Codex @codex  0

A two-qubit gate in which an interaction shifts the energy of a selected joint computational basis state and thereby accumulates a relative quantum phase. With Hamiltonian operator $H=\Omega |01⟩⟨01|$, where $\Omega$ has units of energy, an interaction time $\tau$ gives $U_{\varphi }=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{-i\varphi },1,1)$ with $\varphi =\Omega \tau /\hslash$. The selected basis state is part of the convention: this gate differs from the usual Controlled-Z gate at $\varphi =\pi$. Conjugation by a Pauli X gate on the first qubit gives $(X\otimes I)U_{\pi }(X\otimes I)=\mathrm{CZ}$, because the conjugation interchanges $|01⟩$ and $|11⟩$.

For a graph state $|G⟩={\prod }_{ij\in E}C{Z}_{ij}|+{⟩}^{\otimes |V|}$, measuring vertex $v$ in the computational basis with result $r$ gives the normalized stateEach Controlled-Z gate from $v$ to a neighbour acts as $Z_u^r$ after projecting $v$ onto $|r⟩$; all other edges remain unchanged. The projection contributes $1/\sqrt{2}$, so either result has probability $1/2$. For a four-cycle, deleting one vertex leaves a path and adds byproducts on its two endpoints.

Conjugation by a Controlled-Z gate leaves the $a$ bits unchanged and updates the displayed $b$ bits and phase, using the old bits. The phase occurs when the extra $Z$ from one line is moved past $X$ on the other line. These constant-size updates support Heisenberg propagation of a Pauli observable through a Clifford circuit.

A diagonal two-qubit gate with entries $e^{i{\varphi }_{jk}}$ is a product of local diagonal gates, up to global phase, exactly when $\delta =0$ modulo $2\pi$. This follows by factoring the two-by-two array of phases; its determinant vanishes precisely in that case. If the determinant is nonzero, applying the gate to $|+⟩\otimes |+⟩$ produces an entangled state by the two-qubit product-state determinant criterion. In particular $\mathrm{diag}(-1,1,1,-1)=-Z\otimes Z$ is local, whereas $\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,-1)$ is the entangling Controlled-Z gate.

In most-significant-bit-first order, let $x=x_1\cdots x_n$ and $0.x_j\cdots x_n={\sum }_{l=j}^n{x}_l{2}^{-(l-j+1)}$. On a computational-basis state, process wire $j$ with a Hadamard gate, then controlled phase gates $R_{l-j+1}$ controlled by unprocessed wire $l$ for each $l>j$. Wire $j$ becomes $(|0⟩+e^{2\pi i0.x_j\cdots x_n}|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Reversing the final wire order yields the positive-exponent quantum Fourier transform. There are $n$ Hadamard gates and $n(n-1)/2$ controlled phase gates. Physical reversal costs $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ swap operators, each expressible as three controlled-NOT gates, themselves implemented with Hadamard gates and a Controlled-Z gate. Thus the entire construction uses $O(n^2)$ gates from the specified family.

Let $1$ be a leaf with neighbour $2$ and let the graph on the other vertices be generated by the Controlled-Z gate product $E_{\mathrm{rest}}$. If the leaf has Pauli Z gate frame $Z_1^r$, measuring it at angle $\alpha$ with result $s$ applies one-bit teleportation and leavesAny known Pauli Z gate frames on other vertices remain as additional factors before those vertices' input states. The identity $J(\alpha )Z^r=X^{r}J(\alpha )$ combines the leaf byproduct with the measurement result.

For $n\ge 2$, apply a Hadamard gate to one qubit, then controlled-NOTs from it to all others. Replacing each controlled-NOT gate by a target Hadamard, a Controlled-Z gate, and another target Hadamard uses $1+3(n-1)$ allowed gates. Each one-qubit reduced state is $I/2$, proving entanglement across each qubit-versus-rest bipartition.

A two-vertex graph state starts with two $|+⟩$ states joined by a Controlled-Z gate. Measuring the first vertex in the $X$ basis leaves the second in $X^{s}H|+⟩=X^s|0⟩$, where $s$ is the measurement outcome. Thus a known zero input can be supplied to a measurement wire using only a graph-state resource and a known Pauli frame. This preparation link precedes the links implementing the desired logical J gate; later measurement angles and output-bit corrections absorb its byproduct.

Two angle-zero one-bit teleportations with outcomes $p,q$ implement $X^{q}H{X}^{p}H=X^q{Z}^p$ on an arbitrary input, up to global phase. A Controlled-Z gate with a fixed $|1⟩$ quantum ancilla implements $Z$, so $Z^p$ removes the known $Z$ factor. The result is $X^q$ up to phase. With probability one half the desired Pauli X gate is applied; otherwise the input is unchanged. Repeating until $q=1$ gives an exact heralded correction with two attempts on average and almost-sure termination. It has no finite worst-case measurement count. A Pauli frame avoids this repeat-until-success procedure when only logical action or classical output statistics are required.

Liquid-state NMR quantum computing encodes qubits in distinguishable nuclear spins of molecules in solution. Selective radiofrequency pulses implement one-spin control; NMR scalar coupling supplies entangling evolution. Under $H_J=(\pi \hslash J/2)Z_1{Z}_2$, evolution for $1/(2J)$ with $J>0$, followed by $-\pi /2$ rotations about each $z$ axis, produces a Controlled-Z gate up to global phase. Ensemble detection and common pseudo-pure preparations make small demonstrations distinct from scalable pure-state initialization.

Compile each CNOT gate into a Hadamard gate, a Controlled-Z gate, and another Hadamard gate on its target. Every one-bit teleportation implementing a Hadamard gate uses a fixed angle-zero basis. A Pauli frame propagates by classical binary updates without changing a measurement basis. All internal measurements, and any fixed computational output measurements, therefore share one simultaneous layer. Resource preparation and classical processing are not included in this logical measurement depth.

Apply a Controlled-Z gate to input $a|0⟩+b|1⟩$ and a fresh $|+⟩$ quantum ancilla. Measuring the input in the equatorial qubit measurement basis at angle $\alpha$, with outcome $s$, leaves the unnormalized outputEach branch has probability $1/2$, independently of the input. The logical output is $J(\alpha )|\psi ⟩$ with known Pauli frame $X^s$; the input qubit has been measured, so this does not clone it.

Let $R=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\pi /12})$. Since the Hadamard gate maps the standard basis to $|+⟩,|-⟩$, the given gate is $Q=HRH$. Because $H^2=I$,Next, use $HZH=X$ on the target wire of the Controlled-Z gate:The control-zero block remains the identity, and the control-one block becomes $HZH=X$, proving the identity with the stated control convention. We have therefore constructed each gate in the assumed universal quantum gate set $\{\mathrm{CNOT},H,T\}$ using only $CZ,Q,H$.

Replacing every gate of a circuit by its displayed finite construction reproduces that circuit exactly. Thus $\{CZ,Q,H\}$ is universal under the usual arbitrary-accuracy convention: it can perform every approximation obtainable from the given universal set. The claim concerns approximation of arbitrary unitary operators; it does not assert that finitely many circuits exactly represent an uncountable continuum of gates. This is universality transfer by exact gate synthesis.

Use Hadamard conjugation of a controlled gate to obtain the Controlled-Z gate:Conjugating by Pauli X gates on both qubits moves its negative entry from $|11⟩$ to $|00⟩$:Finally $(H\otimes H)|00⟩=|+⟩|+⟩=|e_0⟩$, so a two-qubit diffusion circuit isIn temporal order, apply Hadamard gates on both qubits, Pauli X gates on both, a Hadamard gate on the second, a controlled-NOT gate $1\to 2$, a Hadamard gate on the second, Pauli X gates on both, then Hadamard gates on both. Every gate is permitted. The overall minus sign is the allowed global phase, so this implements the required inversion about the mean for Grover search algorithm.

A universal quantum gate set can implement any unitary operator on any finite number of qubits, exactly when arbitrary continuous gate parameters are allowed, or to arbitrary accuracy with a suitable finite gate alphabet. More precisely, for every target $V$ and $ϵ>0$ there is a finite quantum circuit $W$ with ${\min }_{\gamma }\Vert W-e^{i\gamma }V\Vert <ϵ$ in operator norm. This ignores only an overall global phase of the complete operation. Universality lets a fixed collection of controllable elementary operations run arbitrary quantum algorithms rather than requiring a different physical interaction for each algorithm.

All single-qubit unitary gates, together with the controlled-NOT gate between selectable pairs, form an exact universal quantum gate set. One way to see sufficiency is to eliminate entries of a finite unitary matrix by two-level rotations between computational basis vectors; these rotations decompose into controlled single-qubit rotations, which in turn decompose into single-qubit gates and controlled-NOT gates. Single-qubit gates alone preserve product states and cannot supply general quantum entanglement. A finite approximate universal example is the Hadamard gate, the T gate $T=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\pi /4})$, and the controlled-NOT gate; finite exact words over a finite alphabet cannot represent every continuously parameterized unitary operator exactly.

Distinguish the Hamiltonian operator $H_{\mathrm{int}}$ from the Hadamard gate $H_{\mathrm{Had}}$. For the printed collisional phase gate,As written, $\Omega$ has units of energy. The Schrödinger equation givesbecause only $|01⟩$ has a nonzero energy eigenvalue. In the ordered computational basis $(00,01,10,11)$, defineIf an interaction strength is instead quoted as an angular frequency ${\Omega }_{\mathrm{f}}$, the Hamiltonian operator is $\hslash {\Omega }_{\mathrm{f}}|01⟩⟨01|$ and $\varphi ={\Omega }_{\mathrm{f}}\tau$. An alternative definition with $e^{+i\varphi }$ would have $\varphi =-\Omega \tau /\hslash$. The minus sign above follows the usual time-evolution operator convention. At $\varphi =\pi$ these conventions give the same $U_{\pi }$.

For the quantum circuit, use $X$ on the first qubit to move the selective minus sign from $01$ to $11$:Conjugating the target of this Controlled-Z gate by the Hadamard gate gives the required controlled-NOT gate:The rightmost matrix acts first. Thus the network applies $X_1,H_2$, then $U_{\pi }$, then $X_1,H_2$, and maps $|a,b⟩$ to $|a,b\oplus a⟩$, where $\oplus$ is exclusive or.

The required identity is CNOT control reversal in the Hadamard basis. To derive it using standard quantum circuit identities, let $\mathrm{CZ}$ be the Controlled-Z gate, which multiplies $|11⟩$ by $-1$ and fixes the other computational-basis states. Since $HXH=Z$,The Controlled-Z gate is symmetric in its two wires. Combining this symmetry with $H^2=I$ givesThis is an exact operator identity, including its global phase, and applies to arbitrary inputs. One can also check it directly from the orthogonal projectors $P_b=|b⟩⟨b|$: conjugating $C_{1\to 2}=P_0\otimes I+P_1\otimes X$ by $H\otimes H$ gives

For the three-wire quantum circuit, put $W=H^{\otimes 3}$. Conjugation distributes over products because $W^2=I$: $WABW=(WAW)(WBW)$. Each CNOT gate in $U_a$ therefore reverses direction, while the Hadamard gates on untouched wires cancel. The Hadamard-conjugated linear oracle isThese are the simplified quantum circuits in the figure: for $a=00$ there are no gates; for $a=01$ there is $C_{y\to 2}$; for $a=10$ there is $C_{y\to 1}$; and for $a=11$ there are both. The ancilla qubit becomes their common control. On every computational-basis state, the entire simplified circuit acts asStarting the data qubits at $|00⟩$, the prescribed computational basis preparation of the ancilla qubit must therefore be $|1⟩$: it activates the required flips and gives $|a⟩|1⟩$. Starting it at $|0⟩$ instead gives $|00⟩|0⟩$ for every $a$, so no information is obtained.

More generally, an initial ancilla qubit state $\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$ in this same fixed quantum circuit givesFor nonzero $a$, the desired data output has probability $|\beta {|}^2$, and exact identification for every $a$ requires $\alpha =0$. This condition refers to the displayed ancilla preparation for the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm: the state entering the function oracle must be $|-⟩$, up to global phase. Other quantum state preparation procedures that deliver this same state are equivalent; $|1⟩$ is the prescribed input before the first Hadamard gate.

For arbitrary $n$, linearity of the linear Boolean function suppliesThis decomposition is for analysis: the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm calls the unknown function oracle as one supplied operation. The common control starts at $1$, so the simplified quantum circuit takes $|0{⟩}^{\otimes n}|1⟩$ to $|a⟩|1⟩$. Equivalently, phase kickback gives a product statewhich the final Hadamard transform decodes to $|a⟩$. Thus one quantum oracle call suffices for every $n\ge 1$, compared with $n$ classical calls. This counts function oracle uses; the surrounding Hadamard gates and final computational-basis measurement still act on $n+1$ and $n$ qubits, respectively.

Encode $|0⟩=|H⟩$ and $|1⟩=|V⟩$ in two orthogonal linear polarizations. Then $|\pm ⟩=(|H⟩\pm |V⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ are linear polarizations at opposite forty-five-degree angles, while $(|H⟩\pm i|V⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ are the two circular polarizations. Their right/left names depend on the viewing convention. A half-wave plate with its axis at $22.5^{\circ }$ to H implements H up to a common phase, since its Jones matrix has entries $\cos 2\theta ,\sin 2\theta$ and $-\cos 2\theta$.

In principle, a nonlinear interaction producing $e^{i\pi n_{1V}{n}_{2V}}$ supplies a deterministic Controlled-Z gate: only the joint VV component acquires a minus sign. A strongly coupled matter mediator can also provide the required conditional interaction. At optical single-photon energies the direct nonlinear interaction is weak; loss, unwanted noise and maintaining indistinguishable spatial and temporal modes make a high-fidelity deterministic gate difficult. Passive linear optics by itself does not supply this deterministic entangling interaction; measurement-based optical gates introduce additional resources and success conditions.

For the printed circuit, the first three H gates create $|+{⟩}^{\otimes 3}$. The two controlled-Z operations from the first qubit to the others giveThe final H gates on the last two qubits therefore produce the GHZ stateDefine $|s_X⟩=(|0⟩+s|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|s_Y⟩=(|0⟩+is|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ for $s=\pm 1$. In any of the XYY, YXY and YYX bases, direct overlaps givewith the same coefficient formula when the X position is permuted. Hence the three explicit expansions can be written compactly asIn each sum the four sign triples are $(+,+,-),(+,-,+),(-,+,+),(-,-,-)$. They have equal probabilities $1/4$. Thus two Y outcomes determine the X outcome with certainty: their product times the X outcome is $-1$.

In the XXX basis,The four allowed triples are $(+,+,+),(+,-,-),(-,+,-),(-,-,+)$, so the XXX outcome product is $+1$.

The GHZ theorem follows without a statistical inequality. If local predetermined values $X_i,Y_i\in \{\pm 1\}$ reproduced the three mixed-basis correlations, multiplying them would givebecause every Y value is squared. Quantum mechanics instead predicts the XXX product $+1$. This is an all-versus-nothing contradiction with local realism using ideal perfect correlations. Standard two-qubit Bell-state tests compare statistical correlations through a Bell inequality; the GHZ construction makes the inconsistency visible already at the level of these deterministic parity constraints.

In heteronuclear liquid-state NMR quantum computing, different gyromagnetic ratios give well-separated resonance frequencies. A resonant transverse radio-frequency pulse selects one nucleus; its phase sets the rotation axis in the transverse plane and its duration and amplitude set the rotation angle. Detuning, free precession and rotating-frame phase changes supply $z$ rotations. For homonuclear spins, differing chemical shifts can provide frequency selectivity, but selective pulses must be narrow enough not to rotate the other spin. Exactly magnetically equivalent spins cannot be independently addressed by a spatially uniform radio-frequency field merely because they are labelled as different qubits.

In the weak-coupling regime, the secular NMR scalar coupling iswith $J$ in hertz. Free coupling evolution for $1/(2|J|)$ gives an entangling propagator $\exp [-i\mathrm{sgn}(J)\pi Z_1{Z}_2/4]$. Suitable single-qubit $z$ rotations convert it to a Controlled-Z gate, and Hadamard conjugation on the target converts controlled-$Z$ to a controlled-NOT gate. Refocusing pulses remove unwanted Zeeman evolution and unwanted couplings. This construction applies to resolved, weakly coupled homonuclear spins as well as heteronuclear spins; strongly coupled or equivalent spins need a different control analysis.

These controls supply a universal gate set on a finite addressable connected register, but conventional liquid-state molecular NMR is not an architecture that scales straightforwardly to arbitrary register size. A finite chemical-shift bandwidth causes spectral crowding as more spins and coupling-split transitions are added; increasingly selective pulses become slow relative to coherence times, and complicated coupling networks require extensive refocusing. The exponentially small pseudo-pure-state signal further limits the complete ensemble scheme. Formal unitary universality therefore does not establish scalable physical addressability, gate speed or initialization.

Track the $-i$ factors only when the corresponding transition is addressed. They are common within the addressed two-state subspace, but become physically relevant relative phases between computational basis states. Using a semicolon to separate the shared motional number state, the complete paths areThe middle arrow comprises both Y pulses. In the last row those individual steps are $-i|ge;1⟩\to -|gf;0⟩\to +i|ge;1⟩$. The two X pulses contribute $(-i{)}^2=-1$ for either initially excited control; the Y pair supplies a second minus sign only when the second ion is also excited.

The shared motion returns to its ground state for all four inputs, and the auxiliary internal state is empty. Quantum superposition therefore gives the two-qubit gateDiscarding the X-pulse factors would incorrectly identify $G$ with a Controlled-Z gate itself.

Let $x\in \{00,01,10,11\}$ and let $f(x)$ be one only at the marked input. A three-qubit implementation of Grover's algorithm starts with $|00⟩|1⟩$, applies a Hadamard gate to each qubit, queries the reversible quantum oracle $U_f:|x,y⟩\mapsto |x,y\oplus f(x)⟩$, applies the Grover diffusion operator $D=2|s⟩⟨s|-I$ to the first two qubits, and measures those two qubits in the computational basis. Here $|s⟩=\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_x|x⟩$. The full three-wire quantum circuit is the composition

Here $|-⟩=(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Since $X|-⟩=-|-⟩$, phase kickback gives $U_f(|x⟩|-⟩)=(-1{)}^{f(x)}|x⟩|-⟩$. The third qubit remains separable and unchanged. A direct marked-state phase oracle $O_f|x⟩=(-1{)}^{f(x)}|x⟩$ therefore replaces the three-qubit query using only two qubits:For the explicit choice $f(x)=1$ only at $x=11$, $O_f$ is a Controlled-Z gate. Immediately after it,The mean of these four probability amplitudes is $\overline{a}=1/4$. The Grover diffusion operator maps each probability amplitude $a_x$ to $2\overline{a}-a_x$. The three unmarked probability amplitudes become zero and the marked one becomes one. A single query consequently finds $11$ with probability one.

A gate-level implementation of $D$ is $H^{\otimes 2}(2|00⟩⟨00|-I)H^{\otimes 2}$. Up to an irrelevant global phase, it is $H^{\otimes 2}{X}^{\otimes 2}\mathrm{CZ}{X}^{\otimes 2}{H}^{\otimes 2}$. For any other chosen marked word, conjugate the Controlled-Z gate by Pauli X gates on precisely the positions where the marked word has a zero.