum field computation (as enhanced by Wightman's model of quantum field theory) involves computation over the continuum which is remarkably related to the real computation model of Smale. The latter model was established as a generalization of Turing computation. All this is not surprising since it is well known that the physics of quantum field theory (which includes Einstein's special relativity) contains quantum mechanics which in turn contains classical mechanics. The unity of these computing models, which seem to have grown largely independently, could shed new light into questions of computational complexity, into the central P (Polynomial time) versus NP (Non-deterministic Polynomial time) problem of computer science, and also into the description of Nature by fundamental physics theories.
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.
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]).
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.
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