Natural Computing

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 449–453 | Cite as

Quantum complementarity and logical indeterminacy

  • Časlav BruknerEmail author


Whenever a mathematical proposition to be proved requires more information than it is contained in an axiomatic system, it can neither be proved nor disproved, i.e. it is undecidable, or logically undetermined, within this axiomatic system. I will show that certain mathematical propositions on a d-valent function of a binary argument can be encoded in d-dimensional quantum states of mutually unbiased basis (MUB) sets, and truth values of the propositions can be tested in MUB measurements. I will then show that a proposition is undecidable within the system of axioms encoded in the state, if and only if the measurement associated with the proposition gives completely random outcomes.


Quantum complementarity Logical indeterminacy Mathematical undecidability 


  1. Bandyopadhyay S, Boykin PO, Roychowdhury V, Vatan F (2002) A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased bases. Algorithmica 34:512zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrow JD (2006) Gödel and physics, electronic version: arXiv:physics/0612253. Paper presented at “Horizons of Truth”, Kurt Göedel Centenary Meeting, Vienna, 27–29th April 2006Google Scholar
  3. Bell J (1964) On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1:195–200Google Scholar
  4. Calude CS, Jürgensen H (2005) Is complexity a source of incompleteness? Appl Math 35:1-15zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Calude CS, Svozil K (2006) Quantum randomness and value indefiniteness, electronic version: arXiv:quant-ph/0611029 Google Scholar
  6. Chaitin GJ (1982) Gödel's theorem and information. Int J Theor Phys 21:941-954CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenberger D, Horne MA, Zeilinger A (1989) Going beyond Bell's theorem. In: Kafatos M (ed) Bell's theorem, quantum theory, and conceptions of the Universe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (electronic version: arXiv:0712.0921v1 [quant-ph]) Google Scholar
  8. Ivanovic ID (1981) Geometrical description of quantal state determination. J Phys A 14:3241–3245CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Kochen S, Specker E (1967) The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J Math Mech 17:59–87zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Paterek T, Kofler J, Prevedel R, Klimek P, Aspelmeyer M, Zeilinger A, Brukner Č (2008) Mathematical undecidability and quantum randomness, electronic version: arXiv:0811.4542Google Scholar
  11. Paterek T, Dakić B, Brukner Č (2009) Mutually unbiased bases, orthogonal Latin squares, and hidden-variable models. Phys Rev A 79:012109CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Peres A (1995) Quantum theory: concepts and methods. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 153–154zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Stay MA, Calude CS (2005) From Heisenberg to Gödel via Chaitin. Int J Theor Phys 44:1053–1065Google Scholar
  14. Svozil K (1990) The quantum coin toss-testing microphysical undecidability. Phys Lett A 143:433–437Google Scholar
  15. Wootters WK and Fields BD (1989) Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements. Ann Phys (NY) 191:363–381CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Zeilinger A (1999) A foundational principle for quantum mechanics. Found Phys 29:631–643CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of SciencesViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of PhysicsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations