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

How to use a quantum computer: A multi-dimensional puzzle

Diego Quiñones

Published Sep 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

The Quantum Computer Puzzle

Gil Kalai

Notices of the American Mathematical Society•Apr 19, 2016•22 citations

A Computational Approach to the Quantum Puzzle

Tadashi Ogitsu

•Jun 8, 2007•0 citations

Three Puzzles on Mathematics, Computation, and Games

Gil Kalai

In this lecture I will talk about three mathematical puzzles involving mathematics and computation that have preoccupied me over the years.The first puzzle is to understand the amazing success of the simplex algorithm for linear programming.The second puzzle is about errors made when votes are counted during elections.The third puzzle is: are quantum computers possible?

Notices of the American Mathematical Society•Jul 13, 2018•3 citations

EFI Pairs Without One-Way Puzzles: Oracle Separations from Communication Complexity

Atul Mantri

EFI pairs (Brakerski, Canetti, and Qian, ITCS 2023) and one-way puzzles (Khurana and Tomer, STOC 2024) are the leading candidates for the minimal assumption of quantum cryptography. The first are efficiently preparable quantum states, statistically far yet computationally indistinguishable; the second are classical puzzles, easy to sample and hard to solve. One-way puzzles imply EFI pairs, and whether the converse holds is open. We construct a single classical oracle relative to which one-way puzzles do not exist, even with an unbounded verifier, while an EFI pair survives every distinguisher that queries the oracle classically throughout and holds advice about it, making its one superposition query at the end. The oracle answers every question about the output probabilities of quantum samplers, which removes the puzzles, and hides a Haar-random half-dimensional subspace. To prove security we reduce it to communication complexity. An adversary whose knowledge of the subspace arrives as classical query answers can be simulated inside a two-party protocol against the party holding it, so it does no better than the best classical protocol for Vector-in-Subspace (Klartag and Regev, STOC 2011), whatever the oracle computes. That argument does not cover the superposition query, which we bound instead using tools from random matrix theory. The same attack gives a classical simulation of any quantum party in a classical-message protocol with no entanglement shared in advance, so relative to the oracle there is no proof of quantumness either. Quantum polynomial time therefore offers no advantage on any task with classical inputs and outputs, while the two quantum states stay indistinguishable. We state conjectures on removing the restriction on superposition queries.

quant-pharXiv:2609.11901•Sep 11, 2026•0 citations

Three Puzzles on Mathematics, Computation, and Games

Gil Kalai

In this lecture I will talk about three mathematical puzzles involving mathematics and computation that have preoccupied me over the years. The first puzzle is to understand the amazing success of the simplex algorithm for linear programming. The second puzzle is about errors made when votes are counted during elections. The third puzzle is: are quantum computers possible?

arXiv:1801.02602•Jan 8, 2018•2 citations

Building a Quantum Computer

Jack D. Hidary

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2021•1 citation
EFI pairs (Brakerski, Canetti, and Qian, ITCS 2023) and one-way puzzles (Khurana and Tomer, STOC 2024) are the leading candidates for the minimal assumption of quantum cryptography. The first are efficiently preparable quantum states, statistically far yet computationally indistinguishable; the second are classical puzzles, easy to sample and hard to solve. One-way puzzles imply EFI pairs, and whether the converse holds is open. We construct a single classical oracle relative to which one-way puzzles do not exist, even with an unbounded verifier, while an EFI pair survives every distinguisher that queries the oracle classically throughout and holds advice about it, making its one superposition query at the end. The oracle answers every question about the output probabilities of quantum samplers, which removes the puzzles, and hides a Haar-random half-dimensional subspace. To prove security we reduce it to communication complexity. An adversary whose knowledge of the subspace arrives as classical query answers can be simulated inside a two-party protocol against the party holding it, so it does no better than the best classical protocol for Vector-in-Subspace (Klartag and Regev, STOC 2011), whatever the oracle computes. That argument does not cover the superposition query, which we bound instead using tools from random matrix theory. The same attack gives a classical simulation of any quantum party in a classical-message protocol with no entanglement shared in advance, so relative to the oracle there is no proof of quantumness either. Quantum polynomial time therefore offers no advantage on any task with classical inputs and outputs, while the two quantum states stay indistinguishable. We state conjectures on removing the restriction on superposition queries.