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.
Bounded-error unstructured search query complexity is Theta of square root N
Statement
Under the empty-versus-one-marked promise All-zero versus exactly-one-marked search promise and standard bit-query cost, bounded-error decision and finding each have worst-case query complexity .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The direct bit-query lower bound and the verified fixed-one Grover upper-bound procedure, with query costs counted as in the promise model.
BBBV hybrid lower bound for unstructured search: both decision and finding require at least standard bit queries.
Grover search upper-bound success guarantee: the fixed-one procedure returns a verified marked item with probability at least on each one-mark input and returns no on the empty input.
Grover search upper-bound query cost: one fixed-one run uses at most standard bit queries.
All-zero versus exactly-one-marked search promise: the promise consists only of and the singleton inputs, and a verified coordinate decides yes.
Quantum query complexity: worst-case query cost is the maximum over promised inputs and execution branches.
Proof
The lower bound for both tasks is [F1], so each complexity is at least a positive constant times .
For , the one-run success probability in [F2] is at least . For , [F2] gives certainty. For , run the fixed-one procedure twice with fresh registers and independent measurements, returning a verified candidate if either run verifies one. Each run has success probability at least by [F2]; conditional independence of the fresh runs gives failure probability at most , hence success at least .
Verification prevents a false yes on , by [F2] and [F4]. On each singleton input the procedures in step 1.2 return its marked coordinate with probability at least . They are therefore bounded-error solvers for both the decision and finding tasks. The two-run case uses at most twice the cost in [F3], and the other cases use at most one run, so [F5] bounds their worst-case query cost by .
Combining steps 1.1 and 2.1 gives matching positive constant lower and upper multiples of for both decision and finding. All statements concern standard bit queries; nonoracle gate and preprocessing costs remain separate.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
25 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
- Charles H. Bennett, Ethan Bernstein, Gilles Brassard, and Umesh Vazirani, Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing (standard reference, not scraped)
- Gilles Brassard, Peter Høyer, Michele Mosca, and Alain Tapp, Quantum Amplitude Amplification and Estimation (standard reference, not scraped)
- Andrew M. Childs, Lecture Notes on Quantum Algorithms (2025) (standard reference, not scraped)