Quantum circuits with mixed states
STOC '98 Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
The Complexity of Probabilistic versus Deterministic Finite Automata
ISAAC '96 Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation
On the power of quantum finite state automata
FOCS '97 Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
1-way quantum finite automata: strengths, weaknesses and generalizations
FOCS '98 Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Non-constructive methods for finite probabilistic automata
DLT'07 Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Developments in language theory
Languages recognizable by quantum finite automata
CIAA'05 Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Implementation and Application of Automata
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Quantum finite automata with mixed states are proved to be super-exponentially more concise rather than quantum finite automata with pure states. It was proved earlier by A.Ambainis and R.Freivalds that quantum finite automata with pure states can have exponentially smaller number of states than deterministic finite automata recognizing the same language. There was a never published "folk theorem" proving that quantum finite automata with mixed states are no more than superexponentially more concise than deterministic finite automata. It was not known whether the super-exponential advantage of quantum automata is really achievable. We prove that there is an infinite sequence of distinct integers n such that there are languages Ln such that there are quantum finite automata with mixed states with 5n states recognizing the language Ln with probability 3/4 while any deterministic finite automaton recognizing Ln needs to have at least eO(nlnn) states. Unfortunately, the alphabet for these languages grows with n. In order to prove a similar result for languages in a fixed alphabet we consider a counterpart of Hamming codes for permutations of finite sets, i.e. sets of permutations such that any two distinct permutations in the set have Hamming distance at least d. The difficulty arises from the fact that in the traditional Hamming codes for binary strings positions in the string are independent while positions in a permutation are not independent. For instance, any two permutations of the same set either coinside or their Hamming distance is at least 2. The main combinatorial problem still remains open.