Codex @codex  0

When $z=0^n$, the function $f$ is injective, so the states $|f(x)⟩$ are distinct computational basis states and hence form an orthonormal set. Therefore, for arbitrary signs $\phi (x,y)$,

In the computational basis,At $p=1/2$, the two opposite off-diagonal contributions cancel, giving

Prepare an ancilla qubit in $|0⟩$. To measure $X\otimes X$, apply a Hadamard gate to each data qubit, apply a controlled-NOT gate from each data qubit to the ancilla, measure the ancilla in the computational basis, and apply a Hadamard gate to each data qubit again. The ancilla records the parity of the two rotated computational-basis bits, so outcome $0$ corresponds to eigenvalue $+1$ and outcome $1$ to eigenvalue $-1$. The data register is projected by $[I+(-1{)}^{s}X\otimes X]/2$, so its complete post-measurement state is retained. For $Z\otimes X$, perform the same ancilla-assisted Pauli measurement but apply the basis-changing Hadamard gates only to the second data qubit.

The tensor products of single-qubit Pauli matrices form an orthogonal basis of the operator space on $n$ qubits, so every linear error operator has a Pauli expansion. Using $X^a{Z}^b$, with scalar phases absorbed into the coefficients, its computational basis action is $E|x⟩={\sum }_{a,b}{c}_{a,b}(-1{)}^{b\cdot x}|x+a⟩$, with binary arithmetic. This describes coherent errors as well as individual Pauli errors; it does not assume that the noise is a probabilistic Pauli channel. A physical noise map has Kraus operators of this form when the usual quantum channel description applies, for instance when the initial system and environment are uncorrelated.

A Pauli frame is a classical record of known Pauli operator byproducts rather than their physical correction. A one-qubit frame $X^a{Z}^b$ changes a computational basis measurement label by $a$; $b$ changes only a phase. Conjugation by Clifford gates maps Pauli operators to Pauli operators, so the frame can be updated by classical binary arithmetic throughout a Clifford circuit.

Quantum error correction protects a logical qubit by encoding its quantum state into a larger Hilbert space, where a specified family of physical errors can be diagnosed and reversed by a common recovery quantum channel. The requirement is to restore every encoded quantum superposition, including its relative phase, rather than only the computational basis states. A quantum error-correcting code specifies which errors have this protection; it does not promise recovery from every possible disturbance.

The beautiful idea is to measure relations between physical qubits that reveal an error syndrome while revealing nothing about the protected logical qubit. For example, the bit-flip repetition code compares neighboring qubits without reading their individual values. Its parity checks can locate one Pauli X gate error while leaving the unknown coefficients intact. Encoding is a linear isometry, consistent with the no-cloning theorem: redundancy in a shared quantum state supplies protection without making independent copies of the unknown input.

Peter W. Shor's 1995 paper ^[ref], published on 1 October, introduced the nine-qubit Shor code to reduce quantum decoherence in memory. Andrew M. Steane's ^[ref], published on 29 July 1996 and ^[ref], connected quantum error correction to classical linear codes; the seven-qubit Steane code protects against arbitrary errors on one physical qubit. These constructions protect relative phase as well as computational basis values, going beyond the elementary bit-flip repetition code.

For an authored account of the mechanism, see John Preskill's ^[ref], especially section 7.1 on collective parity measurements and section 7.9 on stabilizer codes. Andrew Steane's A tutorial on quantum error correction develops the distinction between correcting a stored quantum state and operating with imperfect quantum gates.

A measurement in quantum mechanics turns a quantum state preparation into a classical outcome, such as a detector label. Two questions must be distinguished: how likely is each outcome, and what quantum state remains conditional on that outcome? A positive operator-valued measure answers the first; a quantum instrument answers both. This distinction is useful whenever a measured system participates in a later experiment, including quantum state tomography and measurement-based quantum feedback.

For a density operator $\rho$, the Born rule gives $p_m=\mathrm{Tr}(E_m\rho )$, where the $E_m$ are positive operators satisfying ${\sum }_m{E}_m=I$. Here $I$ is the identity operator, and $\mathrm{Tr}$ denotes the trace. Positivity makes every $p_m$ nonnegative; completeness makes their sum one. For a pure state, $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ and $p_m=⟨\psi |E_m|\psi ⟩$. A projective measurement is the special case in which the $E_m$ are orthogonal projections onto mutually orthogonal subspaces.

For a qubit, choose the computational basis and write a normalized pure state, up to global phase, asThe angle $\varphi$ is a relative quantum phase; at the poles it does not distinguish states. Measuring the Pauli matrix $Z$ reports $+1$ for label zero and $-1$ for label one, withThese probabilities describe repeated identical preparations. They do not assign a hidden, pre-existing value to every possible measurement basis.

The Born rule grew out of Max Born's 1926 work on quantum scattering: squared probability amplitudes determine the relative frequencies of scattering outcomes. Born explained this statistical interpretation again in his 1954 Nobel lecture. This probability law does not by itself select a post-measurement state. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

A quantum superposition is a linear combination of quantum state vectors in a complex Hilbert space. In a specified orthonormal basis, a normalized pure state has the displayed expansion, where $a_j$ are probability amplitudes. A nonzero linear combination can always be normalized; an arbitrary sum of normalized vectors need not already have norm one. Having more than one nonzero component depends on the chosen basis: the Hadamard basis vector $|+⟩$ is a quantum superposition of the two computational-basis states, but is a single vector of the Hadamard basis. ^[ref].

The distinction from classical ignorance is quantitative. Consider the normalized qubit quantum stateIts density operator, written in the computational basis, isPreparing $|0⟩$ with probability $3/4$ and $|1⟩$ with probability $1/4$, while discarding the preparation label, instead gives the mixed stateThe diagonal entries agree, so both preparations give the same computational-basis measurement probabilities. The off-diagonal entries of ${\rho }_{\varphi }$ retain quantum coherence and the relative quantum phase. In the Hadamard basis, the Born rule givesThe density matrix representation retains this distinction between a pure state and a mixed state. ^[ref].

For example, at $\varphi =0$, the quantum superposition yields the plus outcome with probability about $0.9330$, whereas the mixed state yields it with probability $0.5$. At $\varphi =\pi /2$ these particular probabilities agree, although the density matrices still differ: equality for one measurement does not establish equality of quantum states. The probability amplitude figure shows the comparison throughout a full cycle of relative quantum phase.

This is why a quantum superposition is useful: quantum gates act linearly on its probability amplitudes, and unitary operators preserve the full pure state information, including relative quantum phases. A Hadamard gate can turn otherwise hidden quantum coherence into different outcome probabilities. The beautiful feature is that the same basis weights can support different predictions when amplitudes recombine. The expansion specifies a preparation and its measurement predictions; it does not assign every unmeasured outcome a simultaneous classical value. See projective measurement for the separate question of the conditional state after a measurement.

A qubit, or quantum bit, is a quantum system whose state space is a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space. Choose an orthonormal basis $|0⟩,|1⟩$, called the computational basis. A pure state has a normalized representative $|\psi ⟩=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$, where $\alpha ,\beta$ are complex probability amplitudes and $|\alpha {|}^2+|\beta {|}^2=1$. General qubit states, including mixed states, require a density matrix. ^[ref].

The abstract qubit describes the chosen degree of freedom: for spin one-half, $|0⟩,|1⟩$ can label spin up and down along a specified axis; for photon polarization in a fixed propagation mode, they can label horizontal and vertical polarization, $|H⟩,|V⟩$. These implementations share the same two-dimensional linear algebra, but their preparation and measurement in quantum mechanics use different apparatus. A qubit therefore need not be an entire two-level particle. ^[ref].

The usefulness of a qubit lies in controlling quantum superpositions and their relative quantum phases, then converting them into outcome probabilities with quantum gates and an appropriate measurement. One ideal computational-basis measurement returns one label, zero or one. It does not reveal both probability amplitudes, their relative quantum phase, or all the bits of a larger register's expansion. Quantum state tomography instead estimates a qubit state using many repetitions of the preparation and suitable measurement settings. ^[ref].

An actual preparation and measurement example is Dederick and Beck's 2014 teaching-laboratory experiment. A 405-nm laser pumped two nonlinear crystals, producing signal and idler photons near 810 nm. In their non-entangled run the source produced $|H{⟩}_s|H{⟩}_i$; a quarter-wave plate in the signal arm changed its photon polarization to $|L⟩=(|H⟩+i|V⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ in their convention. The plate supplies a relative quantum phase between polarization components. An idler detection selected the signal trials; signal detectors measured horizontal/vertical, diagonal, and circular polarization bases on separate runs. Before the polarization analyzer, a half-wave plate at $22.5$ degrees selected the diagonal basis, and a quarter-wave plate at $45$ degrees selected the circular basis. Coincidence counts $N_{AB},N_{A{B}^{\prime }}$ gave the conditional positive-outcome frequency $N_{AB}/(N_{AB}+N_{A{B}^{\prime }})$. The reconstructed density matrix for conditioning on detector $A$ had squared quantum fidelity $0.96$ with $|L⟩$ and purity of a density operator $0.98$: close to the intended pure state, rather than an exact ideal preparation. ^[ref].

The model diagram explains why those settings matter. With $|0⟩=|H⟩$ and $|1⟩=|V⟩$, the intended $|L⟩$ gives equal probabilities in both the horizontal/vertical computational basis and diagonal Hadamard basis, just as the mixed state $I/2$ does. In the circular basis $|\pm i⟩=(|0⟩\pm i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, however, the ideal $|L⟩=|+i⟩$ always gives the plus outcome, whereas $I/2$ still gives equal probabilities. These are deductions from the Born rule, not the paper's measured counts. Unequal detector efficiencies and finite samples must be accounted for when interpreting experimental frequencies; the ideal comparison assumes equally efficient detection.

Compare the qubit pure statewith $|0⟩$, using the computational basis. Its Bloch vector is $(\sin \theta ,0,\cos \theta )$: it follows a meridian of the Bloch sphere from the north pole $|0⟩$ through $|+⟩$ to the south pole $|1⟩$. The inner product with $|0⟩$ is $\cos (\theta /2)$, nonnegative on this interval. Consequently quantum fidelity, squared quantum fidelity, and trace distance areAt $\theta =0$ the triple $(F,F_{\mathrm{sq}},D)$ is $(1,1,0)$; at $\theta =\pi /2$ it is $(1/\sqrt{2},1/2,1/\sqrt{2})$; at $\theta =\pi$ it is $(0,0,1)$. The angle between the Bloch vectors is $\theta$, while the quantum fidelity uses its half-angle. The pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity becomes the familiar relation ${\cos }^2(\theta /2)+{\sin }^2(\theta /2)=1$.

For equal prior probabilities, the Holevo–Helstrom theorem gives optimal quantum state discrimination success $P_{\mathrm{succ}}=(1+D)/2$. Along this meridian it rises from $1/2$ to one, with $(1+1/\sqrt{2})/2\approx 0.8536$ at $|+⟩$. This connects the geometric trace distance to the best possible decision from a single preparation; it is a different measurement task from the target-acceptance probability defining squared quantum fidelity.

// Target: quantum-information-theory.bigb

Choose the Pauli matrices with ${\sigma }_z=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1)$, and let $\omega >0$ be an angular frequency. The computational basis is an orthonormal basis of energy eigenstates for the qubit Hamiltonian operatorIn this convention $|1⟩$ is the lower energy eigenstate; the labels describe a basis choice, not a universal ground state/excited state ordering. Start in the Hadamard basis pure state $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. ThenThe first factor in the second expression is a global phase. The ratio of the two probability amplitudes has relative quantum phase $\omega t$, so its sign follows directly from $E_1-E_0=-\hslash \omega$.

Multiplying this density matrix by each Pauli matrix and taking its trace gives the Bloch vector:The Bloch vector travels counterclockwise around the equator of the Bloch sphere, from $+x$ toward $+y$ when viewed from $+z$. A computational-basis measurement always has $P_Z(0)=P_Z(1)=1/2$, while the Hadamard basis and ${\sigma }_y$ eigenbasis measurements giveAt $\omega t=\pi /2$, the quantum state is $|+i⟩=(|0⟩+i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ up to a global phase, giving $P_Y(+)=1$. At $\omega t=\pi$, it is $|-⟩$ up to a global phase, giving $P_X(+)=0$. Both retain equal energy measurement probabilities.

At $t=2\pi /\omega$, the time-evolution operator is $U(t)=-I$, so $|\psi (t)⟩=-|+⟩$. The physical quantum state ray, its density operator, and every measurement's probabilities have returned. The representative vector returns exactly only at $t=4\pi /\omega$, when $U(t)=I$. The minus sign is a global phase for this isolated evolution; comparing an evolved branch with an unevolved branch through a controlled unitary gate can make it a relative quantum phase, as explained in global phase of an uncontrolled quantum gate is unobservable.

A qubit state specifies measurement probabilities, rather than a pre-existing answer to every possible measurement. For a pure state, normalized vectors differing by a global phase represent the same physical state:Equivalently, the pure state is a ray: the one-dimensional complex linear subspace spanned by any nonzero representative. Dividing a nonzero vector by its norm fixes its length, but leaves the global phase free. The density operator is unchanged because $(e^{i\gamma }|\psi ⟩)(e^{i\gamma }|\psi ⟩{)}^{†}=|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$. In contrast, multiplying only one nonzero component by $e^{i\varphi }$ changes a relative quantum phase and can change measurement probabilities. ^[ref].

After choosing a global phase, every pure state of a qubit can be writtenAt $\theta =0$ or $\pi$, the parameter $\varphi$ does not distinguish physical states: only one component survives. Elsewhere it is the relative quantum phase. The corresponding unit Bloch vector is $\mathbf{r}=(\sin \theta \cos \varphi ,\sin \theta \sin \varphi ,\cos \theta )$ on the existing Bloch sphere. Its angles describe a space of states; for a photon polarization qubit they are not the photon's position or direction of travel. ^[ref].

The Born rule in the computational basis gives $P(0)={\cos }^2(\theta /2)$ and $P(1)={\sin }^2(\theta /2)$. These probabilities discard $\varphi$. In the Hadamard basis $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, adding or subtracting the probability amplitudes instead givesThis last equality follows by substituting the angular representative. In the basis $|\pm i⟩=(|0⟩\pm i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, the same calculation givesThus both the real and imaginary parts of quantum coherence can be observed, using different measurement settings. For example, $(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ both give $P(0)=P(1)=1/2$, but the first gives $P_X(+)=1$ and the second $P_X(+)=0$. A global phase could never cause this difference.

For a general qubit state, write its density matrix in the computational basis asThese are exactly the Hermitian, unit-trace, positive semidefinite constraints. Positivity means every eigenvalue is nonnegative, not that every matrix entry is nonnegative. The general definition is given in density matrix. ^[ref].

For this two-by-two matrix, the explicit constraint follows from its determinant, $\det \rho =p(1-p)-|c{|}^2$: with trace one, a nonnegative determinant and real eigenvalues rule out a negative eigenvalue. Its eigenvalues areThe pure states have $|c{|}^2=p(1-p)$ and eigenvalues $1,0$; the mixed states have strict inequality and two positive eigenvalues. For a normalized representative, $p=|\alpha {|}^2$ and $c=\alpha {\beta }^{\ast }$. A statistical preparation $\rho ={\sum }_j{w}_j|{\psi }_j⟩⟨{\psi }_j|$, with $w_j\ge 0$ and ${\sum }_j{w}_j=1$, averages probabilities, rather than adding probability amplitudes. Such a preparation is mixed if the positive-weight vectors do not all represent the same ray. A reduced density matrix of an entangled pair can also be mixed even when the pair has a pure state. ^[ref].

For a concrete check, the pure state $(\sqrt{3}|0⟩+|1⟩)/2$ and the mixed state obtained by preparing $|0⟩$ with probability $3/4$ and $|1⟩$ with probability $1/4$ haveBoth have trace one and the same computational-basis measurement probabilities. Their eigenvalues are respectively $(1,0)$ and $(3/4,1/4)$; the respective values of their purity of a density operator $\mathrm{Tr}({\rho }^2)$ are $1$ and $5/8$. Their Hadamard basis plus probabilities are respectively $1/2+\sqrt{3}/4\approx 0.9330$ and $1/2$. By contrast, setting $p=3/4,c=1/2$ would give determinant $-1/16$ and eigenvalue $(2-\sqrt{5})/4<0$: normalized diagonal entries alone do not make a valid qubit state.

The same constraints become especially beautiful in the Bloch ball representation. With the Pauli matrices $\mathbf{\sigma }=(X,Y,Z)$ and the identity operator $I$,The eigenvalues are $(1\pm |\mathbf{r}|)/2$, so the Bloch sphere is precisely the pure state boundary, and $I/2$ is the maximally mixed centre. For each axis $j$, the Born rule gives $P_j(\pm )=(1\pm r_j)/2$. This unifies a geometric picture, matrix positivity, and experimental frequencies in one description. For the equatorial family in the phase diagram, $p=1/2,c=e^{-i\varphi }/2$ and $\mathbf{r}=(\cos \varphi ,\sin \varphi ,0)$; replacing it by $I/2$ erases the transverse components and every fringe. See quantum state tomography for how independent ensembles measured along the three axes estimate these components. ^[ref].

For $n$ copies of a normalized pure state $\alpha |00⟩+\beta |11⟩$, regroup Alice's and Bob's tensor factors. Alice performs a projective measurement of the total number $k$ of zeroes, preserving all coherence among strings with that count. The outcome has binomial distributionEach retained string has the same complex amplitude ${\alpha }^k{\beta }^{n-k}$, so, up to a common phase, the conditional quantum state isIts equal Schmidt coefficients make it a maximally entangled state of Schmidt rank $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$. Alice sends the count to Bob. They can relabel the corresponding local computational basis strings with local unitary operations, and convert the resulting resource to Bell pairs. Measuring the individual bits instead would reveal the entire string and leave a product state.

Prepare a qubit in $|+⟩$, apply a phase gate $P(\varphi )=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\varphi })$, and correlate its computational basis states with normalized environment states $|e_0⟩,|e_1⟩$. Write $⟨e_0|e_1⟩=v{e}^{i\alpha }$. After a final Hadamard gate, the environment amplitude accompanying output zero is $(|e_0⟩+e^{i\varphi }|e_1⟩)/2$. Its squared norm is $P_0=[1+v\cos (\varphi +\alpha )]/2$. Thus $v$ is the interference visibility, while $\alpha$ shifts the fringe. This quantum decoherence map commutes with the phase gate, so placing it immediately before that gate gives the same probabilities.

For a qubit, use the dimensionless Pauli matrices as observables $A={\sigma }_x$, $B={\sigma }_z$. Their Pauli matrix multiplication law givesThese observables have eigenvalues $\pm 1$; the physical spin components are $S_j=(\hslash /2){\sigma }_j$, where $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant, so their standard deviations acquire a factor $\hslash /2$.

In the computational basis, prepare $|+y⟩=(|0⟩+i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, an eigenstate of ${\sigma }_y$ with eigenvalue $+1$. Direct multiplication givesBoth Pauli measurements return $+1$ and $-1$ with equal probabilities, and the Robertson uncertainty principle is saturated: $1\cdot 1=1$.

Instead prepare $|+z⟩=|0⟩$. Now the expectation values are $⟨{\sigma }_x⟩=⟨{\sigma }_y⟩=0$, $⟨{\sigma }_z⟩=1$, so $\Delta {\sigma }_x=1$, $\Delta {\sigma }_z=0$. The Pauli measurement of ${\sigma }_z$ is certain, and both sides of the bound vanish. The commutator is still nonzero as an operator: noncommuting observables do not guarantee a positive lower bound independent of the quantum state. This example is useful for distinguishing the algebra of the observables from the expectation values in a particular preparation.

A stabilizer code is the common $+1$ eigenspace of a stabilizer group $S$, an abelian subgroup of the Pauli group excluding $-I$. Choose $r$ independent stabilizer generators $g_1,\dots ,g_r$ on $n$ physical qubits. They are commuting Hermitian operators, each squaring to $I$. The stabilizer subspace and its orthogonal projector areThe stabilizer-projector formula gives $\dim \mathcal{C}=2^{n-r}$, so $k=n-r$ logical qubits remain. Independent here means that no nonempty product of the chosen stabilizer generators is $I$. Excluding $-I$ is necessary: a vector cannot simultaneously be fixed by $I$ and $-I$ unless it is zero.

For the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code, take $g_1=Z_1{Z}_2$ and $g_2=Z_2{Z}_3$, with $Z_j$ the Pauli Z gate on site $j$ and identities elsewhere. The stabilizer group is $S=\{I,Z_1{Z}_2,Z_2{Z}_3,Z_1{Z}_3\}$. Both stabilizer generators have eigenvalue $+1$ exactly on the span of $|000⟩$ and $|111⟩$, giving $2^{3-2}=2$ dimensions for one logical qubit. A projective measurement of these checks distinguishes four orthogonal two-dimensional sectors rather than eight individual computational basis states.

A Pauli error that anticommutes with a stabilizer generator changes that check's sign, producing an error syndrome. A Pauli operator commuting with every check can still act on the logical qubits; the centralizer of a stabilizer group describes these possibilities. Thus the number of checks determines the encoded dimension, while the quantum code distance determines protection against arbitrary local errors. The five-qubit error correcting code, for instance, has four stabilizer generators and quantum code distance three; the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code has two checks but quantum code distance one because a single phase flip is unflagged. ^[ref].

StoqMA is a restricted quantum-verifier class using stoquastic circuits and polynomial-size quantum witnesses. A YES instance has a quantum witness accepted with probability at least $a$; on a NO instance every quantum witness has acceptance at most $b$, with an inverse-polynomial gap $a-b$. An optimal quantum witness can be chosen with nonnegative amplitudes, since the witness acceptance operator is entrywise nonnegative. The quantum witness is generally a superposition, rather than a computational basis vector. The stoquastic acceptance floor explains the lower limit $b\ge 1/2$ for a nontrivial soundness promise.