Reply to Andrew Hodges

Abstract

We separate the criticisms of Hodges \cite{Hodges2005} and others into those against the algorithm itself and those against its physical implementation. We then point out that {\em all} those against the algorithm are either misleading or misunderstanding, and that the algorithm is self consistent. The only central argument against physical implementations of the algorithm, on the other hand, is based on an assumption that its Hamiltonians cannot be effectively constructed due to a lack of infinite precision. However, so far there is no known physical principle dictating why that cannot be done. To show that the criticism may not be a forgone conclusion, we point out the virtually unknown fact that, on the contrary, simple instances of Diophantine equations with apparently {\em infinitely precisely} integer coefficients have {\em already} been realised in experiments for certain quantum phase transitions. We also speculate on how central limit theorem of statistics might be of some help in the effective implementation of the required Hamiltonians.

now 9 pages

References in corpus (6)

• Quantum adiabatic algorithm for Hilbert's tenth problem: I. The algorithm
• On the identification of the ground state based on occupation probabilities: An investigation of Smith's apparent counterexamples
• Hypercomputability of quantum adiabatic processes: Fact versus Prejudices
• Local adiabatic quantum search with different paths
• A mathematical proof for a ground-state identification criterion
• Quantum search algorithm by adiabatic evolution under a priori probability