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:cs/0411094

On the existence of truly autonomic computing systems and the link with quantum computing

R. Srinivasan, H. P. Raghunandan

Published Nov 25, 2004• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

A theoretical model of truly autonomic computing systems (ACS), with infinitely many constraints, is proposed. An argument similar to Turing's for the unsolvability of the halting problem, which is permitted in classical logic, shows that such systems cannot exist. Turing's argument fails in the recently proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL), which permits the existence of ACS. NAFL also justifies quantum superposition and entanglement, which are essential ingredients of quantum algorithms, and resolves the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox in favour of quantum mechanics and non-locality. NAFL requires that the autonomic manager (AM) must be conceptually and architecturally distinct from the managed element, in order for the ACS to exist as a non-self-referential entity. Such a scenario is possible if the AM uses quantum algorithms and is protected from all problems by (unbreakable) quantum encryption, while the managed element remains classical. NAFL supports such a link between autonomic and quantum computing, with the AM existing as a metamathematical entity. NAFL also allows quantum algorithms to access truly random elements and thereby supports non-standard models of quantum (hyper-) computation that permit infinite parallelism.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.cs/0411094

Related papers

Undecidable, Unrecognizable, and Quantum Computing

Michael Siomau

Quantum computing allows us to solve some problems much faster than existing classical algorithms. Yet, the quantum computer has been believed to be no more powerful than the most general computing model—the Turing machine. Undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, and unrecognizable inputs, such as the real numbers, are beyond the theoretical limit of the Turing machine. I suggest a model for a quantum computer, which is less general than the Turing machine, but may solve the halting problem for any task programmable on it. Moreover, inputs unrecognizable by the Turing machine can be recognized by the model, thus breaking the theoretical limit for a computational task. A quantum computer is not just a successful design of the Turing machine as it is widely perceived now, but is a different, less general but more powerful model for computing, the practical realization of which may need different strategies than those in use now.

Quantum Reports•Jul 1, 2020•3 citations

A Paraconsistent Approach to Quantum Computing

Juan C. Agudelo, Walter Alexandre Carnielli

We propose a method to define axiomatic theories for deterministic Turing machine computations. This method, when applied to axiomatizing computations in non-deterministic Turing machines, produces (in some cases) contradictory theories, therefore trivial theories (considering classical logic as the underlying logic). Substituting in such theories the underlying logic by the paraconsistent logic LFI1 ∗ permits us to define a new model of computation which we call paraconsistent Turing machine. We show that this initial model of computation allows the simulation of important quantum computing features. In particular, it allows to simulate the quantum solution of the well-known Deutsch’s and Deutsch-Jozsa problems. However, we show that this initial model of computation does not adequately represent the notion of entangled states, a key feature in quantum computing. In this way, the construction is refined by defining a paraconsistent logic with a connective expressing entangled states in a logical fashion, and this logic is used to define a more sharpened model of paraconsistent Turing machines, better approaching the quantum computing features. Finally, we define complexity classes for the models introduced and establish some surprising relationships with classical complexity classes.

•Feb 1, 2008•0 citations

Quantum State Superposition for Universal Computation Architecture

Jincheng Zhang

This paper proposes a novel computational architecture centered around the fundamental principles of quantum state superposition and quantum entanglement. The core claim is the design of a universally applicable quantum computing framework that, without relying on pre-defined algorithms, can tackle any solvable computational problem. The proposed mechanism leverages the creation of highly entangled quantum systems, exploiting superposition to enable parallel information processing and transformation. Unlike existing quantum computing approaches which are often tailored to specific problems, this architecture represents a shift towards a truly general-purpose quantum computer. The theoretical underpinnings of this architecture are explored, focusing on the necessary conditions for achieving universal computation and outlining potential challenges and future research directions. We introduce a framework that moves beyond algorithmic constraints, offering a pathway toward harnessing the full potential of quantum mechanics for computational tasks.

•Sep 5, 2026•0 citations

THE QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION PRINCIPLE JUSTIFIED IN A NEW NON-ARISTOTELIAN FINITARY LOGIC

Radhakrishnan Srinivasan

In the proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL), truths for formal propositions can exist only with respect to axiomatic theories, essentially as temporary axiomatic declarations in the human mind. An undecidable proposition P in a consistent NAFL theory T is true/false with respect to T if and only if it has been axiomatically declared as true/false by virtue of its provability/refutability in an interpretation T* of T. In the absence of any such axiomatic declarations, P is in a superposed state of 'neither true nor false' and the consistency of T requires the existence of a non-classical model for T in which P&¬P is the case. Here T* is an axiomatic NAFL theory that, like T, resides in the human mind and acts as the 'truth-maker' for (a model of) T. Quantum superposition is justified by identifying 'axiomatic declarations' for the truth/falsity of P (by virtue of its provability/refutability in T*) with 'measurement' in the real world. NAFL also explains and de-mystifies the phenomenon of entanglement. NAFL severely restricts classical infinitary reasoning, but possibly provides sufficient machinery for a consistent axiomatization of quantum mechanics.

International Journal of Quantum Information•Dec 17, 2004•3 citations

Computing the Noncomputable

Tien D. Kieu

We explore in the framework of Quantum Computation the notion of computability, which holds a central position in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. A quantum algorithm that exploits the quantum adiabatic which is equivalent to the Turing halting problem and known to be mathematically noncomputable. Generalised quantum algorithms are also considered for some other mathematical noncomputables in the same and of different noncomputability classes. The key element of all these algorithms is the measurability of both the values of physical observables and of the quantum-mechanical probability distributions for these values. It is argued that computability, and thus the limits of Mathematics, ought to be determined not

•Mar 7, 2002•55 citations

Free Quantum Computing

Jacques Carette, Chris Heunen, Robin Kaarsgaard +2 more

Quantum computing improves substantially on known classical algorithms for various important problems, but the nature of the relationship between quantum and classical computing is not yet fully understood. This relationship can be clarified by free models, that add to classical computing just enough physical principles to represent quantum computing and no more. Here we develop an axiomatisation of quantum computing that replaces the standard continuous postulates with a small number of discrete equations, as well as a free model that replaces the standard linear-algebraic model with a category-theoretical one. The axioms and model are based on reversible classical computing, isolate quantum advantage in the ability to take certain well-behaved square roots, and link to various quantum computing hardware platforms. This approach allows combinatorial optimisation, including brute force computer search, to optimise quantum computations. The free model may be interpreted as a programming language for quantum computers, that has the same expressivity and computational universality as the standard model, but additionally allows automated verification and reasoning.

quant-pharXiv:2602.16927•Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences•Feb 20, 2026•0 citations
A theoretical model of truly autonomic computing systems (ACS), with infinitely many constraints, is proposed. An argument similar to Turing's for the unsolvability of the halting problem, which is permitted in classical logic, shows that such systems cannot exist. Turing's argument fails in the recently proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL), which permits the existence of ACS. NAFL also justifies quantum superposition and entanglement, which are essential ingredients of quantum algorithms, and resolves the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox in favour of quantum mechanics and non-locality. NAFL requires that the autonomic manager (AM) must be conceptually and architecturally distinct from the managed element, in order for the ACS to exist as a non-self-referential entity. Such a scenario is possible if the AM uses quantum algorithms and is protected from all problems by (unbreakable) quantum encryption, while the managed element remains classical. NAFL supports such a link between autonomic and quantum computing, with the AM existing as a metamathematical entity. NAFL also allows quantum algorithms to access truly random elements and thereby supports non-standard models of quantum (hyper-) computation that permit infinite parallelism.
Quantum computing allows us to solve some problems much faster than existing classical algorithms. Yet, the quantum computer has been believed to be no more powerful than the most general computing model—the Turing machine. Undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, and unrecognizable inputs, such as the real numbers, are beyond the theoretical limit of the Turing machine. I suggest a model for a quantum computer, which is less general than the Turing machine, but may solve the halting problem for any task programmable on it. Moreover, inputs unrecognizable by the Turing machine can be recognized by the model, thus breaking the theoretical limit for a computational task. A quantum computer is not just a successful design of the Turing machine as it is widely perceived now, but is a different, less general but more powerful model for computing, the practical realization of which may need different strategies than those in use now.
We propose a method to define axiomatic theories for deterministic Turing machine computations. This method, when applied to axiomatizing computations in non-deterministic Turing machines, produces (in some cases) contradictory theories, therefore trivial theories (considering classical logic as the underlying logic). Substituting in such theories the underlying logic by the paraconsistent logic LFI1 ∗ permits us to define a new model of computation which we call paraconsistent Turing machine. We show that this initial model of computation allows the simulation of important quantum computing features. In particular, it allows to simulate the quantum solution of the well-known Deutsch’s and Deutsch-Jozsa problems. However, we show that this initial model of computation does not adequately represent the notion of entangled states, a key feature in quantum computing. In this way, the construction is refined by defining a paraconsistent logic with a connective expressing entangled states in a logical fashion, and this logic is used to define a more sharpened model of paraconsistent Turing machines, better approaching the quantum computing features. Finally, we define complexity classes for the models introduced and establish some surprising relationships with classical complexity classes.
This paper proposes a novel computational architecture centered around the fundamental principles of quantum state superposition and quantum entanglement. The core claim is the design of a universally applicable quantum computing framework that, without relying on pre-defined algorithms, can tackle any solvable computational problem. The proposed mechanism leverages the creation of highly entangled quantum systems, exploiting superposition to enable parallel information processing and transformation. Unlike existing quantum computing approaches which are often tailored to specific problems, this architecture represents a shift towards a truly general-purpose quantum computer. The theoretical underpinnings of this architecture are explored, focusing on the necessary conditions for achieving universal computation and outlining potential challenges and future research directions. We introduce a framework that moves beyond algorithmic constraints, offering a pathway toward harnessing the full potential of quantum mechanics for computational tasks.
In the proposed non-Aristotelian finitary logic (NAFL), truths for formal propositions can exist only with respect to axiomatic theories, essentially as temporary axiomatic declarations in the human mind. An undecidable proposition P in a consistent NAFL theory T is true/false with respect to T if and only if it has been axiomatically declared as true/false by virtue of its provability/refutability in an interpretation T* of T. In the absence of any such axiomatic declarations, P is in a superposed state of 'neither true nor false' and the consistency of T requires the existence of a non-classical model for T in which P&¬P is the case. Here T* is an axiomatic NAFL theory that, like T, resides in the human mind and acts as the 'truth-maker' for (a model of) T. Quantum superposition is justified by identifying 'axiomatic declarations' for the truth/falsity of P (by virtue of its provability/refutability in T*) with 'measurement' in the real world. NAFL also explains and de-mystifies the phenomenon of entanglement. NAFL severely restricts classical infinitary reasoning, but possibly provides sufficient machinery for a consistent axiomatization of quantum mechanics.
We explore in the framework of Quantum Computation the notion of computability, which holds a central position in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. A quantum algorithm that exploits the quantum adiabatic which is equivalent to the Turing halting problem and known to be mathematically noncomputable. Generalised quantum algorithms are also considered for some other mathematical noncomputables in the same and of different noncomputability classes. The key element of all these algorithms is the measurability of both the values of physical observables and of the quantum-mechanical probability distributions for these values. It is argued that computability, and thus the limits of Mathematics, ought to be determined not
Quantum computing improves substantially on known classical algorithms for various important problems, but the nature of the relationship between quantum and classical computing is not yet fully understood. This relationship can be clarified by free models, that add to classical computing just enough physical principles to represent quantum computing and no more. Here we develop an axiomatisation of quantum computing that replaces the standard continuous postulates with a small number of discrete equations, as well as a free model that replaces the standard linear-algebraic model with a category-theoretical one. The axioms and model are based on reversible classical computing, isolate quantum advantage in the ability to take certain well-behaved square roots, and link to various quantum computing hardware platforms. This approach allows combinatorial optimisation, including brute force computer search, to optimise quantum computations. The free model may be interpreted as a programming language for quantum computers, that has the same expressivity and computational universality as the standard model, but additionally allows automated verification and reasoning.