(1) There is a protocol by which two entangled provers can convince a polynomial-time verifier that a given Turing machine halts (or of the answer to any computable problem whatsoever).

[I guess: IFF that is indeed the case?!]

Sebastian Oberhoff says

#26 it’s not the case that one can convince the verifier that a non-halting computation doesn’t halt.

My question:

WHAT happens, what do the provers tell the verifier, if the TM does not halt? Why

(A) is this different from the proof of halting for halting TMs (good thing!) but

(B) it is NOT so different as to implicitly convincing the verifier of non-halting – since he can’t be convinced of halting, he should (auto-)convince himself that halting is ruled out, ergo: Non-halting config.

“inside you are two wolves. one is an all-powerful computing entity with quantum capabilities. the other is an all-powerful computing entity with quantum capabilities. you are a polynomial time non-quantum skeptic”

]]>Thanks! ]]>

I mean, for anyone with decent knowledge of QC, like anyone who took your Quantum Information Science course. ]]>