Uniform Diagonalization Theorem for Complexity Classes of Promise Problems including Randomized and Quantum Classes

Diagonalization in the spirit of Cantor's diagonal arguments is a widely used tool in theoretical computer sciences to obtain structural results about computational problems and complexity classes by indirect proofs. The Uniform Diagonalization Theorem allows the construction of problems outside complexity classes while still being reducible to a specific decision problem. This paper provides a generalization of the Uniform Diagonalization Theorem by extending it to promise problems and the complexity classes they form, e.g. randomized and quantum complexity classes. The theorem requires from the underlying computing model not only the decidability of its acceptance and rejection behaviour but also of its promise-contradicting indifferent behaviour - a property that we will introduce as "total decidability" of promise problems. Implications of the Uniform Diagonalization Theorem are mainly of two kinds: 1. Existence of intermediate problems (e.g. between BQP and QMA) - also known as Ladner's Theorem - and 2. Undecidability if a problem of a complexity class is contained in a subclass (e.g. membership of a QMA-problem in BQP). Like the original Uniform Diagonalization Theorem the extension applies besides BQP and QMA to a large variety of complexity class pairs, including combinations from deterministic, randomized and quantum classes.Comment: 15 page

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

Computer Program Simulation of a Quantum Turing Machine with Circuit Model

Molina and Watrous present a variation of the method to simulate a quantum Turing machine employed in Yao’s 1995 publication “Quantum Circuit Complexity”. We use a computer program to implement their method with linear algebra and an additional unitary operator defined to complete the details. Their method is verified to be correct on a quantum Turing machine

Pathways to cellular supremacy in biocomputing

Synthetic biology uses living cells as the substrate for performing human-defined computations. Many current implementations of cellular computing are based on the “genetic circuit” metaphor, an approximation of the operation of silicon-based computers. Although this conceptual mapping has been relatively successful, we argue that it fundamentally limits the types of computation that may be engineered inside the cell, and fails to exploit the rich and diverse functionality available in natural living systems. We propose the notion of “cellular supremacy” to focus attention on domains in which biocomputing might offer superior performance over traditional computers. We consider potential pathways toward cellular supremacy, and suggest application areas in which it may be found.A.G.-M. was supported by the SynBio3D project of the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R019002/1) and the European CSA on biological standardization BIOROBOOST (EU grant number 820699). T.E.G. was supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (grant UF160357) and BrisSynBio, a BBSRC/ EPSRC Synthetic Biology Research Centre (grant BB/L01386X/1). P.Z. was supported by the EPSRC Portabolomics project (grant EP/N031962/1). P.C. was supported by SynBioChem, a BBSRC/EPSRC Centre for Synthetic Biology of Fine and Specialty Chemicals (grant BB/M017702/1) and the ShikiFactory100 project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 814408