Roots of quantum computing supremacy: superposition, entanglement, or complementarity?

The recent claim of Google to have brought forth a breakthrough in quantum computing represents a major impetus to further analyze the foundations for any claims of superiority regarding quantum algorithms. This note attempts to present a conceptual step in this direction. I start with a critical analysis of what is commonly referred to as entanglement and quantum nonlocality and whether or not these concepts may be the basis of quantum superiority. Bell-type experiments are then interpreted as statistical tests of Bohr’s principle of complementarity (PCOM), which is, thus, given a foothold within the area of quantum informatics and computation. PCOM implies (by its connection to probability) that probabilistic algorithms may proceed without the knowledge of joint probability distributions (jpds). The computation of jpds is exponentially time consuming. Consequently, classical probabilistic algorithms, involving the computation of jpds for n random variables, can be outperformed by quantum algorithms (for large values of n ). Quantum probability theory (QPT) modifies the classical formula for the total probability (FTP). Inference based on the quantum version of FTP leads to a constructive interference that increases the probability of some events and reduces that of others. The physical realization of this probabilistic advantage is based on the discreteness of quantum phenomena (as opposed to the continuity of classical phenomena).