Abstract According to the Church-Turing Thesis, a Turing machine, and thus the programming languages and computers in existence, can simulate any reasonable computing device. However, there are physical devices that are exponentially more efficient than a Turing machine, and hence would prove exponentially difficult to simulate using such a machine. This chapter explores the concept of quantum computers and their potential not only to simulate quantum physics exponentially faster than classical computers but also to solve other problems exponentially faster. It considers algorithms that break cryptosystems, find needles in haystacks, and predict who can win a game. It first describes particles, waves, and amplitudes in quantum computation before turning to states and operators. It then examines how interference lets a quantum computer learn some things about a function, how quantum computers can solve factoring in polynomial time, the link between factoring and modern cryptography, graph isomorphism and the hidden subgroup problem, and quantum walks and scattering.
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
Abstract Quantum computing1—the processing of information according to the fundamental laws of physics—offers a means to solve efficiently a small but significant set of classically intractable problems. Quantum computers are based on the controlled manipulation of entangled quantum states, which are extremely sensitive to noise and imprecision; active correction of errors must therefore be implemented without causing loss of coherence. Quantum error-correction theory2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 has made great progress in this regard, by predicting error-correcting ‘codeword’ quantum states. But the coding is inefficient and requires many quantum bits10, 11, 12, which results in physically unwieldy fault-tolerant quantum circuits10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Here I report a general technique for circumventing the trade-off between the achieved noise tolerance and the scale-up in computer size that is required to realize the error correction. I adapt the recovery operation (the process by which noise is suppressed through error detection and correction) to simultaneously correct errors and perform a useful measurement that drives the computation. The result is that a quantum computer need be only an order of magnitude larger than the logic device contained within it. For example, the physical scale-up factor10, 11 required to factorize a thousand-digit number is reduced from 1, 500 to 22, while preserving the original tolerated gate error rate (10−5) and memory noise per bit (10−7). The difficulty of realizing a useful quantum computer is therefore significantly reduced.
A digital computer is generally believed to be an efficient universal computing device; that is, it is believed able to simulate any physical computing device with an increase in computation time by at most a polynomial factor. This may not be true when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration. This paper considers factoring integers and finding discrete logarithms, two problems which are generally thought to be hard on a classical computer and which have been used as the basis of several proposed cryptosystems. Efficient randomized algorithms are given for these two problems on a hypothetical quantum computer. These algorithms take a number of steps polynomial in the input size, e.g., the number of digits of the integer to be factored.
The "processing and storage of information" functions of the computer have greatly accelerated the pace of "human progress." To solve any mathematical or computational problem using a computer, an "efficient algorithm" for solving the problem is required. A quantum computer is a device that can perform computational tasks based on the principles of quantum mechanics. In an actual quantum computer, parallel processing can indeed be performed using a minimum of resources which is impossible in a classical computer. To perform parallel processing in a classical computer, huge resources and space are required. A qubit is a smallest unit of information in a quantum computer similar to a bit in a classical computer. Classical computers consist of wires and logic gates. A quantum algorithm can only be run on a quantum computer. A quantum computer is built from a quantum circuit that consists of quantum gates and wires.
A digital computer is generally believed to be an efficient universal computing device; that is, it is believed to be able to simulate any physical computing device with an increase in computation time by at most a polynomial factor. This may not be true when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration. This paper considers factoring integers and finding discrete logarithms, two problems that are generally thought to be hard on classical computers and that have been used as the basis of several proposed cryptosystems. Efficient randomized algorithms are given for these two problems on a hypothetical quantum computer. These algorithms take a number of steps polynomial in the input size, for example, the number of digits of the integer to be factored.