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:quant-ph/0501176

Simulations of Quantum Turing Machines by Quantum Multi-Stack Machines

Daowen Qiu

Published Jan 30, 2005• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

As was well known, in classical computation, Turing machines, circuits, multi-stack machines, and multi-counter machines are equivalent, that is, they can simulate each other in polynomial time. In quantum computation, Yao [11] first proved that for any quantum Turing machines $M$, there exists quantum Boolean circuit $(n,t)$-simulating $M$, where $n$ denotes the length of input strings, and $t$ is the number of move steps before machine stopping. However, the simulations of quantum Turing machines by quantum multi-stack machines and quantum multi-counter machines have not been considered, and quantum multi-stack machines have not been established, either. Though quantum counter machines were dealt with by Kravtsev [6] and Yamasaki {\it et al.} [10], in which the machines count with $0,\pm 1$ only, we sense that it is difficult to simulate quantum Turing machines in terms of this fashion of quantum computing devices, and we therefore prove that the quantum multi-counter machines allowed to count with $0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\pm n$ for some $n>1$ can efficiently simulate quantum Turing machines. Therefore, our mail goals are to establish quantum multi-stack machines and quantum multi-counter machines with counts $0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\pm n$ and $n>1$, and particularly to simulate quantum Turing machines by these quantum computing devices.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0501176

Related papers

Quantum Turing Machines and Quantum Prover-Verifier Interactions

Abel Molina

We present results on quantum Turing machines and on prover-verifier interactions. \n \n \nIn our work on quantum Turing machines, we continue the line of research opened by Yao (1993), who proved that quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits are polynomially equivalent computational models: t ≥ n steps of a quantum Turing machine running on an input of length n can be simulated by a uniformly generated family of quantum circuits with size quadratic in t, and a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits can be simulated by a quantum Turing machine running in polynomial time. We then first revisit the simulation of quantum Turing machines with uniformly generated quantum circuits, and present a variation on the simulation method employed by Yao together with an analysis of it. This analysis reveals that the simulation of quantum Turing machines can be performed by quantum circuits having depth linear in t, rather than quadratic depth, and can be extended easily to many variants of quantum Turing machines, such as ones having multi-dimensional tapes. Our analysis is based on an extension of a method of Arrighi, Nesme, and Werner (2011) that allows for the localization of causal unitary evolutions, involving abstract lemmas that might be of independent interest. \n \n \nWe also consider the more complex extension of our variant to the circuit simulation of multi-tape quantum Turing machines, where our variant provides a circuit with O(t^k) size and O(t^{k-1}) depth for the simulation of t steps of a machine with k tapes. This can be contrasted with the O(t^{k}) depth corresponding to the generalization of Yao's simulation by Nishimura and Ozawa (2002). Our usage of abstract techniques regarding the localization of causal unitary evolutions allows again for a simplification of the algebraic manipulation aspects of the construction. We also discuss the further extension to the case of oracle quantum Turing machines. \n \n \nIn our work on prover-verifier interactions, we first consider a protocol under the name of perfect/conclusive quantum state exclusion. This means to be able to discard with certainty at least one out of n possible quantum state preparations by performing a measurement of the resulting state. When all the preparations correspond to pure states and there are no more of them than their common dimension, it is an open problem whether POVMs give any additional power for this task with respect to projective measurements. This is the case even for the simple case of three states in three dimensions, which is discussed by Caves, Fuchs and Schack (2002) as unsuccessfully tackled. In our work, we give an analytical proof that in this case POVMs do indeed not give any additional power with respect to projective measurements. We also discuss possible generalizations of our work, including an application of Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming that might be of special interest. \n \n \nWe additionally consider the problem of quantum hedging, a particular kind of quantum correlation that arises between parallel instances of prover-verifier interactions. M. and Watrous (2012) studied a protocol that exhibited a perfect form of quantum hedging, where the risk for the prover of losing a first game can completely offset the corresponding risk for a second game. We take a step towards a better understanding of this hedging phenomenon by giving a characterization of the prover's optimal behavior for a natural generalization of this protocol. Furthermore, we discuss how the usage of the logarithmic utility principle to analyze prover-verifier interactions could justify further study of quantum hedging.

•Jul 31, 2020•0 citations

Revisiting the simulation of quantum Turing machines by quantum circuits

Abel Molina, John Watrous

Yao's 1995 publication ‘Quantum circuit complexity’ in Proceedings of the 34th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pp. 352–361, proved that quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits are polynomially equivalent computational models: t ≥ n steps of a quantum Turing machine running on an input of length n can be simulated by a uniformly generated family of quantum circuits with size quadratic in t , and a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits can be simulated by a quantum Turing machine running in polynomial time. We revisit the simulation of quantum Turing machines with uniformly generated quantum circuits, which is the more challenging of the two simulation tasks, and present a variation on the simulation method employed by Yao together with an analysis of it. This analysis reveals that the simulation of quantum Turing machines can be performed by quantum circuits having depth linear in t , rather than quadratic depth, and can be extended to variants of quantum Turing machines, such as ones having multi-dimensional tapes. Our analysis is based on an extension of method described by Arright, Nesme and Werner in 2011 in Journal of Computer and System Sciences 77 , 372–378. ( doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2010.05.004 ), that allows for the localization of causal unitary evolutions.

arXiv:1808.01701•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Jun 1, 2019•60 citations

Simple circuit simulations of classical and quantum Turing machines

Yuri G. Gurevich, Andreas R. Blass

We construct reversible Boolean circuits efficiently simulating reversible Turing machines. Both the circuits and the simulation proof are rather simple. Then we give a fairly straightforward generalization of the circuits and the simulation proof to the quantum case.

arXiv:2111.10830•Proceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Sep 1, 2022•4 citations

Notes on Stack Machines and Quantum Stack Machines

Daowen Qiu

Multi-stack machines and Turing machines can simulate to each other. In this note, we give a succinct definition of multi-stack machines, and from this definition it is clearly seen that pushdown automata and deterministic finite automata are special cases of multi-stack machines. Also, with this mode of definition, pushdown automata and deterministic pushdown automata are equivalent and recognize all context-free languages. In addition, we are motivated to formulate concise definitions of quantum pushdown automata and quantum stack machines.

arXiv:2511.17264•Nov 21, 2025•0 citations

Quantum Computation

Cristopher Moore, Stephan Mertens

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.

•Aug 11, 2011•0 citations

Quantum Complexity Theory

Ethan Bernstein, Umesh V. Vazirani

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 $O(\log T)$ 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.

SIAM Journal on Computing•Oct 1, 1997•1,500 citations
As was well known, in classical computation, Turing machines, circuits, multi-stack machines, and multi-counter machines are equivalent, that is, they can simulate each other in polynomial time. In quantum computation, Yao [11] first proved that for any quantum Turing machines MMM, there exists quantum Boolean circuit (n,t)(n,t)(n,t)-simulating MMM, where nnn denotes the length of input strings, and ttt is the number of move steps before machine stopping. However, the simulations of quantum Turing machines by quantum multi-stack machines and quantum multi-counter machines have not been considered, and quantum multi-stack machines have not been established, either. Though quantum counter machines were dealt with by Kravtsev [6] and Yamasaki {\it et al.} [10], in which the machines count with 0,±10,\pm 10,±1 only, we sense that it is difficult to simulate quantum Turing machines in terms of this fashion of quantum computing devices, and we therefore prove that the quantum multi-counter machines allowed to count with 0,±1,±2,...,±n0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\pm n0,±1,±2,...,±n for some n>1n>1n>1 can efficiently simulate quantum Turing machines. Therefore, our mail goals are to establish quantum multi-stack machines and quantum multi-counter machines with counts 0,±1,±2,...,±n0,\pm 1,\pm 2,...,\pm n0,±1,±2,...,±n and n>1n>1n>1, and particularly to simulate quantum Turing machines by these quantum computing devices.
We present results on quantum Turing machines and on prover-verifier interactions. \n \n \nIn our work on quantum Turing machines, we continue the line of research opened by Yao (1993), who proved that quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits are polynomially equivalent computational models: t ≥ n steps of a quantum Turing machine running on an input of length n can be simulated by a uniformly generated family of quantum circuits with size quadratic in t, and a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits can be simulated by a quantum Turing machine running in polynomial time. We then first revisit the simulation of quantum Turing machines with uniformly generated quantum circuits, and present a variation on the simulation method employed by Yao together with an analysis of it. This analysis reveals that the simulation of quantum Turing machines can be performed by quantum circuits having depth linear in t, rather than quadratic depth, and can be extended easily to many variants of quantum Turing machines, such as ones having multi-dimensional tapes. Our analysis is based on an extension of a method of Arrighi, Nesme, and Werner (2011) that allows for the localization of causal unitary evolutions, involving abstract lemmas that might be of independent interest. \n \n \nWe also consider the more complex extension of our variant to the circuit simulation of multi-tape quantum Turing machines, where our variant provides a circuit with O(t^k) size and O(t^{k-1}) depth for the simulation of t steps of a machine with k tapes. This can be contrasted with the O(t^{k}) depth corresponding to the generalization of Yao's simulation by Nishimura and Ozawa (2002). Our usage of abstract techniques regarding the localization of causal unitary evolutions allows again for a simplification of the algebraic manipulation aspects of the construction. We also discuss the further extension to the case of oracle quantum Turing machines. \n \n \nIn our work on prover-verifier interactions, we first consider a protocol under the name of perfect/conclusive quantum state exclusion. This means to be able to discard with certainty at least one out of n possible quantum state preparations by performing a measurement of the resulting state. When all the preparations correspond to pure states and there are no more of them than their common dimension, it is an open problem whether POVMs give any additional power for this task with respect to projective measurements. This is the case even for the simple case of three states in three dimensions, which is discussed by Caves, Fuchs and Schack (2002) as unsuccessfully tackled. In our work, we give an analytical proof that in this case POVMs do indeed not give any additional power with respect to projective measurements. We also discuss possible generalizations of our work, including an application of Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Programming that might be of special interest. \n \n \nWe additionally consider the problem of quantum hedging, a particular kind of quantum correlation that arises between parallel instances of prover-verifier interactions. M. and Watrous (2012) studied a protocol that exhibited a perfect form of quantum hedging, where the risk for the prover of losing a first game can completely offset the corresponding risk for a second game. We take a step towards a better understanding of this hedging phenomenon by giving a characterization of the prover's optimal behavior for a natural generalization of this protocol. Furthermore, we discuss how the usage of the logarithmic utility principle to analyze prover-verifier interactions could justify further study of quantum hedging.
Yao's 1995 publication ‘Quantum circuit complexity’ in Proceedings of the 34th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pp. 352–361, proved that quantum Turing machines and quantum circuits are polynomially equivalent computational models: t ≥ n steps of a quantum Turing machine running on an input of length n can be simulated by a uniformly generated family of quantum circuits with size quadratic in t , and a polynomial-time uniformly generated family of quantum circuits can be simulated by a quantum Turing machine running in polynomial time. We revisit the simulation of quantum Turing machines with uniformly generated quantum circuits, which is the more challenging of the two simulation tasks, and present a variation on the simulation method employed by Yao together with an analysis of it. This analysis reveals that the simulation of quantum Turing machines can be performed by quantum circuits having depth linear in t , rather than quadratic depth, and can be extended to variants of quantum Turing machines, such as ones having multi-dimensional tapes. Our analysis is based on an extension of method described by Arright, Nesme and Werner in 2011 in Journal of Computer and System Sciences 77 , 372–378. ( doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2010.05.004 ), that allows for the localization of causal unitary evolutions.
Multi-stack machines and Turing machines can simulate to each other. In this note, we give a succinct definition of multi-stack machines, and from this definition it is clearly seen that pushdown automata and deterministic finite automata are special cases of multi-stack machines. Also, with this mode of definition, pushdown automata and deterministic pushdown automata are equivalent and recognize all context-free languages. In addition, we are motivated to formulate concise definitions of quantum pushdown automata and quantum stack machines.
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.
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(log⁡T)O(\log T)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.