Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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.

Relative approximate counting query complexity

Statement

For an integer n≥0, N=2n, a predicate with 0≤t≤N marked addresses, and rational 0<ϵ≤1, in the repeated controlled-Q access mode the dyadic relative-counting procedure uses expected O(ϵ−1N/t) controlled-Q calls when t>0, and exactly one controlled membership-reflection call per such controlled Grover call. Each controlled Q additionally uses its declared controlled A, controlled A∗, controlled S0, and control phase. For t=0, this implementation uses O(N/ϵ) controlled-Q calls: the rough loop reaches its L2≥4N cutoff, and the final estimator still uses M=Θ(L/ϵ). State preparation, gates, and certified classical rounding are separate.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The relative-counting algorithm with N=2n, an integer n≥0, 0≤t≤N, rational 0<ϵ≤1, and repeated controlled-Q access.

[F1]

The loop uses dyadic rough scales and a final size M=Θ(L/ϵ) (Relative approximate counting with unknown marked count).

[F2]

For 0<t<N, the continuation probability at rough scale L is P0(L)=sin⁡2(Lθ)/(L2sin⁡2θ); for t=0, the zero label is certain (Exact zero-label probability for counting).

[F3]

One controlled Grover call includes the controlled good reflection as a separate supplied access (Amplitude estimation and counting input/output contract).

[F4]

The declared query model counts each controlled call separately from gates and bit operations (Quantum query complexity).

[F5]

In repeated controlled-unitary access, Count at any phase-register size L=2ℓ≥2 uses exactly L−1 controlled-Q calls (Phase-estimation query and gate costs).

[F6]

For every real X>0, some dyadic scale 2ℓ exceeds X: choose a natural q>X by the Archimedean property, prove 2q≥q+1 by induction using the recursion for natural powers, and take ℓ=q (Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Exponentiation of natural numbers, mn, and its agreement with the integer power in R, The principle of mathematical induction).

[F7]

At t=N, the prepared state is a Grover eigenvector with phase 1/2 (Grover eigenphases encode the good probability).

[F8]

An exact-grid phase is returned at its exact QPE label with probability one (Exact phase recovery on the QPE grid).

[F9]

Count at scale L runs QPE on the counting Grover iterate with L phase labels, including the one-qubit circuit when L=2 (Quantum counting by uniform-state amplitude estimation).

Proof

1.1givenF2F7F8F9algebra

If t=N, [F7] gives phase 1/2; at the first rough scale L=2, [F9] and [F8] give label y=1≠0, so the loop stops at L=2. For 0<t<N, sin⁡2θ=t/N, and [F2] gives P0(L)≤1/(L2sin⁡2θ)=N/(tL2). Once L≥18πN/t, this is at most 1/(324π2)<1/4.

2.1givenF5F6step 1.1algebra

Suppose 0<t<N and put X=18πN/t. Choose a natural q>X by [F6]. Induction using the natural-power recursion gives 2q≥q+1, so a dyadic scale exceeds X; scanning the rough scales in order reaches a first L∗≥X. Its preceding scale is smaller than X, hence L∗<2X=36πN/t. By [F5], a rough Count at scale L costs L−1≤L controlled-Q calls. The rough query costs below L∗ sum to less than 2L∗. If the loop reaches L∗, each later zero outcome has conditional probability at most 1/4 by step 1.1; reaching the jth later scale costs at most 2jL∗ and has probability at most 4−j. Hence the expected tail is bounded by L∗∑j≥0(1/2)j=2L∗. If the cutoff occurs before L∗, it only removes terms from these upper bounds. Thus the expected rough cost is O(N/t). If L is the actual stopping scale, its final rough Count costs L−1≥L/2 calls since L≥2, so EL is at most twice the expected rough query cost and is also O(N/t).

3.1F1F5step 1.1step 2.1algebra

The final dyadic M is less than twice its threshold, so M=O(L/ϵ). By [F5], the final Count uses M−1 calls; for 0<t<N, the bound on EL in step 2.1 therefore gives O(ϵ−1N/t) expected final controlled-Q calls, while the rough term is absorbed because ϵ≤1. If t=N, step 1.1 gives L=2, so the rough cost is one call and the final size is M=O(1/ϵ), matching O(ϵ−1N/t). If t=0, the cutoff scale lies in [2N,4N), the geometric rough-call sum is O(N), and the final schedule uses M=O(N/ϵ) calls by [F5]. Thus the stated zero-case cost retains the ϵ factor.

4.1givenF3F4step 3.1∎

Each repeated controlled-Q call contains exactly one controlled Sgood factor by [F3]; [F4] keeps that query count separate from controlled A/A∗ and other gates. Thus the stated membership-reflection and resource counts follow.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

64 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