Does Deutsch's Algorithm Reveal Insights Into Prime Numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algorithm
Click For Summary
Deutsch's algorithm does not appear to provide significant insights into the density of prime numbers, as it primarily determines if a function is constant with minimal applications. Shor's algorithm, however, could revolutionize number factorization, making current encryption methods reliant on primes obsolete. While the Generalized Riemann hypothesis suggests efficient primality testing, classical methods like the Meissel-Lehmer approach are already more efficient than direct counting. Quantum computers may enhance speed but are not expected to reveal new insights beyond classical capabilities. Overall, the discussion highlights the limitations of Deutsch's algorithm in relation to prime number theory.
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
Does Deutsch's quantum algorithm provide any profound classical insight into the density of primes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see any relationship at all between Deutsch's algorithm and the prime counting function -- maybe there is more than one Deutsch's algorithm? The one I found was for a quantum computer to tell if a function from {0, 1} to {0, 1} was constant or not, with only one application of the function.
 
My mistake! Shor's algorithm, with a working quantum computer, would have the ability to factor numbers exponentially faster than classical computers. Present encryption, reliant upon prime numbers, would then become obsolete. Mathematically, could quantum mechanics and Shor's algorithm together facilitate a formulaic shortcut for the counting of primes?
 
Assuming that the Generalized Riemann hypothesis is true then the Miller-Rabin primality test has a runtime of O(log(n)4).

I don't think very often that Pi(n) is actually calculated by counting up primes, however you look as it that takes up a lot of processing power and storage space very quickly. But hey I don't know much on the subject.
 
Yes you don't check every number less than n for primality if you want to find pi(n) anymore. This would take at least O(n) operations even if you had a constant time primality test.

Much more efficient are variants of the Meissel-Lehmer method, which can find pi(n) in O(n^(2/3)) steps (divided by some terms involving log n) but don't give you a list of primes up to n.

I don't know much about quantum computers, so I can't really say what they'll be able to tell us about the density of primes. I'd expect nothing that a classical computer couldn't do, just with less time.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about quantum computers, so I can't really say what they'll be able to tell us about the density of primes. I'd expect nothing that a classical computer couldn't do, just with less time.

...that's the impression I've always gotten. The factorization part of Shor's algorithm can be done on a classic computer, but it's when you get to the order-finding problem that Shor's algorithm takes advantage of the quantum technology (I don't remember where I read this, but once I do I'll look it up again and provide some more information).
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
917
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K