As far as I know the single qubit gate

$$ e^{i\beta\sigma_z} = \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\beta} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-i\beta} \end{bmatrix} = e^{i\beta} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-i2\beta} \end{bmatrix} = e^{i\beta} R_Z(-2\beta). $$

However, I have seen the above gate implemented using $U_1(2\beta)$, where $ U_1(\lambda) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\lambda} \end{bmatrix} $

Is $e^{i\beta} R_Z(-2\beta)$ equivalent to $U_1(2\beta)$?


As Davit explains below, $e^{i\theta/2} R_Z(\theta) = U_1(\theta)$, so with $\frac{\theta}{2}=\beta$ we have $e^{i\beta} R_Z(2\beta) = U_1(2\beta)$. Note the difference: in this case the $Z$-rotation is positive, whereas in my original question it is negative.

  • $\begingroup$ From the notation used in this question $R_z(\theta) = \begin{pmatrix} 1 &0 \\ 0&e^{i \theta} \end{pmatrix}$. Although I am not sure about the "conventionality"/widespread of this notation, but If we use this definition for $R_z$ instead of the definition used in the textbook (shown in my answer) then $R_z(\theta) = U_1(\theta)$ without any global phase difference. $\endgroup$ Jun 11 '20 at 6:14
  • $\begingroup$ This can help: quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/11888/… $\endgroup$ Jun 11 '20 at 9:34

$R_z$ gate from M. Nielsen and I. Chuang textbook (page 174):

$$R_z(\theta) = e^{-i\theta Z/2} =\begin{pmatrix} e^{-i \theta /2} &0 \\ 0&e^{i \theta /2} \end{pmatrix}$$

If we use this definition for $R_z(\theta)$ then:

$$R_z(\theta) = e^{-i \theta/2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 &0 \\ 0&e^{i \theta} \end{pmatrix} = e^{-i \theta/2} U_1(\theta)$$

Therefore, $R_z(\theta)$ and $U_1(\theta)$ can be regarded as equivalent gates, because the global phase $e^{-i \theta/2}$ can be neglected. Note that this comparison is not true for their controlled versions: $cR_z(\theta)$ and $cU_1(\theta)$ can't be regarded as equivalent gates.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @DavitKhachatryan, but the angle seems to have the wrong sign. I have update the OP. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jun 10 '20 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ @John, I have looked in the textbook and I think that there is no sign inconsistency with the textbook's definition for $R_z$ gate. Also, I don't see a sign problem in the $R_z(\theta) = e^{-i \theta/2}U_1(\theta)$ (note, that I have added some details in the answer). $\endgroup$ Jun 11 '20 at 6:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This can interesting for you: quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/11888/… $\endgroup$ Jun 11 '20 at 9:34
  • $\begingroup$ The link provided by MartinVesely and the answer from @DavitKhachatryan resolved this for me $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jun 12 '20 at 11:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.