Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0401110V1 20 Jan 2004 Sapolmwihcnb Eonzdi Oyoiltime Polynomial a in Recognized Be of Can Which Problem a Is E Oﬁdaslto of Solution a ﬁnd to Lem Machine

arXiv:quant-ph/0401110v1 20 Jan 2004 sapolmwihcnb eonzdi oyoiltime polynomial a in recognized be of can which problem a is e ofidaslto of solution a find to lem machine. Turing nondeterministic poly- a in solved by be time can that nomial problem a is NP-problem (2)An oiltm of time nomial n h rbe splnma ieof time solv- polynomial for is needed problem time the whose problem ing a is P-problem (1)A 1 followingDefinition the is stan- NP-problems The and far. so P- [11,15,14,18]: input of the definition of exponential length dard an the have in algorithms time known running in all problem which complete for and NP an time solve problems polynomial to complete algorithm is NP an question fun- all essential exists are an that and problem known equivalent is complete are It NP and damental. ef- problem prob- solved such NP be Among lems, not time. may polynomial in which namely, fectively, problems several are there u ed o nwwehrw a n h ouinof solution the find can we whether know f not do we but sintetuhvlet tlatoeeeetof element one least at to C value truth the assign l uhltrl sdntdby denoted is literals such all in¯ tion ovn h A rbe nplnmnltm ftesize the of algorithm problem. time quantum the polynominal of a in problem find SAT to the the is solving and [7,9,10] paper al- this papers in an previous aim exists Our there NPC=P. showing whether gorithm study to problems, complete NP-problem. transformed polynomialy 2 Definition nelement an h e falsbesof subsets all of set The rt sinett l ola variables Boolean all to assignment truth value sfle aetetuhvle s”true as values truth the Take false. is Then ( hscnb nesoda olw:Ltcnie prob- a consider Let follows: as understood be can This lhuhteaiiyo optri ihyprogressed, highly is computer of ability the Although Let NP- the of one problem, (satisfiable) SAT the take We x n scle aifibe When satisfiable. called is nplnma ieof time polynomial in 0 = ) x ydtriitcTrn machine. Turing deterministic by t C k X ( ( sstsal iff satisfiable is C k { ≡ of ) 1 = ‡ eateto nomto cecs oy nvriyo Sc of University Tokyo Sciences, Information of Department C x † C , 1 Let nN-opeepolmi problem a is problem NP-complete An 2 , F ∈ etoVVler,Uiestad oaTregt,VaOra Via Torvergata, Roma Università di V.Volterra, Centro n · · · , hyhv ensuidfrdecades for studied been have They . srgre stu,ohrie htof that otherwise, true, as regarded is .INTRODUCTION I. · · · whether n x , ( n , etesz finput. of size the be X n r aldltrl n h e of set the and literals called are ) } ′ t scle lue etk a take We clause. a called is ) f east Then set. a be ( C tcatclmtapoc oteSTproblem SAT the to approach limit stochastic A ( X x x 1. = ) .W a hc npoly- in check can We 0. = ) 0 ′ sdntdby denoted is saslto of solution a is X C n ′ sstsal,tetruth the satisfiable, is . { ≡ x n. 1 -al [email protected] e-mail: , x ug Accardi Luigi ↔ x ¯ qiaety it Equivalently, k 1 x hte there whether ,false 1, , n t nega- its and k -al [email protected] e-mail: · · · F fw can we If . f ( x , ( X C x n ′ 0, = ) then , and ) , ↔ x ¯ n 0”. † C } n aaoiOhya Masanori and . 1 aadn 1] nScin4 esaetepolmto problem the state we 4, Section In and Accardi [16]. by given Sabaddini algorithm review this we of 3 representation Section the in and find algorithm to quantum–SAT OM used above. be (2) can problem solve we [1], to paper, limit method this stochastic another by In the discussed that be uni- (circuit). argue machine can suitable Turing processes a quantum all by achieve a that vectors to so two evolution method of tary another distinction exists above there dynamics, the whether chaos with (2) combin- algorithm or realization quantum–SAT physical question the a next exists ing the there whether So (1) of not. framework is or the in algorithm is Turing Volovich quantum and amplifica- Ohya the of if method known not tion is mathematical It NP=P. a solving of algorithm existence quantum com- the OM by implies the which realized with algorithm, be amplifier it chaos can nonlinear [10] distinction a In a bining technology. such present that the shown with is possible be to not β igihti uepsto rmtepr vector dis- pure to the necessary from is superposition it this algorithm, tinguish this implement tively uepsto vector that superposition showing [16] in rewritten combinatoric. is was SAT-algorithm result OM This tected. t n meet and scle aifibei h eto l rt ausof values truth all of meet the iff satisfiable called is in oiltm yqatmcmue ftesuperposition the vectors if orthogonal poly- in two computer solved of quantum be by can time problems, NP nomial other all hence in lem, specified. satisfiability not the is determine assignment an not when assignment can check time truth we to polynomial specific but time a given, polynomial when is is only it satisfiability that the algorithm usual in s1; is { 3 Definition follows: as written iewhether mine rt sinett make to assignment truth a x ( C sntzr u eysalti eeto sconsidered is detection this small very but zero not is nScin2w eiwtemteaia rm fthe of frame mathematical the review we 2 Section In h upto h MqatmSTagrtmi a is algorithm quantum–SAT OM the of output The Let oevrteset the Moreover haadMsd one u 7 htteSTprob- SAT the that [7] out pointed Masuda and Ohya hti,ti rbe st s hte hr exists there whether ask to is problem this is, That 1 X , ) · · · hntetuhvleo clause a of value truth the Then . t ∨ ≡ ( L C ec,Nd iy hb 7-50 Japan 278-8510, Chiba City, Noda ience, x , ) = x n ∈ ∧ ≡ ∧ i amno 07 oa Italia Roma, 00173 Raimondo, zio } { C and , n set a and 0 t , C ( A rbe:GvnaBoenset Boolean a Given Problem: SAT j m 1 ‡ x =1 } sstsal rnot. or satisfiable is ). eaBoenltiewt sa join usual with lattice Boolean a be t t ( ( C x C α etetuhvleo literal a of value truth the be ) j C .Tu h A rbe is problem SAT the Thus 1. = ) | falclauses all of 0 = i + {C | 0 β i 1 , C and | · · · 1 i aifibe ti known is It satisfiable. , , n,i re oeffec- to order in and, | C 1 m i C } a hsclyde- physically can j fcass deter- clauses, of ( j C 1 = switnas written is , 2 , · · · | 0 X i m , If . C ≡ ∨ x j ) 2N 1 distinguish two vectors with a quick review of OV-chaos 1 − 2πitk algorithm. In Section 5 the new notion of quantum adap- exp k , √2N 2N | i tive stochastic system is proposed and we show that it kX=0 can be used to solve the problem NPC=P. The details which is called Discrete Fourier Transformation. The (e.g., proofs) of this paper is discussed in [3]. combination of the above operations gives a unitary operator U (t) W (t) A and the vector ξ (t)= U (t) 0 . F ≡ F | i II. QUANTUM ALGORITHM A. Channel expression of conventional unitary The quantum algorithms discussed so far are rather algorithm idealized because computation is represented by unitary operations. A unitary operation is rather difficult to re- All conventional unitary algorithms can be written as alize in physical processes, more realistic operation is one a combination of the following three steps: allowing some dissipation like semigroup dynamics. How- (1) Preparation of state: Take a state ρ (e.g., ρ = ever such dissipative dynamics destroys the entanglement 0 0 ) and apply the unitary channel defined by the hence they very much reduce the ability of quantum com- | i h | above UF (t):Λ∗ = AdU (t) putation of preserving the entanglement of states. In F F order to keep the high ability of quantum computation ΛF∗ = AdUF = ΛF∗ ρ = UF ρUF∗ and good entanglement, it will be necessary to introduce ⇒ some kind of amplification in the course of real phys- (2) Computation: Let U a unitary operator on rep- ical processes in physical devices, which will be similar resenting the computation followed by a suitableH pro- to the amplication processes in quantum communication. gramming of a certain problem, then the computation

In this section, to search for more realistic operations in is described by a channel ΛU∗ = AdU (unitary channel). quantum computer, the channel expression will be useful, After the computation, the ﬁnal state ρf will be at least, in the sense of mathematical scheme of quantum computation because the channel is not always unitary ρf =ΛU∗ ΛF∗ ρ. and represents many diﬀerent types of dynamics. Let be a Hilbert space describing input, computa- (3) Register and Measurement: For the registration of tion andH output (result). As usual, the Hilbert space the computed result and its measurement we might need N 2 N 2 an additional system (e.g., register), so that the lifting is = 1 C , and let the basis of = 1 C be: K H ⊗ H ⊗ ∗ from ( ) to ( ) in the sense of [2] is useful e0 (= 0 )= 0 0 0 ,e1 (= 1 )= 0 Em S H S H ⊗ K | i | i ⊗ · · · ⊗ | Ni ⊗ | i | i | i⊗···⊗ to describe this stage. Thus the whole process is wrtten 0 1 , ,e2N 1 = 2 1 = 1 1 1 . | i ⊗ | i ··· − − | i ⊗ · · · ⊗ | i ⊗ | i Any number t 0, , 2N 1 can be expressed by as ··· − N ρf = m∗ (ΛU∗ ΛF∗ ρ) . (k) k 1 E t = a 2 − , t Finally we measure the state in : For instance, let k=1 K X Pk; k J be a projection valued measure (PVM) on (k) { ∈ } at =0 or = 1, so that the associated vector is written K by Λ∗ ρ = I P ρ I P , m f ⊗ k f ⊗ k N (k) k J t (= et)= a . X∈ | i ⊗k=1 t E after which we can get a desired result by observations

And applying n-tuples of Hadamard matrix A in finite times if the size of the set J is small. 1 1 ≡ 1 to the vacuum vector 0 , we get √2 1 1 | i − B. Channel expression of the general quantum 1 A 0 ( = ξ (0)) N ( 0 + 1 ) . algorithm | i ≡⊗1 √2 | i | i Put When dissipation is involved the above three steps have to be generalized. Such a generalization can be expressed N 1 0 by means of suitable channel, not necessarily unitary. W (t) j=1 2πit j 1 . ≡⊗ 0 exp( N 2 − ) 2 (1) Preparation of state: We may be use the same channel Λ = Ad in this first step, but if the number Then we have F∗ UF of qubits N is large so that it will not be built physically, ξ (t) W (t) ξ (0) = then ΛF∗ should be modified, and let denote it by ΛP∗ . ≡

2 (2) Computation: This stage is certainly modified to a Not all n–step algorithms are equivalent. The problem channel ΛC∗ reflecting the physical device for computer. may come from the following question: having produced (3) Registering and Measurement: This stage will be k elements of a given set, how difficult is to produce a remained as aobe. Thus the whole process is written as mean element xk+1, different from the previous ones?

ρf = m∗ (ΛC∗ ΛP∗ ρ) . Definition 6 Given a set X with a negation x x′, a E “clause” is a subset of X. A minimal clause is a7→ subset I X such that I I′ = φ (i.e. if I contains x, it does not⊆ contain the negation∩ of x). III. QUANTUM ALGORITHM OF SAT In a set X of cardinality 2n there are 2n minimal ˆ Let 0 and 1 of the Boolean lattice L be denoted by the clauses. Given a set 0 of clauses, if there are non min- C ˆ 1 0 imal clauses in it, then we can eliminate then from 0 vectors 0 and 1 in the Hilbert space C | i≡ 0 | i≡ 1 because any truth function must be identically zero on a C2, respectively. That is, the vector 0 corresponds to non minimal clause. falseness and 1 does to truth. This section| i is based on However, to eliminate the non minimal clauses from | i ˆ [7,16,3]. 0, one has to “read” all its elements. These can be of C n As we explained in the previous section, an element x order 2 . X can be denoted by 0 or 1, so by 0 or 1 . In order to∈ describe a clause C with at most n|lengthi | byi a quantum B. Truth functions state, we need the n-tuple tensor product Hilbert space nC2. For instance, in the case of n = 2, given H≡ ⊗1 C = x1, x2 with an assignment x1 = 0 and x2 =1, then The set 0, 1 is a boolean algebra with the operations the corresponding{ } quantum state vector is 0 1 , so { } | i ⊗ | i ε ε′ := max ε,ε′ , ε ε′ := min ε,ε′ that the quantum state vector describing C is generally ∨ { } ∧ { } written by C = x x with x = 0 or 1 1 2 k (ε,ε 0, 1 ). A clause truth function on the clauses (k=1,2). | i | i ⊗ | i ∈ H ′ on the∈ set { x} ,...,x , x ,...,x is a boolean algebra The quantum computation is performed by a uni- 1 n 1′ n′ homomorphism{ } tary gate constructed from several fundamental gates such as Not gate, Controlled-Not gate, Controlled- t : Parts of x ,...,x , x′ ,...,x′ 0, 1 { 1 n 1 n}→{ } Controlled Not gate [20,8]. Once X x1, , xn and ≡ { ··· } with the property (principle of the excluded third ): = C1, C2, , Cm are given, the SAT is to find the vectorC { ··· } t(x ) t(x′ ) = 1 ; j =1,...,n (1) j ∨ j ∀ m t ( ) j=1 x Cj t(x), | C i ≡ ∧ ∨ ∈ Because of (1), such a function is uniquely determined by the values t(x ),...,t(x ) , hence such functions are where t(x) is 0 or 1 when x = 0 or 1, respectively, and 1 n 2n. For this reason,{ in the following,} we will simply say t(x) t(y) |t(xi y|),i t(x) t(y) t(x y). ∧ ≡ ∧ ∨ ≡ ∨ truth function on x ,...,x meaning by this a truth { 1 n} function on the clauses of the set x1,...,xn, x1′ ,...,xn′ . Conversely given any n–ple ε ={ (ε ,...,ε ) 0, 1 n}, A. Logical negation 1 n ∈ { } there exists only one truth function on x1,...,xn , with the property that { } Definition 4 Let X be a set. A negation on X is an involution without fixed points, i.e. a map x X x′ ∈ 7→ ∈ t(xj )= εj ; j =1,...,n X such that (x′)′ = x ; x = x′ x X, x′ is called ∀ the negation of x. 6 ∀ ∈ In the following, given a truth function t, we will denote εt the string in t(x1),...,t(xn) uniquely associated to Proposition 5 Given a nonempty set X with a negation that function. { } (x x′) and denoting, for I X 7→ ⊆ Let be the set of truth functions on x1,...,xn . I′ := x′ X : x I T { } { ∈ ∈ } The function n 2 there exists a set I X such that X = I I′. t t(x ),...,t(x ) C ⊆ ∪ ∈ T 7→ | 1 n i∈⊗ Thus a finite set with a negation must be even. Let defines a one–to–one correspondence between and the X be a finite set with 2n elements and with a negation set 0, 1 , that is, a one–to–one correspondenceT between { } (x x′). A partition X = I I′ , I = n can be truth functions and vectors of the computational basis of constructed7→ with an n–step algorithm.∪ | | nC2) ⊗

3 Proposition 7 Let C X be a clause and I, I′ the sets According to the standard theory of quantum measure- ⊆ associated to it through the procedure explained in (1). ment, after a measurement of the event Pn+µ,1, the state Let t be a truth function on x ,...,x . Then § ρ = v >< v becomes { 1 n} | f f |

Pn+µ,1ρPn+µ,1 ρ =: ρ′ t(C)= t(xi) (1 t(xj )) ∨  −  → Trρ′Pn+µ,1 "i I # j I′ _∈ _∈   Thus the solvability of the SAT problem is reduced to check that ρ′ = 0. The diﬃculty is that the probability 6 Therefore as stated in Introduction, a set of clauses 0 of Pn+µ,1 is is said to be SAT if there exists a truth function t, onC 2 T ( 0) x1,...,xn such that Trρ′P = P ψ = | C | { } n+µ,1 k n+µ,1 k 2n

t( 0) := t( C 0 C)= t(C)=1 C ∧ ∈C where T 0) is the cardinality of the set T ( 0), of all the C 0 | C | C Y∈C truth functions t such that t( 0)=1. r C We put q := 2n with r := T ( 0) in the sequel. Then if r is suitably large to detect| it,C then| the SAT problem C. Quantum algorithm for the SAT Problem is solved in polynomialp time. However, for small r, the probability is very small and this means we in fact don’t We review here a technique, developed in [7], which get an information about the existence of the solution of shows that the SAT problem can be solved in polynomial the equation t(C0)=1, so that in such a case we need time by a quantum computer. further deliberation. Given a set of clauses 0 = C1,...,Cm on X, Ohya Let us simplify our notations. After the quantum C { } n+µ 2 and Masuda construct a Hilbert space = C computation, the quantum computer will be in the state where µ is a number that can be chosenH linear⊗ in mn, 2 and a unitary operator U 0 : with the property vf = 1 q ϕ0 0 + q ϕ1 1 that, for any truth functionC t,H → H | i − | i ⊗ | i | i ⊗ | i p εt where ϕ1 and ϕ0 are normalized n qubit states and U 0 εt, 0µ >= εt, xµ 1,t( 0) > | in | i C | | − C q = r/2 . Effectively our problem is reduced to the where, εt is the vector of the computational basis of following 1 qubit problem. We have the state n 2 ε p C corresponding to t, and 0µ (resp. xµ 1) is a string ⊗ − ψ = 1 q2 0 + q 1 of µ zeros (resp. a string of (µ 1) binary symbols de- | i − | i | i pending on ε). − and we want to distinguishp between the cases q = 0 and Furthermore U 0 is a product of gates, namely of unitary operators thatC act at most on two q–bits each time. q> 0(small positive number). n It is argued in [13] that quantum computer can speed Let 0 and U 0 be as above and, for every ε 0, 1 , C C ∈{ } up NP problems quadratically but not exponentially. let tε be the corresponding truth function. Applying the The no-go theorem states that if the inner product of unitary operator U 0 to the vector C two quantum states is close to 1, then the probability 1 that a measurement distinguishes which one of the two v := ε, 0µ > | i 2n/2 | it is exponentially small. And one could claim that am- ε 0,1 n ∈{X} plification of this distinguishability is not possible. one obtains the final state vector vf > The proposal of [10] is that we do not make a mea- | surement, which will be overwhelmingly likely to fail, but 1 ε vf >:= U 0 v = ε, xµ 1,tε( 0) > to use the output I ψ of the quantum computer as an | C | i 2n/2 | − C ε 0,1 n | i ∈{X} input for another device which uses classical chaotic dynamics to amplify the required probability. Theorem 8 0 is SAT if and only if, Such a chaos amplifier introduces a new ingredient in C quantum computation and in [9,10] it is proved that such Pn+µ,1U 0 v =0 C | i 6 an amplification is possible in polynomial time. where Pn+µ,1 denotes the projector In [9,10] a practical realization of the new amplifier mechanism is not suggested, however it seems to us that Pn+µ,1 := 1n+µ 1 1 >< 1 − ⊗ | | the quantum chaos amplifier considered in [10] deserves onto the subspace of spanned by the vectors an investigation and has a potential to be realizable. H εn,εµ 1, 1 > | −

4 D. Chaotic dynamics Thus the question is whether we can find such a m in 1 polynomial steps of n satisfying the inequality Mm 2 2 ≥ Various aspects of classical and quantum chaos have for very small but non-zero q . Here we have to remark been the subject of numerous studies, see [17] and ref’s that if one has q = 0 then ρ0 = P0 and we obtain Mm =0 for all m. If q = 0, the stochastic dynamics leads to the therein. Here we will argue that chaos can play a con- 6 structive role in computations (see [9,10] for the details). amplification of the small magnitude q in such a way that Chaotic behavior in a classical system usually is con- it can be detected as is explained below. The transition sidered as an exponential sensitivity to initial conditions. from ρ0 to ρm is nonlinear and can be considered as a It is this sensitivity we would like to use to distinguish classical evolution because our algebra generated by P0 between the cases q = 0 and q > 0 from the previous and P1 is abelian. The amplification can be done within section. at most 2n steps due to the following propositions. Since m 2 Consider the so called logistic map which is given by f (q ) is xm of the logistic map xm+1 = f(xm) with 2 the equation x0 = q , we use the notation xm in the logistic map for simplicity. xn+1 = axn(1 xn) f(x), xn [0, 1] . − ≡ ∈ Theorem 10 For the logistic map xn+1 = axn (1 xn) 1 − The properties of the map depend on the parameter a. with a [0, 4] and x [0, 1] , let x be n and a set J be ∈ 0 ∈ 0 2 If we take, for example, a = 3.71, then the Lyapunov 0, 1, 2, , n, 2n . If a is 3.71, then there exists an { ··· ··· } 1 exponent is positive, the trajectory is very sensitive to integer m in J satisfying xm > 2 . the initial value and one has the chaotic behavior [17]. It is important to notice that if the initial value x0 =0, Theorem 11 Let a and n be the same in the above 1 then xn = 0 for all n. proposition. If there exists m0 in J such that xm0 > 2 , n 1 then m > − . It is known [19] that any classical algorithm can be 0 log2 3.71 implemented on quantum computer. Our quantum chaos computer will be consisting from two blocks. One block According to these theorems, it is enough to check 1 is the ordinary quantum computer performing compu- the value xm (Mm) around the above m0 when q is 2n 2 k tations with the output ψ = 1 q 0 + q 1 . The for a large n. More generally, when q= n with some | i − | i | i 2 second block is a computer performing computations of integer k, it is similarly checked that the value xm (Mm) p 1 the classical logistic map. This two blocks should be becomes over 2 within at most 2n steps. connected in such a way that the state ψ first be trans- The complexity of the quantum algorithm for the SAT formed into the density matrix of the form| i problem was discussed in Section 3 to be in polynomial time. We have only to consider the number of steps in ρ = q2P + 1 q2 P the classical algorithm for the logistic map performed on 1 − 0 quantum computer. It is the probabilistic part of the where P1 and P0 are projectors to the state vectors 1 construction and one has to repeat computations several and 0 . This connection is in fact nontrivial and actually| i | i times to be able to distinguish the cases q = 0 and q> 0. it should be considered as the third block. One has to Thus it seems that the quantum chaos computer can solve notice that P1 and P0 generate an Abelian algebra which the SAT problem in polynomial time. can be considered as a classical system. In the second In conclusion of [10], the quantum chaos computer block the density matrix ρ above is interpreted as the combines the ordinary quantum computer with quantum initial data ρ0, and we apply the logistic map as chaotic dynamics amplifier. It may go beyond the usual m quantum Turing algorithm, but such a device can be pow- (I + f (ρ0)σ3) ρm = erful enough to solve the NP-complete problems in the 2 polynomial time. The detail estimation of the complexity where I is the identity matrix and σ3 is the z-component of the SAT algorithm is discussed in [21]. of Pauli matrix on C2. To find a proper value m we In the next two sections we will discuss the SAT prob- finally measure the value of σ3 in the state ρm such that lem in a different view, that is, we will show that the same amplification is possible by unitary dynamics defined in M trρ σ . the stochastic limit. m ≡ m 3 We obtain IV. QUANTUM ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS Theorem 9 (I + f m(q2)σ ) In this section we begin to develop our programmeof ρ = 3 , and M = f m(q2). m 2 m constructing a physically realizable quantum amplifier for the OM quantum–SAT algorithm which is entirely within

5 the frame of standard quantum computation, namely: say that the above interaction describes the response of unitary evolutions implemented by the usual physical in- the environment to the state of the system S. teractions (in fact we will consider the simplest class of Now from the general theory of stochastic limit [1] one these interactions: the dipole type ones). knows that, under general ergodicity conditions, an in- A classical amplifier is a sensor which reacts differently teraction with an environment drives the system to a to the state of the input system, in other words it is an dynamical (but not necessarily thermodynamical) equi- adaptive system. In our case the input state is the output librium state which depends on the initial state of the of the OM algorithm, which is a quantum superposition. environment and on the interaction Hamiltonian. Thus we need a quantum amplifier and this naturally Therefore, if one is able to realize experimentally these leads to the problem of developing a physically ealizable state dependent Hamiltonians, one would be able to drive notion of quantum adaptive system. the system S to a pre–assigned dynamical equilibrium The idea to develop a mathematical approach to adap- state depending on the input state ψ0. tive systems, i.e. those systems whose properties are in In the following section we will substantiate the general part determined as responses to an environment [6,24], scheme described above with an application to the quan- were born in connection with some problems of quantum tum computer approach to the SAT problem described measurement theory and chaos dynamics. in the previous sections. The mathematical definition of adaptive system is in terms of observables, namely: an adaptive system is a composite system whose interaction depends on a fixed V. STOCHASTIC LIMIT AND SAT PROBLEM observable (typically in a measurement process, this observable is the observable one wants to measure). Such We illustrate the general scheme described in the pre- systems may be called observable–adaptive. vious section in the simplest case when the state space 2 In the present paper we want to extend this point of of the system is C . We fix an orthonormal basis HS ≡ view by introducing another natural class of adaptive sys- of as e ,e . HS { 0 1} tems which, in a certain sense, is the dual to the above The unknown state (vector) of the system at time t =0 defined one, namely the class of state–adaptive systems. These are defined as follows: a state–adaptive system is a ψ := αεeε = α0e0 + α1e1 ; ψ =1. k k ε 0,1 composite system whose interaction depends on the state ∈{X } of at least one of the sub–systems at the instant in which In the case of Sec. 3, α corresponds to q and e does to the interaction is switched on. 1 j j (j =0, 1) . This vector is taken as input and defines Notice that both definitions make sense both for clas- the| i interaction Hamiltonian in an external field sical and for quantum systems. Since in this paper we will be interested to an application of adaptive systems + HI = λ ψ ψ (Ag + Ag) to quantum computation, we will discuss only quantum | ih |⊗ + = λα α e e ′ (A + A ) adaptive systems, but one should keep in mind that all ε ε| εih ε |⊗ g g the considerations below apply to classical systems as X well. where λ is a small coupling constant. Here and in the The difference between state–adaptive systems and following summation over repeated indices is understood. nonlinear dynamical systems should be emphasized: The free system Hamiltonian is taken to be diagonal (i) in nonlinear dynamical systems (such as those in the eε–basis whose evolution is described by the Boltzmann equa- H := E e e = E e e + E e e tion, or nonlinear Schrödinger equation, ..., ) the in- S ε| εih ε| 0| 0ih 0| 1| 1ih 1| ε 0,1 teraction Hamiltonian depends on the state at each time ∈{X } t: HI = HI (ρt); t . and the energy levels are ordered so that E < E . Thus ∀ 0 1 (ii) in state–adaptive dynamical systems (such as those there is a single Bohr frequency ω0 := E1 E0 > 0. The considered in the present paper) the interaction Hamil- 1–particle field Hamiltonian is − tonian depends on the state only at each time t = 0: itω(k) HI = HI (ρ0). Stg(k)= e g(k) The latter class of systems describes the following where ω(k) is a function satisfying the basic analytical as- physical situation: at time t = T (T > 0) a system S is − sumption of the stochastic limit. Its second quantization prepared in a state ψ T and in the time interval [ T, 0] − − is the free field evolution it evolves according to a fixed (free) dynamics U[ T,0] so − that its state at time 0 is U[ T,0]ψ T =: ψ0 At time t =0 itH0 itH0 e A±ge− = AS± g an interaction with another− system− R is switched on and t this interaction depends on the state ψ0: HI = HI (ψ0). We can distinguish two cases as below, whose cases cor- If we interpret the system R as environment, we can respond to two cases of Sec. 3, i.e., q> 0 and q =0.

6 Case (1). If α0, α1 = 0 , then, according to the gen- and, according to the general theory of stochastic limit, eral theory of stochastic6 limit (i.e., t t/λ2) [1], the the reduced evolution has no damping and corresponds → interaction Hamiltonian HI is in the same universality to the pure Hamiltonian class as HS + e0 e0 = (E0 + 1) e0 e0 + E1 e1 e1 H˜ = D A+ + D+ A | ih | | ih | | ih | I ⊗ g ⊗ g therefore, if we choose the eigenvalues E1, E0 to be in- where D := e e (this means that the two interac- tegers (in appropriate units), then the evolution will be | 0ih 1| tions have the same stochastic limit). The interaction periodic. Hamiltonian at time t is then Since the eigenvalues E1, E0 can be chosen a priori, by fixing the system Hamiltonian HS, it follows that the pe- itω0 + + it(ω(p) ω0) H˜I (t)= e− D A + h.c. = D A (e − g)+ h.c. ⊗ Stg ⊗ riod of the evolution can be known a priori. This gives a simple criterium for the solvability of the SAT prob- and the white noise ( b ) Hamiltonian equation associ- t lem because, by waiting a sufficiently long time one can ated, via the stochastic{ } golden rule, to this interaction experimentally detect the difference between a damping Hamiltonian is and an oscillating behavior. + + A precise estimate of this time can be achieved either ∂tUt = i(Db + D bt)Ut t by theoretical methods or by computer simulation. Both Its causally normal ordered form is equivalent to the methods will be analyzed in the full paper [3]. stochastic differential equation

+ + + VI. CONCLUSION dUt = (iDdBt + iD dBt γ D Ddt)Ut, − − where dBt := btdt. We showed in [7,9,10] that we could find an algorithm The causally ordered inner Langevin equation is solving the SAT problems in polynomial steps by com- bining a quantum algorithm with a chaos dynamics. We djt(x)= dUt∗xUt + Ut∗xdUt + dUt∗xdUt used the logistic map there, however it is possible to use + + + + = Ut∗( iD xdBt iDxdBt γ D Dxdt + ixDdBt other chaotic maps if they can amplify one of two coffi- − − + − + − + +ixD dBt γ xD Ddt + γ D xDdt)Ut cients. In this short paper we pointed out that it is possi- − − + − + ble to distinguish two different states, 1 q2 0 + q 1 = ijt([x, D ])dBt + ijt([x, D])dBt − | i | i + + (q = 0) and 0 by means of the adaptive dynamics and (Re γ )jt( D D, x )dt + i(Imγ )jt([D D, x])dt 6 | i p − − the stochastic limit. Finally we remark that our algo- − + { } +jt(D xD)(Re γ )dt, rithm can be described by deterministic general quan- − tum Turing machine [22,23], whose result is based on the where jt(x) := Ut∗xUt. Therefore the master equation is general quantum algorithm mentioned in Sec.2. d Acknowledgment P t(x) = (Imγ)i[D+D, P t(x)] (Reγ ) D+D, P t(x) The authors thank SCAT for financial support of our dt − − { } joint work. +(Re γ )D+P t(x)D − + + where D D = e1 e1 and D xD = e0, xe0 e1 e1 . The dual Markovian| ih | evolution P t actsh on densityi| ih | ma- trices and its generator is ∗

L ρ = (Imγ )i[ρ,D+D] (Re γ ) ρ,D+D +(Re γ )DρD+ ∗ − − − { } − [1] L.Accardi, Y.G. Lu, I. Volovich: Quantum Theory and its Stochastic Limit. Springer Verlag 2002; Japanese Thus, if ρ = e e one has 0 | 0ih 0| translation, Tokyo–Springer 2003. [2] L.Accardi and M.Ohya, Compound channels, transition L ρ0 =0 ∗ expectations, and liftings, Appl. Math. Optim., Vol.39, so ρ is an invariant measure. From the Fagnola– 33-59, 1999. 0 [3] L.Accardi and M.Ohya, A stochastic limit approach to Rebolledo criteria (cf. [25]), it is the unique invariant the SAT problem, in preparation. measure and the semigroup exp(tL ) converges exponen- ∗ [4] Luigi Accardi, Ruben Sabbadini: On the Ohya–Masuda tially to it. quantum SAT Algorithm, in: Proceedings Intern.Conf. Case (2). If α1 =0, then the interaction Hamiltonian ”Unconventional Models of Computations”, I. Antoniou, HI is C.S. Calude, M. Dinneen (eds.) Springer 2001 ; Preprint Volterra, N. 432, 2000 H = λ e e (A+ + A ) I | 0ih 0|⊗ g g

7 [5] Luigi Accardi, Ruben Sabbadini: A Generalization of Grover’s Algorithm, Proceedings Intern.Conf.: Quan- tum Information III, Meijo University, Nagoya, 27–31 mARCH, 2001; World Scientiﬁc 2002; qu-phys 0012143; Preprint Volterra, N. 444, 2001 [6] L. Accardi and K. Imafuku: Control of Quantum States by Decoherence, to appear in Open Systems and Infor- mation Dynamics, 2003 [7] M. Ohya and N. Masuda, NP problem in Quantum Algo- rithm, Open Systems and Information Dynamics, Vol.7, No.1, 33-39, 2000. [8] M. Ohya, Mathematical Foundation of Quantum Com- puter, Maruzen Publ. Company, 1998. [9] M.Ohya and I.V.Volovich, Quantum computing, NP- complete problems and chaotic dynamics, in: Quantum Information II, eds. T.Hida and K.Saito, World Sci. 2000; quant-ph/9912100 and J.Opt.B, 5,No.6 639-642, 2003 [10] M. Ohya and I.V. Volovich: New quantum algorithm for studying NP-complete problems, Rep.Math.Phys.,52, No.1,25-33, 2003 [11] M. Garey and D. Johnson, Computers and Intractability - a guide to the theory of NP-completeness, Freeman, 1979. [12] P.W. Shor, Algorithm for quantum computation : Dis- crete logarithm and factoring algorithm, Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science, pp.124-134, 1994. [13] C. H. Bennett, E. Bernstein, G. Brassard, U. Vazi- rani, Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing, quant-ph/9701001. [14] Cristian S. Calude: Information and randomness, Springer (2002) (2d edition) [15] R. Cleve, An Introduction to Quantum Complexity The- ory, quant-ph/9906111. [16] L.Accardi, R.Sabbadini: On the Ohya–Masuda quantum SAT Algorithm, in: Proceedings International Confer- ence ”Unconventional Models of Computations”, I. An- toniou, C.S. Calude, M. Dinneen (eds.) Springer 2001 [17] M. Ohya, Complexities and Their Applications to Char- acterization of Chaos, Int. Journ. of Theort. Phy., 37, 495, 1998. [18] M.Ohya and I.V. Volovich, Quantum information, computation, cryptography and teleportation, Springer (to appear). [19] D. Deutsch, Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proc. of Royal Society of London series A, 400, pp.97-117, 1985. [20] A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Quantum computation and Shor’s factoring algorithm, Reviews of Modern Physics, 68 No.3,pp.733-753, 1996. [21] S. Iriyama and S. Akashi, Complexity of Ohya-Masuda- Volovich al;gorithm, to appear [22] S. Iriyama and M. Ohya, On generalized Turing machine, TUS(Tokyo University of Science) preprint, 2003. [23] L. Accardi, M. Ohya and I.Volovich, in preparation. [24] A.Kossakowski, M.Ohya and Y.Togawa, How can we ob- serve and describe chaos?, Open System and Information Dynamics 10(3): 221-233, 2003 [25] Quantum Probability and White Noise Analysis, Vol. XIV Quantum interacting particle systems, Luigi Ac- cardi, Franco Fagnola (eds.) World Scientiﬁc (2002),