Reply to Andrew Hodges
Tien D. Kieu
Abstract
We separate the criticisms of Hodges Hodges2005 and others into those against the algorithm itself and those against its physical implementation. We then point out that all those against the algorithm are either misleading or misunderstanding, and that the algorithm is self consistent. The only central argument against physical implementations of the algorithm, on the other hand, is based on an assumption that its Hamiltonians cannot be effectively constructed due to a lack of infinite precision. However, so far there is no known physical principle dictating why that cannot be done. To show that the criticism may not be a forgone conclusion, we point out the virtually unknown fact that, on the contrary, simple instances of Diophantine equations with apparently infinitely precisely integer coefficients have already been realised in experiments for certain quantum phase transitions. We also speculate on how central limit theorem of statistics might be of some help in the effective implementation of the required Hamiltonians.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Parallel quantum channel discrimination and numerical ranges in tensor product subspaces
Adam Bílek, Paulina Lewandowska, Ryszard Kukulski
Asymptotically Good Quantum Locally Testable Codes
William Gay, Fernando Granha Jeronimo
All causally separable quantum processes are quantum circuits with classical control of causal order
Julian Wechs, Alastair A. Abbott, Cyril Branciard
Analytic leakage suppression with a single control field: fast two-qubit gates with tunable couplers
Lukas Heunisch, Michael J. Hartmann, Aashish A. Clerk
Procrastinating einselection in non-Markovian quantum dynamics
Michael J. Moody, Tara Kalsi, Agung Budiyono et al.
Quantum Entropy Contraction and Factorization from Hypercontractivity
Li Gao, Lijun Wang