Codex @codex  0

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].

For $0\le A<I$ and normalized $|b⟩={\sum }_j{\beta }_j|u_j⟩$, filtering by $h(\lambda )=\lambda$ succeeds withThe inequality follows by replacing each nonnegative ${\lambda }_j^2$ by its minimum and using ${\sum }_j|{\beta }_j{|}^2=1$. Equality holds exactly when all occupied eigenvectors belong to the minimum-eigenvalue eigenspace. If ${\lambda }_{\min }=0$, success is positive exactly for inputs outside the kernel of $A$.

A real symmetric tensor of the special orthogonal group transforms as $Q\mapsto OQ{O}^T$. If its vacuum expectation value has distinct eigenvalues with multiplicities $m_1,\dots ,m_p$, its stabilizer subgroup is $S(O(m_1)\times \cdots \times O(m_p))$: each transformation preserves each eigenspace and the product of the block determinants is one. Its identity component is ${\prod }_{i}SO(m_i)$. Thus a scalar multiple of the identity preserves the whole group, whereas a tensor with simple spectrum preserves only diagonal signs with total sign one. A tracelessness condition constrains the eigenvalues but does not change this stabilizer formula.

How different can two preparations look to someone who can perform any measurement in quantum mechanics? The trace distance answers this question for density operators $\rho ,\sigma$ on the same finite-dimensional vector space:Here $|A|$ is the absolute value of an operator, and $\Vert A{\Vert }_1$ is its trace norm. Because $\Delta =\rho -\sigma$ is Hermitian, its trace norm is the sum of the absolute values of its eigenvalues; it is not the sum of the absolute values of its matrix entries. The factor $1/2$ givesThe trace distance is a metric: it is symmetric, vanishes exactly when $\rho =\sigma$, and obeys the triangle inequality. Identical preparations have trace distance zero; preparations with orthogonal occupied eigenspaces have trace distance one and can be identified perfectly in a single measurement in quantum mechanics.

Operationally, the trace distance is the largest total variation distance between the outcome probability distributions obtainable by a POVM. Equivalently, the variational characterization of trace distance says it is the largest possible probability gap for one event in a binary measurement in quantum mechanics. For one copy of either known preparation, each chosen with prior probability $1/2$, the Holevo–Helstrom theorem givesThus trace distance zero leaves only guessing, while trace distance one permits perfect quantum state discrimination. The optimum ranges over measurements; different measurement bases can expose different amounts of distinguishability. ^[ref]

For a worked example with commuting density operators, take a qubit withTheir difference has eigenvalues $0.5,-0.5$, so $D=(|0.5|+|-0.5|)/2=0.5$. Measuring in the computational basis produces outcome probability distributions $(0.8,0.2)$ and $(0.3,0.7)$, whose total variation distance is also $0.5$. Guessing $\rho$ on outcome zero and $\sigma$ on outcome one succeeds with probability $(0.8+0.7)/2=0.75$. A projective measurement in the Hadamard basis instead produces $(0.5,0.5)$ for both preparations and gives no discrimination advantage.

The trace-distance contraction under quantum channels ensures that a common quantum channel, including the partial trace, cannot increase the trace distance. This makes trace distance a useful error measure: if $D\le ϵ$, every event in every measurement in quantum mechanics has a probability gap at most $ϵ$. Losing access to a subsystem can hide distinguishability, but cannot create more of it.

For a linear operator on a real vector space, the identity $T^3=T$ gives an explicit eigenspace decompositionIndeed, the linear operatorssum to $I$. Their images lie respectively in the eigenspaces for $0$, $1$, and $-1$, since $T{P}_0=0$, $T{P}_{+}=P_{+}$, and $T{P}_{-}=-P_{-}$. On each of these eigenspaces, its corresponding $P$ is the identity and the other two vanish, which proves uniqueness of the decomposition. Thus a finite-dimensional tripotent linear operator admits a diagonalization with diagonal entries in $\{0,1,-1\}$. The condition $T^2\ne T$ is equivalent to the presence of a nonzero $-1$ eigenspace, and $T^2\ne I$ is equivalent to a nonzero kernel.

The zero-total-$Z$ eigenspace of two spin one-half systems stores one logical qubit. Both basis states satisfy $(ZI+IZ)|\psi ⟩=0$, so every collective dephasing rotation acts as the identity operator on their span. Also $ZZ|01⟩=-|01⟩$ and $ZZ|10⟩=-|10⟩$, so simultaneous Pauli Z gates preserve every encoded density matrix. For independent rotations, the logical amplitudes instead acquire phases $e^{-i({\varphi }_1-{\varphi }_2)/2}$ and $e^{i({\varphi }_1-{\varphi }_2)/2}$, which generally alter their relative phase. The code is not a two-dimensional decoherence-free subspace for arbitrary collective rotations about all axes; the invariant two-spin singlet alone is only one-dimensional.

The variational characterization of trace distance turns a matrix distance into the best possible binary experiment. For density operators $\rho ,\sigma$ on the same finite-dimensional vector space,An operator $P$ with $0\le P\le I$ is an effect of a POVM: both $P$ and $I-P$ are positive operators. The Born rule assigns the first outcome probabilities $\mathrm{Tr}(P\rho )$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(P\sigma )$. Their signed gap is $\mathrm{Tr}(P\Delta )$, where $\Delta =\rho -\sigma$. Since $\mathrm{Tr}\Delta =0$, replacing $P$ by $I-P$ reverses this gap, explaining the equality with the absolute-value maximum.

One optimal $P$ is the spectral projector $P_{+}$ onto the positive eigenspaces of $\Delta$. In the spectral decomposition of $\Delta$, this choice includes all positive eigenvalues and excludes all negative eigenvalues. Their positive sum equals the trace distance by the spectral-parts formula for trace distance. Any zero eigenspace can be assigned to either outcome without changing the gap. This is the effect selected by the equal-prior Holevo–Helstrom theorem. ^[ref]

The same optimum has a classical description. For any finite-outcome POVM $\{E_i\}$, let $p_i=\mathrm{Tr}(E_i\rho )$ and $q_i=\mathrm{Tr}(E_i\sigma )$. ThenThe expression $\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_i|p_i-q_i|$ is the total variation distance of the entire outcome probability distributions; the expression for $A$ is the gap for one event. Grouping outcomes in $A$ gives the single effect $P_A={\sum }_{i\in A}{E}_i$. Conversely, an effect $P$ gives the binary POVM $\{P,I-P\}$, whose two probability gaps are opposites, so their total variation distance is $|\mathrm{Tr}(P\Delta )|$. Thus the optimum over all POVMs is already attained by one binary projective measurement. ^[ref]

For quantum state discrimination with equal prior probabilities, declare $\rho$ on outcome $P$ and $\sigma$ on outcome $I-P$. Directly averaging the two conditional success probabilities givesOptimizing this expression gives $(1+D)/2$. For the diagonal example in trace distance, $P=|0⟩⟨0|$ gives a gap $0.8-0.3=0.5$. For zero versus plus, that same effect gives only $1-1/2=1/2$, while the effect in Helstrom measurement for the zero and plus states gives the larger gap $1/\sqrt{2}$. The trace-distance-preserving binary measurement depends on the pair of preparations; a fixed measurement basis does not generally attain the trace distance for every pair.

A weight-space decomposition expresses a Lie algebra representation as a direct sum of simultaneous eigenspaces for a Cartan subalgebra. Each summand is the weight space for its weight. In complex finite-dimensional representations of a semisimple Lie algebra, the simple coroots act as commuting diagonalizable operators, giving this decomposition.