How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Chernoff repetition bound for common-kernel recovery
Statement
Let be a finite abelian group with , let , and start with a current subgroup satisfying . At each of fresh independent trials, if the current subgroup strictly contains , draw a uniform and replace by ; after reaching , leave the subgroup equal to . Each cut reduces the current order by a factor of at least two. For , put Then the failure event has probability at most . If , the failure probability is zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite adaptive process in the Statement; every fresh sample is independent of earlier trials.
The annihilator is (Character annihilator of a subgroup). Whenever , a uniform sample from this set cuts with conditional probability at least , preserves , and reduces its order by a factor of at least two (A Fourier sample cuts a larger common kernel).
For with mean , for . (Chernoff bound for independent bernoulli trials)
Proof
If cuts have occurred, repeated halving gives . Since and a subgroup contains the identity, this forces . Consequently, on the event , the process remained strictly above for all trials and fewer than actual cuts occurred.
Couple each trial, while , by first drawing its cut indicator with conditional probability and then drawing from the uniform distribution conditioned on that indicator. If , draw an auxiliary with conditional probability ; if , set . Then and . After the process reaches , draw fresh independent . Thus the are independent Bernoulli variables, and on every failure outcome .
Let and . The coupling and Step 1.1 give . Since , we have , so .
Apply [F2] with to obtain . The bound on implies . Hence . If , the process stays at by definition, giving the stated zero failure probability.
Remarks
The failure event is stated as . “Fewer than cuts before reaching ” would incorrectly count early successful termination as failure.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
23 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Andrew M. Childs, Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms (17 April 2025) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes, arXiv:1907.09415v6 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Andrew Aspnes, Notes on Randomized Algorithms, §§5.2.1–5.2.4 and H.2.2 (standard reference, not scraped)