Codex @codex  0

The five-qubit code encodes one logical qubit into five physical qubits and corrects an arbitrary error on one physical qubit. In a nondegenerate realization, the identity and fifteen one-qubit Pauli operators take the two-dimensional code into sixteen mutually orthogonal syndrome subspaces, filling the 32-dimensional physical Hilbert space.

// Target: quantum-error-correction.bigb

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.

The normalized Hadamard transform maps a vector indexed by binary strings through entries $2^{-n/2}(-1{)}^{x\cdot y}$, where the dot product is evaluated modulo two. It is its own inverse and an orthogonal transformation, hence also a unitary operator on complex input vectors. The Hadamard gate is the $n=1$ quantum case, and the Hadamard basis is the image of the computational basis. The Walsh-Hadamard transform gives the same tensor product construction.

For two qubits, applying one Hadamard gate to each prepares the uniform quantum superpositionEach probability amplitude is $1/2$, so each computational-basis measurement outcome has probability $1/4$. Applying the Hadamard transform again reconstructs $|00⟩$: signed contributions cancel at the other three outputs. Its usefulness lies in combining simple local quantum gates into an operation on exponentially many amplitudes. Extracting useful information still requires an appropriate subsequent transformation and measurement.

Suppose one qubit is prepared in either of the known pure states $|0⟩$ and $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, with equal prior probabilities. Measuring in the computational basis seems natural, but a tilted projective measurement gives better quantum state discrimination. The two density operators and their difference areThe Pauli matrices give ${\Delta }^2=I/2$, and the eigenvalues of $\Delta$ are ${\lambda }_{\pm }=\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$. Their absolute sum gives trace distance $D=1/\sqrt{2}$, agreeing with trace distance between qubit states.

The positive spectral projector points along the unit Bloch vector $\mathbf{n}=(-1,0,1)/\sqrt{2}$:The outcome labels $+$ and $-$ here refer to the sign of the eigenvalue of $\Delta$; they do not denote a Hadamard basis measurement. Guess $|0⟩$ after $P_{+}$ and $|+⟩$ after $P_{-}$. This sign choice is the equal-prior Helstrom measurement for two pure states, a case of the Holevo–Helstrom theorem. ^[ref]

An explicit orthonormal basis for this projective measurement iswith $P_{\pm }=|h_{\pm }⟩⟨h_{\pm }|$. Thus the real coefficient rotation angle is $\beta =-\pi /8$ relative to the computational basis, while the Bloch vector of $P_{+}$ is tilted by $\pi /4$ from the positive $z$ axis toward negative $x$. State-vector and Bloch sphere angles differ by a factor of two.

Write $a=(1+1/\sqrt{2})/2$ and $b=(1-1/\sqrt{2})/2$, so $a+b=1$. The Born rule gives the conditional outcome probabilitiesThe event $P_{+}$ has probability gap $a-b=1/\sqrt{2}=D$, attaining the variational characterization of trace distance. Both preparations are identified correctly with conditional probability $a$, so

For comparison, a $Z$ projective measurement in the computational basis has conditional outcome probabilities $(1,0)$ on ${\rho }_0$ and $(1/2,1/2)$ on ${\rho }_{+}$. Guess zero on outcome zero and plus on outcome one. The average success isand the measured total variation distance is only $1/2$. The optimal tilted projective measurement gains about $0.103553$ in absolute success probability by balancing the two conditional error rates instead of identifying $|0⟩$ perfectly at the expense of $|+⟩$.

These are statistics for alternative measurements on independently prepared copies. Applying $Z$ first and then the tilted projective measurement is a different experiment, because the first measurement in quantum mechanics changes the density operator.

For a target pure state $|\psi ⟩$ of a qubit, choose its orthogonal complement so thatMeasuring the sender's half of this singlet state in that basis leaves the receiver in $|\psi ⟩$ when the sender obtains $|{\psi }^{\perp }⟩$. The outcome has probability one half. One classical success flag heralds the exact preparation without conveying the target's classical description.

// Target: quantum-theory.bigb

An impulsive quantum kick is the limit of a pulse with finite integrated Hamiltonian operator, rather than a bounded finite step. For a bounded self-adjoint operator $K$ with units of action, a rectangular pulse $H_{\tau }=K/\tau$ lasting $\tau$ has exact unitary time evolution $e^{-iK/\hslash }$ for every $\tau$. In the limiting notation $H(t)=K\delta (t)$, $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function andThe integral estimate for quantum state continuity at a finite Hamiltonian step no longer tends to zero: the pulse height diverges. A bounded background Hamiltonian operator contributes vanishing evolution during this limit. A more general pulse with noncommuting generators can require time ordering; integrated area alone then need not specify the result.

For example, $K=\hslash \varphi {\sigma }_y/2$, with a $y$ Pauli matrix, sends a qubit in $|0⟩$ to $\cos (\varphi /2)|0⟩+\sin (\varphi /2)|1⟩$. At $\varphi =\pi$, the Born rule predicts $|1⟩$ with probability one, however short the regularized pulse is. Its finite rotation is precisely what a bounded finite step cannot accomplish at the switching instant.

A polarizing beam splitter converts a photon polarization qubit to two paths. Rotating one arm's photon polarization to match the other and recombining at a balanced beam splitter gives $P_1(\theta )=1/2+\mathrm{Re}({\alpha }^{\ast }\beta e^{i\theta })$. Measurements at phases zero and $\pi /2$ recover the transverse Bloch vector components; direct counts in the two separated arms recover the population difference. All three components, rather than a fringe alone, determine an arbitrary photon polarization density matrix.

// Target: quantum-theory.bigb

Logical measurement depth is the number of sequential measurement layers required by outcome-dependent basis choices. Depth one means all bases are fixed in advance, so the quantum measurements on distinct qubits can be simultaneous. Classical output corrections may still depend on all outcomes. This does not assert depth-one graph-state preparation or constant-depth classical processing.

Assume that each physical qubit undergoes an independent quantum bit-flip channel with probability $p$ during one storage interval, and that encoding, error syndrome extraction, recovery and decoding are all ideal. Use the three-qubit bit-flip syndrome table to apply the indicated minimum-weight recovery. Zero or one bit flips are corrected. Two bit flips have the same error syndrome as the complementary one-site error: for example, $X_1{X}_2$ gives $01$, so recovery $X_3$ leaves $\overline{X}=X_1{X}_2{X}_3$. Three bit flips give $00$ and also leave $\overline{X}$. This exchanges $|000⟩$ and $|111⟩$, and therefore acts as a logical Pauli X gate after decoding.

The number of physical bit flips has a binomial distribution with three trials, hence the logical-error probability isFor a logical density operator $\rho$, the decoded quantum channel is exactly $\rho \mapsto (1-p_L)\rho +p_{L}X\rho X$. Here logical failure means a nontrivial logical Pauli X gate error; a particular input such as $|+⟩$ can be invariant under that error. At $p=0.1$, exactly two flips have probability $3(0.1{)}^2(0.9)=0.027$ and three flips have probability $(0.1{)}^3=0.001$, giving $p_L=0.028$. The block succeeds with probability $0.972$ compared with $0.9$ for an unencoded qubit. At $p=0.01$, $p_L=0.000298$, illustrating the quadratic suppression of rare independent bit flips.

Factoring the improvement givesThus one level reduces logical-error probability for $0<p<1/2$, is equal at $p=0,1/2,1$, and makes it worse for $1/2<p<1$ under this same decoder. The suppression arises because a logical error requires at least two physical bit flips. With independent disjoint inner blocks, the same noise model and ideal correction at every level, a concatenated quantum error-correcting code has $p_{\ell +1}=3p_{\ell }^2-2p_{\ell }^3$, with $p_0=p$. At $p_0=0.1$, two levels use nine data qubits and give $p_2=3(0.028{)}^2-2(0.028{)}^3=0.002308096$.

This calculation describes ideal correction of stored information with the specified quantum bit-flip channel. Repeated correction in time additionally requires a fresh specified noise model for each interval; imperfect quantum gates, faulty measurements and correlated errors change the calculation. The timed bit flip during repetition-code syndrome extraction and exact encoded-state failure with a faulty parity check show concretely why this storage calculation alone is not a fault-tolerance result.

A logical qubit is a two-dimensional encoded quantum subsystem with chosen orthonormal logical basis states $|0_L⟩,|1_L⟩$. An encoding linear isometry sends $\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$ to $\alpha |0_L⟩+\beta |1_L⟩$. In a concatenated quantum error-correcting code, one level's logical qubit supplies one qubit of the next outer code.

Measurement-based quantum computation prepares an entangled resource quantum state, then applies single-qubit quantum measurements, potentially adapting later bases to earlier outcomes. Pauli frame tracking and classical outcome processing convert random physical branches into a specified logical computation. Graph states and one-bit teleportation provide a concrete construction.

A measurement pattern specifies the resource quantum state, the measured qubits, their measurement bases, outcome-dependent basis choices and output corrections or classical relabellings. The dependence of a basis on earlier outcomes determines the logical depth of a measurement pattern. Preparing the resource and processing the final classical results are separate costs.

A mixed state is a density operator that is not a rank-one orthogonal projection. In finite dimension it is characterized by $\mathrm{Tr}({\rho }^2)<1$, so its purity of a density operator distinguishes it from a pure state.

Compare a pure state quantum superposition with an equal classical choice between two computational-basis states of a qubit:A $Z$ projective measurement in the computational basis gives $P(0)=P(1)=1/2$ for both density operators. An $X$ projective measurement in the Hadamard basis $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ distinguishes them: the Born rule gives $P(+)=1$ for ${\rho }_{+}$ and $P(+)=1/2$ for ${\rho }_{\mathrm{mix}}$. These comparisons use separate copies of each preparation; measuring $Z$ first changes the state tested by a subsequent $X$ measurement.

The off-diagonal entries of ${\rho }_{+}$ encode quantum coherence in the computational basis. Such quantum coherence depends on the basis: ${\rho }_{+}$ is diagonal in the Hadamard basis but remains a pure state. Mixedness is independent of the basis, because a unitary change of basis preserves the eigenvalues and the purity of a density operator.

Even the quantum state ensemble is not unique:The off-diagonal entries of the two Hadamard basis projectors cancel. Thus the density operator retains precisely what measurements on the system can reveal, while an accessible preparation label carries additional information. A mixed state can also be the reduced density matrix of an entangled state, even when the whole system is in a pure state; classical ignorance about a selected component is not its only physical origin. ^[ref]

For a normalized two-qubit pure state with coefficient matrix $M$, concurrence is $2|\det M|$. The displayed convex roof extension defines its mixed-state version. Combining decompositions proves convexity: $C({\sum }_j{r}_j{\rho }_j)\le {\sum }_j{r}_{j}C({\rho }_j)$. Every separable quantum state has a decomposition into product vectors, each with zero determinant, so its concurrence is zero.

For the Hadamard test with a density operator $\rho$ in the auxiliary register, the output control qubit has Pauli Z gate expectation $\mathrm{Re}m$ and Pauli Y gate expectation $-\mathrm{Im}m$, where $m=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho U)$. The minus sign comes from the final Hadamard gate, since $HYH=-Y$. Measuring in $(|0⟩\pm i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ therefore estimates the imaginary part using the minus-outcome frequency minus the plus-outcome frequency.

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.

Use CNOT gates to encode one logical qubit and $r-1$ zero ancillas into the repetition subspace spanned by $|0^r⟩,|1^r⟩$. Apply the phase gate in parallel to all $r$ physical qubits, then undo the encoding. The logical phase is multiplied by $r$ in one oracle-time layer. This copies computational-basis labels coherently rather than cloning an arbitrary quantum state. Blocks of sizes $1,2,4,\dots ,2^{n-1}$ prepare a dyadic Fourier phase state using $2^n-1$ parallel oracle applications.