Superposition as memory: unlocking quantum automatic complexity

Imagine a lock with two states, "locked" and "unlocked", which may be manipulated using two operations, called 0 and 1. Moreover, the only way to (with certainty) unlock using four operations is to do them in the sequence 0011, i.e., $0^n1^n$ where $n=2$. In this scenario one might think that the lock needs to be in certain further states after each operation, so that there is some memory of what has been done so far. Here we show that this memory can be entirely encoded in superpositions of the two basic states "locked" and "unlocked", where, as dictated by quantum mechanics, the operations are given by unitary matrices. Moreover, we show using the Jordan--Schur lemma that a similar lock is not possible for $n=60$. We define the semi-classical quantum automatic complexity $Q_{s}(x)$ of a word $x$ as the infimum in lexicographic order of those pairs of nonnegative integers $(n,q)$ such that there is a subgroup $G$ of the projective unitary group PU$(n)$ with $|G|\le q$ and with $U_0,U_1\in G$ such that, in terms of a standard basis $\{e_k\}$ and with $U_z=\prod_k U_{z(k)}$, we have $U_x e_1=e_2$ and $U_y e_1 \ne e_2$ for all $y\ne x$ with $|y|=|x|$. We show that $Q_s$ is unbounded and not constant for strings of a given length. In particular, $$Q_{s}(0^21^2)\le (2,12) < (3,1) \le Q_{s}(0^{60}1^{60})$$ and $Q_s(0^{120})\le (2,121)$.Comment: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, UCNC (Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation) 201

A formally verified abstract account of Gödel's incompleteness theorems

We present an abstract development of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, performed with the help of the Isabelle/HOL theorem prover. We analyze sufficient conditions for the theorems’ applicability to a partially specified logic. In addition to the usual benefits of generality, our abstract perspective enables a comparison between alternative approaches from the literature. These include Rosser’s variation of the first theorem, Jeroslow’s variation of the second theorem, and the S ́wierczkowski–Paulson semantics-based approach. As part of our framework’s validation, we upgrade Paulson’s Isabelle proof to produce a mech- anization of the second theorem that does not assume soundness in the standard model, and in fact does not rely on any notion of model or semantic interpretation