I have some trouble to understand the proof in Nielsen&Chuang about Knill-Laflamme conditions.

The conditions:

Let $C$ be a quantum code and $P$ the projector onto $C$. Suppose $\mathcal{E}$ is a quantum operatiion with operation elements $\{E_i\}$. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an error-correction operation $\mathcal{R}$ correcting $\mathcal{E}$ on $C$ is that:

$$P E_i^{\dagger} E_j P = \alpha_{ij} P$$

For some Hermitian matrix $\alpha$ of complex numbers.

To show the sufficient condition, he diagonalizes the matrix $\alpha$. Doing this, we end up with a simpler condition:

$$ P F_k^{\dagger} F_l P = d_{kl} P $$

Where $d_{kl}$ is the matrix element of a diagonal matrix.

The polar decomposition tells us that there exist a unitary $U_k$ such that:

$$F_k P = U_k \sqrt{P F_k^{\dagger} F_k P} = \sqrt{d_{kk}} U_k \sqrt{P} = \sqrt{d_{kk}} U_k P \tag{1}$$

My question

At this point, he says that the effect of $F_k$ is therefore to rotate the coding subspace into the subspace defined by the projector:

$$P_k \equiv U_k P U_k^{\dagger}$$

I am not sure to understand precisely this statement. I agree that $P_k F_k P = F_k P$ such that $P_k$ stabilizes the space $F_k C$. But how to be sure that $P_k$ is exactly a good projector. What I mean is that veryfing $P_k F_k P = F_k P$ is for sure not enough as $P_k=I$ would also do the job for instance.

  • $\begingroup$ I'm not quite sure what does a good projector mean. Anyway, since the definition of $P_k$ is $U_kPU_k^\dagger=F_kPU_k^\dagger/\sqrt{d_{kk}}$. And $PF_k^\dagger F_lP=d_{kl}P$. Hence, if $l\neq k$, $P_kP_l = 0$. $\endgroup$
    – narip
    May 15 at 13:03
  • $\begingroup$ @narip see the answer, this was what disturbed me. $\endgroup$
    – StarBucK
    May 15 at 17:18

I found the answer. It is just a basic linear algebra property to show but I take the same notations as in the question for clarity.

Let $P$ be a projector on $C$

As shown below in this post, a projector on the space $U_k C$ can always be found as $P_k = U_k P U_k^{\dagger}$.

From this property, we see that as $F_k P \propto U_k P$, a projector onto $Im(F_k P)$ is $P_k$ which is what is claimed by the book.


We just need to show that $Im(P_k)=U_k C$.

I first show $Im(P_k) \subset U_k C$:

Let $|y \rangle \in Im(P_k)$. We thus have: $|y\rangle=U_k P U_k^{\dagger} |x\rangle$ for some $|x \rangle$

And as $P U_k^{\dagger} |x\rangle \in C$ (because $P$ is a projector on $C$), we have $Im(P_k) \subset U_k C$

Now, I need to show $U_k C \subset Im(P_k)$:

Let $|y \rangle \in U_k C$:

For some $|x \rangle$, we have: $|y\rangle = U_k P |x \rangle$

Also, for some $|z \rangle$, we have $|x \rangle = U_k^{\dagger} |z \rangle$, thus in the end: $|y\rangle = U_k P U_k^{\dagger} |z \rangle \in Im(P_k)$

Conclusion: $Im(P_k)=U_k C$


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.