By contrast, classical complexity, as in sorting algorithms, is reasoned about in higher-level programming languages, whose operational complexity is hard to describe down to the bit-level.
I'm curious if anyone more knowledgeable could argue one-way-or-another if this is a boon to the quantum-computers-will-probably-be-faster-in-realization camp.
Clear. Nice. Thanks.
In that case, for the Traveling Salesman problem, build a minimum spanning tree and traverse that -- old result.
So while I'm not immediately familiar with the approximation algorithm you're suggesting (unless it is Christofides[1]), it seems unlikely that it would produce a good approximation for the TSP. It might still perform well in the average-case over random instances. I'll admit I haven't delved deeply into that about the TSP, but I don't believe there are currently any favorable results. There are certainly no Overlap Gap Property related results about the TSP. If I wanted to prove something in the average case about the TSP, I'd definitely be starting there.
[1]: If you were thinking about Christofides: Christofides is indeed a 3/2-approximation, but not for the general TSP. Instead, it approximates a problem like the TSP, known as the Metric TSP. The Metric TSP introduces additional symmetries that make it much, much easier to approximate. As such, Christofides is an approximation algorithm for an approximate version of the problem, which I think is pretty neat. If I'm remembering correctly, the inapproximability results for the Metric TSP are rather favorable.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/approximate-solution-for-trave...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_spanning_tree
Am reminded that the nodes to be visited must have distances that obey the triangle inequality, e.g., like a plane.
Then when traversing the tree, when there is no arc in the tree to the next node, just leave the tree and go direct.
A lot of the non-quantum heuristical approaches leave you isolated on one of a few mountains (local maxima), because simply climbing back down and hoping to find another peak is computationally expensive and you know it will lead to a lot of suboptimal solutions before finding something hopefully comparable or even better than your highest peak reached so far.
dqi = O(m^2)
classical = O(2^n)
m = variables
n = constraints