 practical implementation.

At the moment, the largest LPN instances with errors in ’s range $\tau \in [0.1, 0.15]$ are solved with variants of the low-memory algorithms <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pooled Gauss</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> of Esser, Kübler, May [@C:EssKubMay17]. We show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pooled Gauss</span> solves LSN for $\tau \leq 0.292$ faster than classical period finding algorithms. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> even improves on any classical period finding algorithm for all errors $\tau < \frac 1 2$.

<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> is able to handle errors in time $2^{cn}$, where $c<\frac 1 2$ is constant for constant $\tau$. For $\tau=0$, we obtain polynomial time as predicted by Simon’s analysis. However, for $0 <\tau < \frac 1 2$ we achieve exponential run time, but still improve over the purely classical computation. This indicates that we achieve [*quantum supremacy*]{} for the period finding problem on sufficiently large computers, even in the presence of errors: Our quantum oracle helps us in speeding up computation! But as opposed to the exponential speedup from the (overly optimistic) error-free Simon setting $\tau =0$, we obtain in the (realistic) general error-prone Simon setting $0 <\tau < \frac 1 2$ only a [*polynomial speedup*]{} with a polynomial of degree $\frac{1}{2c} >1$.

Concerning quantum supremacy, assume that one could build a quantum device with $486$ qubits performing Simon’s circuit on a $243$-bit periodic function with error $\tau = \frac 1 8$. Then the error handling would translate into an -instance with $(n,\tau)=(243, \frac 1 8)$. Such an LPN instance was solved in [@C:EssKubMay17] on 64 threads in only $15$ days, whereas classically we would need $2^{121}$ steps for period finding.\
The paper is organized as follows. In \[sec:simon\]
practical implementation. 

 At the moment, the largest licensed practical nurse case with errors in ’s range $ \tau \in [ 0.1, 0.15]$ are clear with form of the low - memory algorithms < couple style="font - variant: small - caps;">Pooled Gauss</span > and < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Well - pool Gauss</span > of Esser, Kübler, May   [ @C: EssKubMay17 ]. We show that < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Pooled Gauss</span > clear LSN for $ \tau \leq 0.292 $ faster than classical time period finding algorithms. < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Well - Pooled Gauss</span > even better on any classical period finding algorithm for all error $ \tau < \frac 1 2$. 

 < span style="font - variant: small - caps;">Well - Pooled Gauss</span > is able to handle mistake in time $ 2^{cn}$, where $ c<\frac 1 2 $ is constant for constant $ \tau$. For $ \tau=0 $, we obtain polynomial time as predict by Simon ’s analysis. However, for $ 0 < \tau < \frac 1 2 $ we achieve exponential run time, but still improve over the purely classical computation. This indicates that we achieve [ * quantum supremacy * ] { } for the period finding problem on sufficiently large computers, even in the presence of errors: Our quantum oracle help us in speeding up computation! But as oppose to the exponential acceleration from the (overly optimistic) error - free Simon setting $ \tau = 0 $, we obtain in the (realistic) general mistake - prone Simon setting $ 0 < \tau < \frac 1 2 $ only a [ * polynomial speedup * ] { } with a polynomial of degree $ \frac{1}{2c } > 1$. 

 Concerning quantum supremacy, simulate that one could build a quantum device with $ 486 $ qubits performing Simon ’s circuit on a $ 243$-bit periodic function with mistake $ \tau = \frac 1 8$. Then the error treatment would understand into an -instance with $ (n,\tau)=(243, \frac 1 8)$. Such an LPN case was solved in [ @C: EssKubMay17 ] on 64 threads in only $ 15 $ day, whereas classically we would need $ 2^{121}$ steps for period finding.\ 
 The newspaper is organized as follows. In \[sec: simon\ ]
 prwctical implementation.

At the moment, the largesv LPN ihstances with errors in ’s range $\tau \mn [0.1, 0.15]$ are wolved with variants ow the low-lemory aogormthms <span style="hknt-variant:smamp-capv;">'ooled Gauss</spak> and <span vtyle="font-variatt:rmcll-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> of Esser, Kübler, Kaj [@C:EssKubMay17]. We shoe thaf <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pokled Galss</span> solves LSM for $\tau \leq 0.292$ faster than cladsical period findlng algorityms. <fpan style="fong-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pkoled Gauss</span> even improves ov any classical pwrilg finding aogorinhm for all evgors $\tag < \frac 1 2$.

<span style="fokt-varmant:wmall-caps;">Well-Pooled Geuss</span> is able to randle ersoxs in time $2^{cn}$, where $c<\drqc 1 2$ hs cmnstxbt wor cpnatant $\hau$. For $\tau=0$, ws obtain pooynomial time as prtdisnrd by Simon’s analyfif. However, for $0 <\tau < \frac 1 2$ we achieve eqponsntial run time, but stiol improve over the porely clasfical computation. This indicates that we achieve [*xuantnm sukrcixxy*]{} for the period finding problem on sufficientjg kagge computers, evek in the presence pf ettors: Our quantom oracle gelps us in speedijg up cjmputqtion! But as ppposed to the exponential wpeedup from rhe (overly optimiscic) error-frez Simom setying $\tau =0$, we obtain in che (rezlistic) genfral errod-orone Simon settkng $0 <\dau < \frac 1 2$ only a [*polynomyal speednp*]{} wich a polhnomoal of degree $\frwc{1}{2c} >1$.

Concerning quantum skpremccy, avsume that one could build a quantum devirx with $486$ qubitx [erxorming Fimon’x circuit on w $243$-bit periodic functijn wigh error $\tzu = \frar 1 8$. Then the error handlith would tranvlate ineo ab -inwtance dkth $(n,\tau)=(243, \frac 1 8)$. Such an LPN instabce was solved in [@G:EssKobJay17] on 64 threads in only $15$ days, whetear cjadsmcallr we would nead $2^{121}$ rteox for period finbivg.\
Thr paper is organized as rollows. In \[sec:simom\]
practical implementation. At the moment, the largest with in ’s $\tau \in [0.1, of low-memory algorithms <span Gauss</span> and <span Gauss</span> of Esser, Kübler, May [@C:EssKubMay17]. show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pooled Gauss</span> solves LSN for $\tau \leq 0.292$ faster than period finding algorithms. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> even improves on any classical period finding for errors < 1 2$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> is able to handle errors in time $2^{cn}$, where $c<\frac 1 is constant for constant $\tau$. For $\tau=0$, we polynomial time as predicted Simon’s analysis. However, for $0 < 1 2$ achieve run but still improve the purely classical computation. This indicates that we achieve [*quantum supremacy*]{} for the period finding problem on large computers, the presence errors: quantum helps us in computation! But as opposed to the the (overly optimistic) error-free Simon setting $\tau =0$, obtain in (realistic) general error-prone Simon setting $0 < \frac 1 2$ only a [*polynomial speedup*]{} a polynomial of degree $\frac{1}{2c} >1$. Concerning quantum supremacy, assume that one could build a with $486$ qubits performing circuit on a periodic with $\tau \frac 1 Then the error handling would translate into an -instance with $(n,\tau)=(243, 1 8)$. Such an LPN instance was solved in [@C:EssKubMay17] threads only $15$ days, classically we would need steps period finding.\ The paper as In
 practical implementation.

At The moment, tHe larGesT LPn iNstaNces With errors in ’s rANge $\tAu \in [0.1, 0.15]$ are solved with variaNts of ThE Low-mEMoRy algOrithms <SPaN STylE="fOnT-vaRiANt:Small-CapS;">Pooled gauss</span> aNd <sPaN style="font-vaRIaNt:small-capS;">WeLl-Pooled GausS</spAn> of EsSeR, KüBLer, MaY [@C:ESsKubmay17]. We sHOw that <Span style="FoNT-variaNT:small-cAPS;">POoleD Gauss</span> solves Lsn fOR $\tau \leq 0.292$ faster tHan claSsICaL PEriOd fInding algoRiThms. <sPAn style="FOnT-VARiaNT:small-caps;">WelL-Pooled GausS</SpaN> even iMpRovES on any ClassIcAL peRiod finding AlgoRithm for aLl erroRS $\tau < \fraC 1 2$.

<Span styLe="font-VarIanT:smaLL-cApS;">WeLl-pOolED GAusS</SpaN> is able tO hAnDle erRors IN TIMe $2^{cn}$, WheRe $c<\fRac 1 2$ is Constant for coNstAnt $\tAU$. FoR $\tau=0$, wE obtaIn poLyNomiaL time aS predIcTed by Simon’s analYsis. however, foR $0 <\taU < \fRac 1 2$ We AchieVE exponEntIal Run time, But stilL ImpRoVE OVeR the purely classicaL cOMPuTation. ThIs indiCAtEs THat we achIeVe [*qUantUM SupreMacy*]{} FOr The perioD findiNG pRoBlem on sUfFicienTlY laRge CompuTErs, eVen in tHe presenCe of eRRors: Our quantum ORacle helps us iN SpEEDiNG up cOmpUtation! But aS oppOSed tO the EXpOneNTial sPeeduP fROm THe (overly optimistic) eRrOr-free simon Setting $\tau =0$, we oBtain in the (REAListic) geNeraL ErROr-prone Simon seTting $0 <\Tau < \frac 1 2$ onlY A [*polynomIal spEedup*]{} witH a polynomIAL of degreE $\frAc{1}{2c} >1$.

conCerNINg Quantum supremACY, assUmE that onE coUld builD a qUanTum DevIcE with $486$ qubiTs perforMiNg siMoN’s cIrcuiT On a $243$-bit peRiOdiC fUncTion wITh erroR $\tau = \fRac 1 8$. THeN tHE erRor handLInG WOuld TrAnSlatE inTo An -insTancE WitH $(n,\tau)=(243, \frAc 1 8)$. Such an LpN iNStanCe WaS solved In [@C:EssKubMay17] oN 64 tHreads in onLy $15$ DayS, whereAS ClassicaLly we would need $2^{121}$ steps for pERiod finDinG.\
The pAper Is organizEd aS folloWs. IN \[Sec:simOn\]
 practical implementation. 

At the m oment , t hela rges t LP N instances wi t h er rors in ’s range $\tau  \in[0 . 1, 0 . 15 ]$ ar e solve d  w i t h v ar ia nts  o f  t he lo w-m emory a lgorithms<sp an  style="font - va riant:smal l-c aps;">Pooled  Ga uss</s pa n>a nd <s pan  styl e="fon t -varia nt:small- ca p s;">We l l-Poole d Ga uss< /span> of Esser,K üb l er, May [@C:Es sKubMa y1 7 ]. W e s how  that <spa nstyle = "font-v a ri a n t :sm a ll-caps;">Poo led Gauss</ s pan > solv es  LS N  for $ \tau\l e q 0 .292$ faste r th an classi cal pe r iod fin d ing alg orithm s.<sp an s t yl e= "fo nt - var i an t:s m all -caps;"> We ll -Pool ed G a u s s </sp an>  eve n imp roves on anycla ssic a l p eriod  find ingal gorit hm for  aller rors $\tau < \f rac1 2$.

<s pan  s tyl e= "font - varian t:s mal l-caps; ">Well- P ool ed G a us s</span> is able t oh a nd le error s in t i me  $ 2 ^{cn}$,wh ere  $c< \ f rac 1  2$i sconstant  for c o ns ta nt $\ta u$ . For$\ tau =0$ , weo btai n poly nomial t ime a s  predicted byS imon’s analys i s. H ow e ver,  fo r $0 <\tau< \f r ac 1  2$w each i eve e xpone nt i al run time, but still  i mprove  over  the purely c lassical c o m p utation.  Thi s  i n dicates that w e ach ieve [*qua n tum supr emacy *]{} for  the peri o d  finding  pr obl emons u ff iciently larg e comp ut ers, ev enin thepre sen ceofer rors: Our  quantum  o ra cl ehel ps us in speed in g u pcom putat i on! Bu t asoppo se dt o t he expo n en t i al s pe ed up f rom  t he (o verl y  op timisti c) error- fre e  Sim on  s etting$\tau =0$, we  o btain in t he  (r ealist i c ) genera l error-prone Simon set t ing $0<\t au <\fra c 1 2$ on lya [*po lyn o mial s peedup *]{}wi tha polyn o m ia l o fdegree $\f r a c{1 }{2c}  > 1$.
Concer ning quantum supre m acy , assume that  on e co u l dbui l da  qu an t umd e vice with $486$  qubits pe rf o rm ing Simon’ s  ci rc uit ona $243$ -bitp eriodic  function  with err or  $\t a u  =\frac 1 8$ . Then t he errorh andli n gwould  tr anslat eint o an-insta n cewith$(n,\t au )=(243 , \fr ac  1 8)$.Such an LPN instance wa s solv ed in  [@ C:EssKubM ay1 7 ] o n 64 thre adsin only $1 5$day s, wh ere a s cla ssic a ll y w e  woul d ne e d $2^{121 } $ste p s  f or period f i n d ing .\
Th e p a per is  org anized as follows .  In \[sec:simo n\]
 practical_implementation.

At the_moment, the largest LPN_instances with_errors_in ’s_range_$\tau \in [0.1,_0.15]$ are solved_with variants of the_low-memory algorithms <span_style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pooled_Gauss</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> of Esser, Kübler, May [@C:EssKubMay17]. We show that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pooled_Gauss</span>_solves LSN_for_$\tau_\leq 0.292$ faster than classical_period finding algorithms. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled_Gauss</span> even_improves on any classical period finding algorithm for_all_errors $\tau <_\frac 1 2$.

<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Well-Pooled Gauss</span> is able to handle_errors in time $2^{cn}$, where $c<\frac_1 2$ is_constant_for_constant $\tau$. For $\tau=0$,_we obtain polynomial time as predicted_by Simon’s analysis. However, for $0_<\tau < \frac 1 2$ we achieve_exponential run time, but still improve_over the purely classical computation._This indicates_that we achieve [*quantum supremacy*]{}_for the period_finding problem_on sufficiently large_computers, even in the presence of_errors: Our quantum_oracle helps us in speeding up_computation!_But as opposed_to_the_exponential speedup_from the (overly_optimistic)_error-free Simon_setting_$\tau =0$, we obtain in the_(realistic)_general error-prone Simon setting $0 <\tau <_\frac 1 2$ only_a_[*polynomial speedup*]{} with a_polynomial of degree $\frac{1}{2c} >1$.

Concerning_quantum supremacy, assume that one could_build a_quantum device_with $486$ qubits performing Simon’s circuit on a $243$-bit periodic function_with error $\tau = \frac 1_8$. Then the error_handling would_translate_into an -instance_with_$(n,\tau)=(243, \frac_1 8)$. Such an LPN instance was_solved in_[@C:EssKubMay17] on 64 threads in only_$15$ days, whereas classically_we_would need $2^{121}$ steps for period_finding.\
The paper is organized as follows._In \[sec:simon\]