Grover's algorithm – DES circuit as oracle?Why do we have to uncompute rather than simply set registers to zero?Reversible crypto systems for use in the Grover's algorithmWhy can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations (HHL09): Step 1 - Confusion regarding the usage of phase estimation algorithmCompact encoding of Boolean formula as oracleQuantum attack on hash functionsPointer to related research (paper)Grover algorithm for more than one elementPossible results from Shor's algorithm in practiceN&C quantum circuit for Grover's algorithmGrover's algorithm: number of searchesReversible crypto systems for use in the Grover's algorithm
Differences between “pas vrai ?”, “c’est ça ?”, “hein ?”, and “n’est-ce pas ?”
Asking bank to reduce APR instead of increasing credit limit
Preserving culinary oils
The qvolume of an integer
Why the lack of hesitance to wear pads on the sabbath?
Can non-English-speaking characters use wordplay specific to English?
How can I offer a test ride while selling a bike?
How crucial is a waifu game storyline?
Different PCB color ( is it different material? )
How was Apollo supposed to rendezvous in the case of a lunar abort?
Possible nonclassical ion from a bicyclic system
Do creatures all have the same statistics upon being reanimated via the Animate Dead spell?
Why use water tanks from a retired Space Shuttle?
Points within polygons in different projections
Did airlines fly their aircraft slower in response to oil prices in the 1970s?
Team member doesn't give me the minimum time to complete a talk
Is there a rule that prohibits us from using 2 possessives in a row?
If a massive object like Jupiter flew past the Earth how close would it need to come to pull people off of the surface?
Fastest way to perform complex search on pandas dataframe
What is the intuition behind uniform continuity?
Is there an evolutionary advantage to having two heads?
If a problem only occurs randomly once in every N times on average, how many tests do I have to perform to be certain that it's now fixed?
Biblical Basis for 400 years of silence between old and new testament
Tic-Tac-Toe for the terminal
Grover's algorithm – DES circuit as oracle?
Why do we have to uncompute rather than simply set registers to zero?Reversible crypto systems for use in the Grover's algorithmWhy can the Discrete Fourier Transform be implemented efficiently as a quantum circuit?Quantum algorithm for linear systems of equations (HHL09): Step 1 - Confusion regarding the usage of phase estimation algorithmCompact encoding of Boolean formula as oracleQuantum attack on hash functionsPointer to related research (paper)Grover algorithm for more than one elementPossible results from Shor's algorithm in practiceN&C quantum circuit for Grover's algorithmGrover's algorithm: number of searchesReversible crypto systems for use in the Grover's algorithm
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
In the literature before me, the quantum oracle of the Grover algorithm is shown as a function, in which a sign change is made possible $|xranglerightarrow(-1)^f(x)|xrangle$. I have read that it is possible to transform any efficient classical circuit into a quantum circuit.
My question, if I want to crack the DES encryption, is it possible to implement the DES algorithm as a circuit that acts as an oracle then? That's just a consideration. Is that conceivable? Could I find the key you are looking for? Is there perhaps some paper about it?
I would be very interested in what you think about it!
algorithm grovers-algorithm cryptography
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the literature before me, the quantum oracle of the Grover algorithm is shown as a function, in which a sign change is made possible $|xranglerightarrow(-1)^f(x)|xrangle$. I have read that it is possible to transform any efficient classical circuit into a quantum circuit.
My question, if I want to crack the DES encryption, is it possible to implement the DES algorithm as a circuit that acts as an oracle then? That's just a consideration. Is that conceivable? Could I find the key you are looking for? Is there perhaps some paper about it?
I would be very interested in what you think about it!
algorithm grovers-algorithm cryptography
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the literature before me, the quantum oracle of the Grover algorithm is shown as a function, in which a sign change is made possible $|xranglerightarrow(-1)^f(x)|xrangle$. I have read that it is possible to transform any efficient classical circuit into a quantum circuit.
My question, if I want to crack the DES encryption, is it possible to implement the DES algorithm as a circuit that acts as an oracle then? That's just a consideration. Is that conceivable? Could I find the key you are looking for? Is there perhaps some paper about it?
I would be very interested in what you think about it!
algorithm grovers-algorithm cryptography
$endgroup$
In the literature before me, the quantum oracle of the Grover algorithm is shown as a function, in which a sign change is made possible $|xranglerightarrow(-1)^f(x)|xrangle$. I have read that it is possible to transform any efficient classical circuit into a quantum circuit.
My question, if I want to crack the DES encryption, is it possible to implement the DES algorithm as a circuit that acts as an oracle then? That's just a consideration. Is that conceivable? Could I find the key you are looking for? Is there perhaps some paper about it?
I would be very interested in what you think about it!
algorithm grovers-algorithm cryptography
algorithm grovers-algorithm cryptography
edited Apr 18 at 19:45
Sanchayan Dutta
7,34241660
7,34241660
asked Apr 13 at 16:17
user4961
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In principle it is possible to generate code for oracles such as the DES encryption (under fixed plaintext/ciphertext pairs, so that the search space becomes the set of all possible encryption keys). One (simple) way to do so is to apply the Bennett method to a classical, irreversible circuit and then to count the gates manually. There are better ways known that do not create as much memory overhead as Bennett's method. As far as programmatic support for this is concerned, there are several attempts for various ciphers and hash-functions to perform this cost analysis with the help of a computer:
- AES was analyzed (using C/C++ programs for resource counting and well known circuits for the underlying finite field arithmetic) in "Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates" by Grassl et al. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04965
- MD5 and SHA-2 were analyzed (using prototypes such as REVS) in "Reversible circuit compilation with space constraints" by Parent et al. Note that technically not the entire encryption was implemented, but just one round function. In particular, no key scheduler. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00377
- SHA-2 and SHA-3 were analyzed (again using prototypes such as ReVer) in "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3" by Amy et al. Again, again not the entire encryption. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383
A general programmatic framework to express general oracles, synthesize them into quantum circuits (while keeping quantum memory bounded), and perform cost analyses does not exist to the best of my knowledge.
Finally, note that applying Grover to breaking ciphers and hash-functions does not lead to practical attacks on these schemes, at least not for real-world parameters choices (such as AES-128 or even DES-56). The reason is that despite the quadratic speedup that you get from Grover's algorithm, the problem to find the encryption key is still exponential. Furthermore, the requirement to implement the oracle reversible typically leads to large overheads in terms of qubits and gates, so the quadratic speedup is even less pronounced than one might expect (see e.g. the mentioned AES-128 case above where the gate count is not $2^64$ as one might expect from the square root speedup over a naïve solution, but worked out to be about $2^86$ in the first paper above).
In other words, the whole point of applying Grover's algorithm (and other known quantum algorithm such as claw-finding etc.) to classical cryptographic schemes is not so much to carry out said attacks, but instead is assess their security parameters against quantum attacks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
2
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
1
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5907%2fgrovers-algorithm-des-circuit-as-oracle%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
$begingroup$
In principle it is possible to generate code for oracles such as the DES encryption (under fixed plaintext/ciphertext pairs, so that the search space becomes the set of all possible encryption keys). One (simple) way to do so is to apply the Bennett method to a classical, irreversible circuit and then to count the gates manually. There are better ways known that do not create as much memory overhead as Bennett's method. As far as programmatic support for this is concerned, there are several attempts for various ciphers and hash-functions to perform this cost analysis with the help of a computer:
- AES was analyzed (using C/C++ programs for resource counting and well known circuits for the underlying finite field arithmetic) in "Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates" by Grassl et al. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04965
- MD5 and SHA-2 were analyzed (using prototypes such as REVS) in "Reversible circuit compilation with space constraints" by Parent et al. Note that technically not the entire encryption was implemented, but just one round function. In particular, no key scheduler. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00377
- SHA-2 and SHA-3 were analyzed (again using prototypes such as ReVer) in "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3" by Amy et al. Again, again not the entire encryption. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383
A general programmatic framework to express general oracles, synthesize them into quantum circuits (while keeping quantum memory bounded), and perform cost analyses does not exist to the best of my knowledge.
Finally, note that applying Grover to breaking ciphers and hash-functions does not lead to practical attacks on these schemes, at least not for real-world parameters choices (such as AES-128 or even DES-56). The reason is that despite the quadratic speedup that you get from Grover's algorithm, the problem to find the encryption key is still exponential. Furthermore, the requirement to implement the oracle reversible typically leads to large overheads in terms of qubits and gates, so the quadratic speedup is even less pronounced than one might expect (see e.g. the mentioned AES-128 case above where the gate count is not $2^64$ as one might expect from the square root speedup over a naïve solution, but worked out to be about $2^86$ in the first paper above).
In other words, the whole point of applying Grover's algorithm (and other known quantum algorithm such as claw-finding etc.) to classical cryptographic schemes is not so much to carry out said attacks, but instead is assess their security parameters against quantum attacks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
2
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
1
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In principle it is possible to generate code for oracles such as the DES encryption (under fixed plaintext/ciphertext pairs, so that the search space becomes the set of all possible encryption keys). One (simple) way to do so is to apply the Bennett method to a classical, irreversible circuit and then to count the gates manually. There are better ways known that do not create as much memory overhead as Bennett's method. As far as programmatic support for this is concerned, there are several attempts for various ciphers and hash-functions to perform this cost analysis with the help of a computer:
- AES was analyzed (using C/C++ programs for resource counting and well known circuits for the underlying finite field arithmetic) in "Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates" by Grassl et al. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04965
- MD5 and SHA-2 were analyzed (using prototypes such as REVS) in "Reversible circuit compilation with space constraints" by Parent et al. Note that technically not the entire encryption was implemented, but just one round function. In particular, no key scheduler. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00377
- SHA-2 and SHA-3 were analyzed (again using prototypes such as ReVer) in "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3" by Amy et al. Again, again not the entire encryption. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383
A general programmatic framework to express general oracles, synthesize them into quantum circuits (while keeping quantum memory bounded), and perform cost analyses does not exist to the best of my knowledge.
Finally, note that applying Grover to breaking ciphers and hash-functions does not lead to practical attacks on these schemes, at least not for real-world parameters choices (such as AES-128 or even DES-56). The reason is that despite the quadratic speedup that you get from Grover's algorithm, the problem to find the encryption key is still exponential. Furthermore, the requirement to implement the oracle reversible typically leads to large overheads in terms of qubits and gates, so the quadratic speedup is even less pronounced than one might expect (see e.g. the mentioned AES-128 case above where the gate count is not $2^64$ as one might expect from the square root speedup over a naïve solution, but worked out to be about $2^86$ in the first paper above).
In other words, the whole point of applying Grover's algorithm (and other known quantum algorithm such as claw-finding etc.) to classical cryptographic schemes is not so much to carry out said attacks, but instead is assess their security parameters against quantum attacks.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
2
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
1
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In principle it is possible to generate code for oracles such as the DES encryption (under fixed plaintext/ciphertext pairs, so that the search space becomes the set of all possible encryption keys). One (simple) way to do so is to apply the Bennett method to a classical, irreversible circuit and then to count the gates manually. There are better ways known that do not create as much memory overhead as Bennett's method. As far as programmatic support for this is concerned, there are several attempts for various ciphers and hash-functions to perform this cost analysis with the help of a computer:
- AES was analyzed (using C/C++ programs for resource counting and well known circuits for the underlying finite field arithmetic) in "Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates" by Grassl et al. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04965
- MD5 and SHA-2 were analyzed (using prototypes such as REVS) in "Reversible circuit compilation with space constraints" by Parent et al. Note that technically not the entire encryption was implemented, but just one round function. In particular, no key scheduler. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00377
- SHA-2 and SHA-3 were analyzed (again using prototypes such as ReVer) in "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3" by Amy et al. Again, again not the entire encryption. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383
A general programmatic framework to express general oracles, synthesize them into quantum circuits (while keeping quantum memory bounded), and perform cost analyses does not exist to the best of my knowledge.
Finally, note that applying Grover to breaking ciphers and hash-functions does not lead to practical attacks on these schemes, at least not for real-world parameters choices (such as AES-128 or even DES-56). The reason is that despite the quadratic speedup that you get from Grover's algorithm, the problem to find the encryption key is still exponential. Furthermore, the requirement to implement the oracle reversible typically leads to large overheads in terms of qubits and gates, so the quadratic speedup is even less pronounced than one might expect (see e.g. the mentioned AES-128 case above where the gate count is not $2^64$ as one might expect from the square root speedup over a naïve solution, but worked out to be about $2^86$ in the first paper above).
In other words, the whole point of applying Grover's algorithm (and other known quantum algorithm such as claw-finding etc.) to classical cryptographic schemes is not so much to carry out said attacks, but instead is assess their security parameters against quantum attacks.
$endgroup$
In principle it is possible to generate code for oracles such as the DES encryption (under fixed plaintext/ciphertext pairs, so that the search space becomes the set of all possible encryption keys). One (simple) way to do so is to apply the Bennett method to a classical, irreversible circuit and then to count the gates manually. There are better ways known that do not create as much memory overhead as Bennett's method. As far as programmatic support for this is concerned, there are several attempts for various ciphers and hash-functions to perform this cost analysis with the help of a computer:
- AES was analyzed (using C/C++ programs for resource counting and well known circuits for the underlying finite field arithmetic) in "Applying Grover's algorithm to AES: quantum resource estimates" by Grassl et al. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04965
- MD5 and SHA-2 were analyzed (using prototypes such as REVS) in "Reversible circuit compilation with space constraints" by Parent et al. Note that technically not the entire encryption was implemented, but just one round function. In particular, no key scheduler. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00377
- SHA-2 and SHA-3 were analyzed (again using prototypes such as ReVer) in "Estimating the cost of generic quantum pre-image attacks on SHA-2 and SHA-3" by Amy et al. Again, again not the entire encryption. Link to paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09383
A general programmatic framework to express general oracles, synthesize them into quantum circuits (while keeping quantum memory bounded), and perform cost analyses does not exist to the best of my knowledge.
Finally, note that applying Grover to breaking ciphers and hash-functions does not lead to practical attacks on these schemes, at least not for real-world parameters choices (such as AES-128 or even DES-56). The reason is that despite the quadratic speedup that you get from Grover's algorithm, the problem to find the encryption key is still exponential. Furthermore, the requirement to implement the oracle reversible typically leads to large overheads in terms of qubits and gates, so the quadratic speedup is even less pronounced than one might expect (see e.g. the mentioned AES-128 case above where the gate count is not $2^64$ as one might expect from the square root speedup over a naïve solution, but worked out to be about $2^86$ in the first paper above).
In other words, the whole point of applying Grover's algorithm (and other known quantum algorithm such as claw-finding etc.) to classical cryptographic schemes is not so much to carry out said attacks, but instead is assess their security parameters against quantum attacks.
edited Apr 13 at 23:57
answered Apr 13 at 20:46
MartinQuantumMartinQuantum
48529
48529
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
2
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
1
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
2
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
1
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. Perhaps you can help me with this: "Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$". The last part is obvious, but why does $f$ have to be called twice?
$endgroup$
– user4961
Apr 17 at 10:19
2
2
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag The reason for the two calls is that first one has to evaluate $f$ (coherently, i.e., by way of a reversible circuit), then one evaluates the equality function, but then one has to uncompute the call to $f$. In other words: $$ sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |0rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |f(x)rangle |f(x)stackrel?=y rangle mapsto sum_x |xrangle |0rangle |f(x)stackrel?= yrangle $$ If you don't uncompute the call to $f(x)$, then there will be no interference possible.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:28
1
1
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
$begingroup$
@QuantaMag See also the answer quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/5232/1828 to a related question about why we have to uncompute garbage.
$endgroup$
– MartinQuantum
Apr 20 at 7:32
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5907%2fgrovers-algorithm-des-circuit-as-oracle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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