Deutsch-Jozsa on non-balanced oraclesHow is the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm faster than classical for practical implementation?Balanced vs unbalanced superposition distinguisherWhy doesn't Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm show that P ≠ BQP?How to understand Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm from an adiabatic perspective?Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm: why is $f$ constant?What can be a mini research project based on Grover's algorithm or the Deutsch Jozsa algorithm?Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm as a generalization of Bernstein-VaziraniWhy is the second register needed to define bit flip quantum oracles in a way that distinguishes between complementary oracles?Implementing the one-bit Deutsch Oracle algorithm using phase

Why do banks “park” their money at the European Central Bank?

Why do gliders have bungee cords in the control systems and what do they do? Are they on all control surfaces? What about ultralights?

Heyacrazy: Careening

Non-visual Computers - thoughts?

Why in most German places is the church the tallest building?

How many US airports have 4 or more parallel runways?

Is it possible to perform a regression where you have an unknown / unknowable feature variable?

Was there ever a treaty between 2 entities with significantly different translations to the detriment of one party?

Handwriting Music

Was it ever possible to target a zone?

Round towards zero

Anatomically Correct Whomping Willow

Why is there so little discussion / research on the philosophy of precision?

A discontinuity in an integral

Is there any practical application for performing a double Fourier transform? ...or an inverse Fourier transform on a time-domain input?

Why did Khan ask Admiral James T. Kirk about Project Genesis?

“T” in subscript in formulas

How much authority do teachers get from *In Loco Parentis*?

Did anyone try to find the little box that held Professor Moriarty and his wife after the Enterprise D crashed?

Is a player able to change alignment midway through an adventure?

I don't have the theoretical background in my PhD topic. I can't justify getting the degree

Is gzip atomic?

How do I request a longer than normal leave of absence period for my wedding?

Does travel insurance for short flight delays exist?



Deutsch-Jozsa on non-balanced oracles


How is the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm faster than classical for practical implementation?Balanced vs unbalanced superposition distinguisherWhy doesn't Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm show that P ≠ BQP?How to understand Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm from an adiabatic perspective?Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm: why is $f$ constant?What can be a mini research project based on Grover's algorithm or the Deutsch Jozsa algorithm?Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm as a generalization of Bernstein-VaziraniWhy is the second register needed to define bit flip quantum oracles in a way that distinguishes between complementary oracles?Implementing the one-bit Deutsch Oracle algorithm using phase






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








3












$begingroup$


I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.



Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.



Any help would be appreciated.



Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




















    3












    $begingroup$


    I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.



    Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.



    Any help would be appreciated.



    Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$
















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.



      Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.



      Any help would be appreciated.



      Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I'm interested in deciding if an oracle is constant or not, but cannot guarantee that the non-constant oracles are balanced. The Deutsch-Jozsa seems like the obvious starting place, but handling the non-constant case deterministic(ie with probability 1) is evading me.



      Just a clarification: I'm only interested in knowing if it is constant, not for what values it diverges. If there was some way of deciding whether the resulting superposition was in an eigenstate or not, that would suffice.



      Any help would be appreciated.



      Edit: Per my comments below, I don't see the reduce from general search to constancy checking. This is why I do not believe the optimality of Grover's search precludes a faster solution to my original problem. Perhaps such a floor would hold if the problem statement allowed oracles to refuse inputs, but I'm not interested in such a case.







      deutsch-jozsa-algorithm oracles






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Aug 15 at 22:07







      haskellcurrying

















      asked Aug 12 at 1:14









      haskellcurryinghaskellcurrying

      193 bronze badges




      193 bronze badges























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3













          $begingroup$

          This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.



          So, my guess for how things would work is:



          • run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)

          • run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.


          To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).



          So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.



          Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 12 at 21:41











          • $begingroup$
            @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Aug 13 at 14:33










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 13 at 19:57











          • $begingroup$
            What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
            $endgroup$
            – Niel de Beaudrap
            Aug 15 at 10:40











          • $begingroup$
            I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 15 at 21:46













          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "694"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f6992%2fdeutsch-jozsa-on-non-balanced-oracles%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3













          $begingroup$

          This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.



          So, my guess for how things would work is:



          • run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)

          • run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.


          To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).



          So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.



          Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 12 at 21:41











          • $begingroup$
            @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Aug 13 at 14:33










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 13 at 19:57











          • $begingroup$
            What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
            $endgroup$
            – Niel de Beaudrap
            Aug 15 at 10:40











          • $begingroup$
            I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 15 at 21:46















          3













          $begingroup$

          This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.



          So, my guess for how things would work is:



          • run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)

          • run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.


          To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).



          So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.



          Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$














          • $begingroup$
            Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 12 at 21:41











          • $begingroup$
            @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Aug 13 at 14:33










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 13 at 19:57











          • $begingroup$
            What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
            $endgroup$
            – Niel de Beaudrap
            Aug 15 at 10:40











          • $begingroup$
            I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 15 at 21:46













          3














          3










          3







          $begingroup$

          This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.



          So, my guess for how things would work is:



          • run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)

          • run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.


          To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).



          So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.



          Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          This is not so straightforward, I suspect. The issue is being able to distinguish between the constant case (e.g. every input gives output 0) and the case where only one input returns 1, and all others return 0. To distinguish these cases is essentially a Grover Search (the return of 1 being essentially a marked item that you want to search for the existence of), which takes a lot longer.



          So, my guess for how things would work is:



          • run a standard Deutsch-Jozsa a few times. If the answer is not 'constant' every time, you know your function was not constant. If the answer is 'constant' every time, you can estimate how much imbalance the function has (since it will be almost constant)

          • run a Grover search for unknown numbers of marked items.


          To be a bit more precise: You have an oracle the evaluates a function $f:0,1^nmapsto0,1$. I'll denote the set of all possible functions of this form by $Lambda$. You want to always determine if $f$ is constant or not. Hence, to be able to resolve this question, it is necessary to be also be able to resolve the question on any subset of possible functions $lambdasubsetLambda$. Clearly, if you know the set is $lambda$ not $Lambda$, you know more so it must be easier (or, at least, no more difficult).



          So, I'm going to make a particular choice for $lambda$: the constant function and any of the $2^n$ functions which have exactly 1 output of 1. Now we can consider the action of evaluating the oracle as 'marking' an item, and our question for deciding if $finlambda$ is constant is the same as resolving whether the oracle marks 0 or 1 items (where the one marked item could be any). This is exactly the sort of decision problem that Grover's search is built to answer. I know it happens to tell you, as well, which item is marked, but that doesn't change things.



          Indeed, perhaps a stronger way to think about this is, instead, to let $f(x)$ be the verifier for an NP-complete problem such as 3-SAT. There is then a decision problem to resolve if there exists an $x$ such that $f(x)=1$. Since this is NP-complete and we believe NP$neq$ BQP, we believe, at the very least, that it will take super-polynomial time to resolve the question of whether $f$ is constant or not.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Aug 16 at 7:58

























          answered Aug 12 at 8:12









          DaftWullieDaftWullie

          20k1 gold badge8 silver badges49 bronze badges




          20k1 gold badge8 silver badges49 bronze badges














          • $begingroup$
            Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 12 at 21:41











          • $begingroup$
            @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Aug 13 at 14:33










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 13 at 19:57











          • $begingroup$
            What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
            $endgroup$
            – Niel de Beaudrap
            Aug 15 at 10:40











          • $begingroup$
            I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 15 at 21:46
















          • $begingroup$
            Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 12 at 21:41











          • $begingroup$
            @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Aug 13 at 14:33










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 13 at 19:57











          • $begingroup$
            What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
            $endgroup$
            – Niel de Beaudrap
            Aug 15 at 10:40











          • $begingroup$
            I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
            $endgroup$
            – haskellcurrying
            Aug 15 at 21:46















          $begingroup$
          Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
          $endgroup$
          – haskellcurrying
          Aug 12 at 21:41





          $begingroup$
          Since the oracles can have arbitrarily large input sizes Grover's will not be fast enough at O(sqrt(2^n)) queries. Similarly, if only one of the 2^n possible inputs is divergent, the resulting superposition will be heavily skewed and the number of ds calls required to achieve confidence will be quite large. Moreover, I'm looking for a deterministic result. I currently see two possible avenues: 1. A way to indirectly detect if the phase is +/- 1 without measurement. 2. A way to adjust the start state that ensures even a single nonconstant value causes the phase kickback to "fall apart."
          $endgroup$
          – haskellcurrying
          Aug 12 at 21:41













          $begingroup$
          @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
          $endgroup$
          – DaftWullie
          Aug 13 at 14:33




          $begingroup$
          @haskellcurrying Since Grover's is optimal for distinguishing the existence of 0 and 1 marked items, I don't think you'll be able to do better.
          $endgroup$
          – DaftWullie
          Aug 13 at 14:33












          $begingroup$
          Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
          $endgroup$
          – haskellcurrying
          Aug 13 at 19:57





          $begingroup$
          Thanks for circling back. I was worried about that might be the case. I'm going to do some more digging before I mark your answer as accepted. Any idea where I might look to get some confidence on this result? Not the optimality of Grover, but why this might not be possible.
          $endgroup$
          – haskellcurrying
          Aug 13 at 19:57













          $begingroup$
          What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
          $endgroup$
          – Niel de Beaudrap
          Aug 15 at 10:40





          $begingroup$
          What is the difference between "Grover's algorithm is optimal" and "it is not possible to do better than Grover in distinguishing constant functions from non-constant functions"? In any case, the following lecture notes by Ryan O'Donell [ cs.cmu.edu/~odonnell/quantum15/lecture11.pdf ] ought to cover it, and provide some context.
          $endgroup$
          – Niel de Beaudrap
          Aug 15 at 10:40













          $begingroup$
          I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
          $endgroup$
          – haskellcurrying
          Aug 15 at 21:46




          $begingroup$
          I posed my original question because the reduction isn't apparent to me. Using the decision version of simple search (IE is x in S), a reduction to a "constancy checking" oracle would only directly map the constant "yes" case to the "no" case for the search problem. An answer of "no" to constancy doesn't get you much for search. It is, at best, a "maybe." Even the mapping from an unstructured set in the case of search to countable ordered sequence in the case of constancy checking seems non-obvious. Hope that clarifies my question! Apologies for not doing a proper job upfront.
          $endgroup$
          – haskellcurrying
          Aug 15 at 21:46

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f6992%2fdeutsch-jozsa-on-non-balanced-oracles%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

          Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

          Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?