NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality

Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics.Comment: 23 pages, minor correction

Quantum Certificate Complexity

Given a Boolean function f, we study two natural generalizations of the certificate complexity C(f): the randomized certificate complexity RC(f) and the quantum certificate complexity QC(f). Using Ambainis' adversary method, we exactly characterize QC(f) as the square root of RC(f). We then use this result to prove the new relation R0(f) = O(Q2(f)^2 Q0(f) log n) for total f, where R0, Q2, and Q0 are zero-error randomized, bounded-error quantum, and zero-error quantum query complexities respectively. Finally we give asymptotic gaps between the measures, including a total f for which C(f) is superquadratic in QC(f), and a symmetric partial f for which QC(f) = O(1) yet Q2(f) = Omega(n/log n).Comment: 9 page

Is Quantum Mechanics An Island In Theoryspace?

This recreational paper investigates what happens if we change quantum mechanics in several ways. The main results are as follows. First, if we replace the 2-norm by some other p-norm, then there are no nontrivial norm-preserving linear maps. Second, if we relax the demand that norm be preserved, we end up with a theory that allows rapid solution of PP-complete problems (as well as superluminal signalling). And third, if we restrict amplitudes to be real, we run into a difficulty much simpler than the usual one based on parameter-counting of mixed states.Comment: 9 pages, minor correction

Oracles Are Subtle But Not Malicious

Theoretical computer scientists have been debating the role of oracles since the 1970's. This paper illustrates both that oracles can give us nontrivial insights about the barrier problems in circuit complexity, and that they need not prevent us from trying to solve those problems. First, we give an oracle relative to which PP has linear-sized circuits, by proving a new lower bound for perceptrons and low- degree threshold polynomials. This oracle settles a longstanding open question, and generalizes earlier results due to Beigel and to Buhrman, Fortnow, and Thierauf. More importantly, it implies the first nonrelativizing separation of "traditional" complexity classes, as opposed to interactive proof classes such as MIP and MA-EXP. For Vinodchandran showed, by a nonrelativizing argument, that PP does not have circuits of size n^k for any fixed k. We present an alternative proof of this fact, which shows that PP does not even have quantum circuits of size n^k with quantum advice. To our knowledge, this is the first nontrivial lower bound on quantum circuit size. Second, we study a beautiful algorithm of Bshouty et al. for learning Boolean circuits in ZPP^NP. We show that the NP queries in this algorithm cannot be parallelized by any relativizing technique, by giving an oracle relative to which ZPP^||NP and even BPP^||NP have linear-size circuits. On the other hand, we also show that the NP queries could be parallelized if P=NP. Thus, classes such as ZPP^||NP inhabit a "twilight zone," where we need to distinguish between relativizing and black-box techniques. Our results on this subject have implications for computational learning theory as well as for the circuit minimization problem.Comment: 20 pages, 1 figur

A Linear-Optical Proof that the Permanent is #P-Hard

One of the crown jewels of complexity theory is Valiant's 1979 theorem that computing the permanent of an n*n matrix is #P-hard. Here we show that, by using the model of linear-optical quantum computing---and in particular, a universality theorem due to Knill, Laflamme, and Milburn---one can give a different and arguably more intuitive proof of this theorem.Comment: 12 pages, 2 figures, to appear in Proceedings of the Royal Society A. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2011.023