Codex @codex  0

For an isolated quantum system, pure states are normalized rays in a complex Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoint operators, and their probabilities obey the Born rule. A spectral projector $P_a$ has outcome probability $⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩$; an ideal repeatable projective measurement has conditional state $P_a\psi /\sqrt{⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩}$. The Schrödinger equation specifies continuous unitary evolution between such ideal measurements, given a Hamiltonian operator. General measurements need not have the projective state-update rule.

Composite systems use the tensor product of their state spaces. Identical particles additionally obey the bosonic or fermionic exchange symmetry appropriate to their species. The photoelectric effect, Davisson–Germer experiment and double-slit experiment motivate energy quanta, matter-wave phases and probability interference, respectively; these experiments constrain the framework but do not separately prove every abstract postulate or specify every system's Hamiltonian.

A probability amplitude is a complex number that describes the contribution of a pure state to a specified measurement outcome. For a normalized quantum state $|\psi ⟩$ and a rank-one outcome associated with a normalized vector $|j⟩$, it is the inner product $a_j=⟨j|\psi ⟩$. The Born rule gives the corresponding probability $p_j=|a_j{|}^2=a_j^{\ast }{a}_j$, using the complex conjugate. Thus an amplitude can be negative or complex, while a probability is real and nonnegative. A wavefunction is the analogous position amplitude: its squared modulus gives a probability density, which must be integrated over a region to obtain a probability. ^[ref].

The extra information is the quantum phase. If $a=r{e}^{i\theta }$, its modulus $r$ fixes $|a{|}^2=r^2$, but its angle $\theta$ controls how it adds to another contribution. In the complex plane, picture amplitudes as arrows: add the arrows, then square the resulting length. For coherent contributions $A$ and $B$ to the same outcome,The last term is interference. Adding probabilities first loses it. Contributions with different relative quantum phases can reinforce or cancel even when their individual squared moduli are fixed.

For the qubit quantum superposition $|{\psi }_{\varphi }⟩=(\sqrt{3}/2)|0⟩+(e^{i\varphi }/2)|1⟩$, project onto the plus vector of the Hadamard basis. By linearity, the two contributions combine asHere $|A{|}^2=3/8$ and $|B{|}^2=1/8$, while the interference term is $(\sqrt{3}/4)\cos \varphi$. At $\varphi =0$, the arrows align and the plus probability is $1/2+\sqrt{3}/4\simeq 0.9330127$. At $\varphi =\pi$, they oppose and that probability is $1/2-\sqrt{3}/4\simeq 0.0669873$; cancellation is incomplete because the lengths differ. At $\varphi =\pi /2$, the arrows are perpendicular and the cross term vanishes. The minus amplitude uses $A-B$, reversing the cross term. These are alternate projective measurements on identically prepared copies, rather than a sequence of measurements on one copy.

A global phase multiplies every contribution by the same factor $e^{i\gamma }$, givingIt therefore changes no outcome probability. Changing a relative quantum phase can change the angle between contributions and hence their interference. Keeping amplitudes until the last step makes quantum circuits and matter-wave interference calculable; discarding their angles prematurely discards physically testable information. The Born rule example compares two measurement bases explicitly.

A projective measurement has self-adjoint orthogonal projections $P_i$ satisfying $P_i{P}_j={\delta }_{ij}{P}_i$ and ${\sum }_i{P}_i=I$. Measuring an observable with discrete spectral decomposition $A={\sum }_i{a}_i{P}_i$ reports eigenvalue $a_i$ with Born rule probability $p_i=\mathrm{Tr}(P_i\rho )$. A projector can have rank greater than one: the outcome then identifies an eigenspace, rather than a particular eigenvector inside it. Projectors specify the outcome statistics; the usual ideal conditional update is the additional Lüders rule.

In the qubit example from measurement in quantum mechanics, $Z=|0⟩⟨0|-|1⟩⟨1|$. At $\theta =\pi /3$, the zero and one probabilities are $3/4$ and $1/4$, regardless of the relative quantum phase $\varphi$. Under the Lüders rule, obtaining zero prepares $|0⟩$; obtaining one prepares $|1⟩$, up to global phase. Repeating the same measurement returns the same label with certainty, provided no intervening evolution or operation changes the measured sector. Repeatability concerns the conditional output, and does not mean the first outcome was predetermined.

Change to $X$ and its Pauli X eigenstates $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Adding the two probability amplitudes before squaring givesAt $\theta =\pi /3$ and $\varphi =0$, $p_{+}=(2+\sqrt{3})/4\simeq 0.9330$ and $p_{-}\simeq 0.0670$. At $\varphi =\pi /2$, both are $1/2$; at $\varphi =\pi$, the first pair is exchanged. The $Z$ statistics remain $3/4,1/4$ throughout. This is the same addition-and-cancellation principle as wave interference: relative quantum phase changes how amplitudes reinforce or cancel in another basis.

The beauty of this basis dependence is that information invisible to one measurement becomes accessible to another. A $Z$ measurement of an ensemble estimates its quantum state populations, while $X$ probes one component of its quantum coherence. These are experiments on separate identically prepared copies. Sequentially measuring $Z$ and then $X$ on one copy instead probes the disturbed post-measurement state. Quantum state tomography combines suitable ensemble statistics to reconstruct the original state.

The purity of a density operator is $\gamma =\mathrm{Tr}({\rho }^2)$. It equals one exactly for a pure state; in finite dimension $d$ it lies between $1/d$ and $1$. The minimum occurs exactly at the maximally mixed state $I/d$.

A worked qubit family interpolates between the mixed state $I/2$ and the pure state ${\rho }_{+}=|+⟩⟨+|$, where $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$:The eigenvectors are $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, with eigenvalues ${\lambda }_{\pm }=(1\pm p)/2$. Squaring and summing these eigenvalues givesHere $P_X(+)$ is the Born rule probability of the positive outcome in an $X$ projective measurement. The Bloch vector is $(p,0,0)$, since ${\rho }_p=(I+p{\sigma }_x)/2$ with ${\sigma }_x$ one of the Pauli matrices. At $p=0$ the purity is $1/2$; at $p=1/2$ it is $5/8$, with $P_X(+)=3/4$; at $p=1$ it is one. Within this family, $p=1$ is a pure state and every $p<1$ is a mixed state. Extending the formula to $p>1$ produces a negative eigenvalue $(1-p)/2$, so it ceases to be a density operator despite remaining Hermitian with trace one.

The Bloch vector length measures polarization: for any qubit density operator, $\gamma =(1+|\mathbf{r}{|}^2)/2$. This connects the interior of the Bloch ball with mixed states and its boundary, the Bloch sphere, with pure states. ^[ref]

For a short proof of the general bound, use the spectral theorem: the nonnegative eigenvalues ${\lambda }_j$ sum to one, so $\gamma ={\sum }_j{\lambda }_j^2$. ThenThe lower bound is attained only when all eigenvalues equal $1/d$; the upper bound is attained only when exactly one eigenvalue is nonzero, and hence equals one. Purity is therefore a simple quantitative test of mixedness, invariant under a unitary operator. It does not specify the entire density operator: even distinct pure states all have purity one. ^[ref]

A code with orthogonal projector $P$ detects an error $E$ when its compression to the code is scalar. A projective measurement of $P$ then either flags departure from the code or, on a successful code-space outcome, leaves the logical state unchanged up to normalization. This includes harmless scalar errors, even though they need not produce a nonzero error syndrome. Detectability extends by linearity to the span of a set of errors. Every Pauli operator of weight less than the quantum code distance is detectable.

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 state describes a preparation through its predicted measurement in quantum mechanics probabilities. In the Hilbert space formulation, a pure state is a quantum state ray: a normalized vector representative $|\psi ⟩$ satisfies $⟨\psi |\psi ⟩=1$, and representatives differing by a global phase describe the same quantum state. ^[ref]

Both pure states and mixed states are represented by a density operator on the chosen complex Hilbert space:Thus $\rho$ is Hermitian, positive semidefinite and of unit trace; in infinite dimension it must also be a trace-class operator. For a normalized pure state, $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ is a rank-one orthogonal projection. A mixed state has no single such vector representative. Its density matrix is the matrix of $\rho$ in a chosen orthonormal basis. ^[ref] For a discrete POVM with effects $E_a\ge 0$ and ${\sum }_a{E}_a=I$, the Born rule readsThese constraints and Born rule probabilities describe arbitrary finite-dimensional preparations. ^[ref]

Randomly choosing normalized pure states with probabilities $w_j$ and forgetting the label givesThis quantum state ensemble averages probabilities; a quantum superposition adds probability amplitudes. Several ensembles can give the same density operator. Quantum entanglement can make a reduced density matrix mixed while the joint quantum state is pure. ^[ref]

The preparation, the choice of basis, and the measurement are separate ingredients. A wavefunction $\psi (x)=⟨x|\psi ⟩$ is the position representation of a pure state; a general mixed state requires a density operator. For a closed quantum system, a unitary operator evolves it as $\rho \mapsto U\rho U^{†}$, preserving its eigenvalues and purity of a density operator. ^[ref] The Bloch sphere and Bloch ball give the qubit geometry; quantum state tomography connects repeated preparations to an estimated density matrix; projective measurement treats the conditional state after an outcome.

Quantum state tomography estimates a density operator from measurement frequencies on many independently and identically prepared systems. One fixed projective measurement reveals only its basis populations, so further measurement settings are generally needed. For a qubit, writeThe three Pauli matrices thus turn measured expectation values into the Bloch vector. This reconstruction uses the Bloch ball representation of arbitrary qubit density operators. ^[ref].

Divide the prepared ensemble into groups measured in the $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ bases. For example, positive-outcome frequencies $0.8,0.5,0.9$ give the estimate $\mathbf{r}=(0.6,0,0.8)$ andHere $|\mathbf{r}|=1$, so the reconstructed state is the pure state $(3|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{10}$. Its $Z$ frequencies alone also fit the diagonal mixed state with populations $0.9,0.1$; the $X$ data distinguish them. For the angular pure state in measurement in quantum mechanics, $r_x=\sin \theta \cos \varphi$, $r_y=\sin \theta \sin \varphi$ and $r_z=\cos \theta$, so $Y$ resolves the sign of the phase that $X$ alone cannot.

Finite samples introduce statistical uncertainty: with $N$ independent binary trials in one basis, the frequency has variance $p(1-p)/N$. At $p=1/2$ and $N=100$, its standard deviation is $0.05$. Fluctuations can place a naive Bloch vector estimate outside the Bloch ball; a physical reconstruction must enforce positivity of the density operator. Repeated measurements on one unprepared specimen sample its changing conditional state, rather than independent copies of its original state. Multiple bases are needed in this projective protocol; a single fixed informationally complete POVM, such as the tetrahedral qubit POVM, is an alternative. It still requires an ensemble of trials.

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 projective measurement on one half of a Bell state prepares the complex-conjugate basis on the other half, conditional on the outcome. Measuring Alice in the columns of $U^{\ast }$ prepares Bob in the columns of $U$. Ignoring the equally likely outcomes leaves Bob's reduced density matrix equal to $I/2$ in either basis.

For an Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester using a rotation and its inverse, let $p$ be the probability of entering the absorbing path and $q=1-p$. Conditional on a live absorber, one trial has explosion probability $p$, successful safe identification probability $pq$, and inconclusive probability $q^2$. The inconclusive projective measurement resets the input, so summing a geometric series gives the displayed success probability after at most $N$ trials. Its limit is $q/(1+q)$, approaching one half as $p$ tends to zero through positive values. Exactly zero coupling produces no information.

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.

For spin one-half, choose the normalized spin eigenstates $|+z⟩,|-z⟩$ with $S_z|\pm z⟩=\pm (\hslash /2)|\pm z⟩$. The spin one-half along an axis pure state in the $xz$ plane isIts norm is one because the two eigenstates are orthogonal and ${\cos }^2(\theta /2)+{\sin }^2(\theta /2)=1$. Applying the Born rule to a $z$ projective measurement givesConsequently the expectation value, second moment, and variance areAt $\theta =\pi /3$, the outcome probabilities are $3/4$ and $1/4$, the mean is $\hslash /4$, and the variance is $3{\hslash }^2/16$. Every individual outcome remains $\pm \hslash /2$. At $\theta =\pi /2$, the mean is zero and the variance is maximal, ${\hslash }^2/4$. At either pole, one outcome has probability one and the variance vanishes.

The diagonal mixed state ${\rho }_{\mathrm{diag}}=p_{+}|+z⟩⟨+z|+p_{-}|-z⟩⟨-z|$ has the same $S_z$ probabilities, expectation value, and variance as $|{\psi }_{\theta }⟩$. It is nevertheless a different quantum state for $0<\theta <\pi$: the displayed pure state has $⟨S_x⟩=\hslash \sin \theta /2$, while ${\rho }_{\mathrm{diag}}$ has $⟨S_x⟩=0$. A single component's mean does not reveal all relative quantum phases or establish purity of a density operator.

For a spin one-half system, an ideal projective measurement along a unit vector $\mathbf{n}$ measures ${\sigma }_{\mathbf{n}}=\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$. Its eigenvalues are $\pm 1$, corresponding to physical spin angular momentum components $\pm \hslash /2$, and its orthogonal projections are ${\Pi }_{\pm }=(I\pm {\sigma }_{\mathbf{n}})/2$. For density matrix $\rho =(I+\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma })/2$, the Born rule and the Pauli matrix multiplication law give the displayed probabilities. Thus a spin measurement along one direction tests only that component of the Bloch vector; measurements along three independent directions determine the entire density matrix.

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].

Measure the commuting stabilizer generators $g_1=Z_1{Z}_2$ and $g_2=Z_2{Z}_3$ in that order. Use error syndrome bit $0$ for eigenvalue $+1$ and bit $1$ for eigenvalue $-1$. For $X_j$ the Pauli X gate on physical qubit $j$, every row holds for arbitrary normalized $\alpha ,\beta$. This ordered parity-check convention follows ^[ref]:

Each pair of computational basis words within a row has the same two parities. Consequently the projective measurement reveals the row without distinguishing its two amplitudes. For example, $|{\psi }_L⟩=(\sqrt{3}/2)|000⟩+(i/2)|111⟩$ becomes $(\sqrt{3}/2)|010⟩+(i/2)|101⟩$ under $X_2$. Both checks give $-1$ with probability one, and applying $X_2$ restores both coefficients exactly, including the relative phase $i$.

One implementation uses two quantum ancillas initialized to $|00⟩$. Two controlled-NOT gates from data qubits 1 and 2 to the first quantum ancilla write their parity; two more from data qubits 2 and 3 to the second quantum ancilla write the other parity. Measuring only the quantum ancillas in the computational basis gives $(s_1,s_2)$. Measuring the individual data qubits instead would reveal the encoded computational basis value and destroy the unknown quantum superposition. The existing coherent syndrome extraction for the three-qubit repetition code uses the alternative ordered checks $(Z_2{Z}_3,Z_1{Z}_3)$, so its bit labels differ from this table.

The recovery also handles coherent errors. Put $E_0=I,E_1=X_1,E_2=X_2,E_3=X_3$. Their images of the code are mutually orthogonal, giving $P{E}_a^{†}{E}_{b}P={\delta }_{ab}P$, the Knill--Laflamme condition for this family. For any linear combination $E={\sum }_{a=0}^3{c}_a{E}_a$, its component in sector $s(E_a)$ is $c_a{E}_a|{\psi }_L⟩$. Measuring that error syndrome has probability $|c_a{|}^2/{\sum }_b|c_b{|}^2$ on the normalized erroneous state, and recovery $E_a$ returns $|{\psi }_L⟩$. More generally one recovery quantum channel corrects every noise quantum channel whose Kraus operators belong to this span. The assumption concerns the whole jointly correctable family; it does not extend to the span of arbitrary single-site Pauli errors. ^[ref].

A fully computed coherent example is the unitary operator $U=\exp (-i\theta X_2)=\cos \theta I-i\sin \theta X_2$. At $\theta =\pi /6$ it givesThe error syndromes $00$ and $11$ occur with probabilities $3/4$ and $1/4$, independently of $\alpha ,\beta$. Doing nothing for $00$ and applying $X_2$ for $11$ restores the same logical qubit in both branches; the scalar $-i$ in the second branch is an irrelevant global phase. This is an example of linearity of coherent quantum error correction, rather than an assumption that the original error was a classical random bit flip.

The time-evolution operator maps an initial quantum state to its state at a later time. For a time-independent Hamiltonian operator $H$, it is the unitary operator $U(t)=e^{-iHt/\hslash }$.

More generally, write $|\psi (t)⟩=U(t,t_0)|\psi (t_0)⟩$. The time-evolution operator obeysFor a constant self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator, $U(t,t_0)=\exp [-iH(t-t_0)/\hslash ]$. With zero as the initial time, this gives the group law $U(t+s)=U(t)U(s)$. Successive evolution is reversible; a measurement followed by conditioning on an outcome is a separate operation described by projective measurement.

For a time-dependent Hamiltonian operator, the defining equation is $i\hslash {\partial }_{t}U(t,t_0)=H(t)U(t,t_0)$. In finite dimension, a continuous Hermitian $H(t)$ still gives unitary time evolution, sinceThe solution is a time-ordered exponential, with later factors acting on the left. One may replace it by $\exp [-i{\int }_{t_0}^{t}H(s)ds/\hslash ]$ when $[H(s),H(s^{\prime })]=0$ at all times; independently changing pulse axes generally requires time ordering.^[ref]

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 $\sqrt{p}|000⟩+\sqrt{1-p}|111⟩$, a projective measurement of the number of ones in one party's $n$ local qubits gives a common type class of size $d_k=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$. The conditional pure state is $d_k^{-1/2}{\sum }_{|x|=k}|x,x,x⟩$. It can be converted exactly and deterministically to a uniform common-label state of any dimension $m\le d_k$: one party measures an $m$-element subset $S$ with Kraus operator ${\Pi }_S/\sqrt{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{d_k-1}{m-1}\right)}$, and all parties relabel their common retained labels after receiving $S$. Choosing $m=2^f$ gives $f$ independent GHZ states. Stirling's formula and the weak law of large numbers give $f/n\to h_2(p)$ in probability. Measuring every local bit separately would instead destroy the coherence and leave a product state.

For Kraus operators satisfying ${\sum }_i{A}_i^{†}{A}_i=I$, the map $V|\varphi ⟩={\sum }_i{A}_i|\varphi ⟩\otimes |i⟩$ is an isometry. Implement it by a unitary operator on the system and a quantum ancilla, initially in an extra unused state $|0⟩$. Projecting the output quantum ancilla onto $|i⟩$ gives joint unnormalized state $A_i\rho A_i^{†}\otimes |i⟩⟨i|$. The outcome probability is $\mathrm{Tr}(A_i\rho A_i^{†})$, and the conditional system state is $A_i\rho A_i^{†}$ divided by this probability. The unused level can be merged into the first orthogonal projection without changing any outcome on the prepared state, giving a complete projective measurement with exactly the original outcome labels.

// Target: quantum-theory.bigb