Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics

Though the truths of logic and pure mathematics are objective and independent of any contingent facts or laws of nature, our knowledge of these truths depends entirely on our knowledge of the laws of physics. Recent progress in the quantum theory of computation has provided practical instances of this, and forces us to abandon the classical view that computation, and hence mathematical proof, are purely logical notions independent of that of computation as a physical process. Henceforward, a proof must be regarded not as an abstract object or process but as a physical process, a species of computation, whose scope and reliability depend on our knowledge of the physics of the computer concerned.Comment: 19 pages, 8 figure

Universality and programmability of quantum computers

Manin, Feynman, and Deutsch have viewed quantum computing as a kind of universal physical simulation procedure. Much of the writing about quantum logic circuits and quantum Turing machines has shown how these machines can simulate an arbitrary unitary transformation on a finite number of qubits. The problem of universality has been addressed most famously in a paper by Deutsch, and later by Bernstein and Vazirani as well as Kitaev and Solovay. The quantum logic circuit model, developed by Feynman and Deutsch, has been more prominent in the research literature than Deutsch's quantum Turing machines. Quantum Turing machines form a class closely related to deterministic and probabilistic Turing machines and one might hope to find a universal machine in this class. A universal machine is the basis of a notion of programmability. The extent to which universality has in fact been established by the pioneers in the field is examined and this key notion in theoretical computer science is scrutinised in quantum computing by distinguishing various connotations and concomitant results and problems.Comment: 17 pages, expands on arXiv:0705.3077v1 [quant-ph

Non-classical computing: feasible versus infeasible

Physics sets certain limits on what is and is not computable. These limits are very far from having been reached by current technologies. Whilst proposals for hypercomputation are almost certainly infeasible, there are a number of non classical approaches that do hold considerable promise. There are a range of possible architectures that could be implemented on silicon that are distinctly different from the von Neumann model. Beyond this, quantum simulators, which are the quantum equivalent of analogue computers, may be constructable in the near future

Measurement-Based Quantum Turing Machines and their Universality

Quantum measurement is universal for quantum computation. This universality allows alternative schemes to the traditional three-step organisation of quantum computation: initial state preparation, unitary transformation, measurement. In order to formalize these other forms of computation, while pointing out the role and the necessity of classical control in measurement-based computation, and for establishing a new upper bound of the minimal resources needed to quantum universality, a formal model is introduced by means of Measurement-based Quantum Turing Machines.Comment: 13 pages, based upon quant-ph/0402156 with significant improvement

Zeno machines and hypercomputation

This paper reviews the Church-Turing Thesis (or rather, theses) with reference to their origin and application and considers some models of "hypercomputation", concentrating on perhaps the most straight-forward option: Zeno machines (Turing machines with accelerating clock). The halting problem is briefly discussed in a general context and the suggestion that it is an inevitable companion of any reasonable computational model is emphasised. It is hinted that claims to have "broken the Turing barrier" could be toned down and that the important and well-founded role of Turing computability in the mathematical sciences stands unchallenged.Comment: 11 pages. First submitted in December 2004, substantially revised in July and in November 2005. To appear in Theoretical Computer Scienc

Can biological quantum networks solve NP-hard problems?

There is a widespread view that the human brain is so complex that it cannot be efficiently simulated by universal Turing machines. During the last decades the question has therefore been raised whether we need to consider quantum effects to explain the imagined cognitive power of a conscious mind. This paper presents a personal view of several fields of philosophy and computational neurobiology in an attempt to suggest a realistic picture of how the brain might work as a basis for perception, consciousness and cognition. The purpose is to be able to identify and evaluate instances where quantum effects might play a significant role in cognitive processes. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is that quantum-enhanced cognition and intelligence are very unlikely to be found in biological brains. Quantum effects may certainly influence the functionality of various components and signalling pathways at the molecular level in the brain network, like ion ports, synapses, sensors, and enzymes. This might evidently influence the functionality of some nodes and perhaps even the overall intelligence of the brain network, but hardly give it any dramatically enhanced functionality. So, the conclusion is that biological quantum networks can only approximately solve small instances of NP-hard problems. On the other hand, artificial intelligence and machine learning implemented in complex dynamical systems based on genuine quantum networks can certainly be expected to show enhanced performance and quantum advantage compared with classical networks. Nevertheless, even quantum networks can only be expected to efficiently solve NP-hard problems approximately. In the end it is a question of precision - Nature is approximate.Comment: 38 page