1
$\begingroup$

To model a single qubit one would need enough memory for $2$ complex numbers. If we have an $N$ qubit system, we would have to store $2N$ complex numbers.

The general statement is that to store an $N$-qubit system, one would require memory for $2^N$ complex numbers. My understanding is that entanglement somehow transforms $2N$ into $2^N$ but I don't understand how.

So why do entangled systems require more memory than non-entangled ones?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @glS you're right. edited, thank you! $\endgroup$ May 22 at 11:53
6
$\begingroup$

Welcome to Quantum Computing StackExchange.

To see why it would require $2^n$ complex numbers instead of $2n$ to represent a general entangled $n$-qubit state, let's assume we have a 3-qubit system,

$(\alpha_1, \beta_1), (\alpha_2, \beta_2), (\alpha_3, \beta_3)$

Where $(\alpha_i, \beta_i)$ denotes the representation of the $i^{th}$ qubit in a classical computer memory.

If we apply $X$-gate on the first qubit the state will become,

$(\beta_1, \alpha_1), (\alpha_2, \beta_2), (\alpha_3, \beta_3)$

And if we apply $Z$-gate on the second qubit we will have,

$(\beta_1, \alpha_1), (\alpha_2, -\beta_2), (\alpha_3, \beta_3)$

As you can see, only $2n$ memory locations are sufficient.

Now, let's introduce entanglement. If we apply a $CNOT$-gate to the first two qubits, then we will not be able to write the state of each qubit separately. You can easily check that the state will become,

$(\beta_1\alpha_2, -\beta_1\beta_2, -\alpha_1\beta_2, \alpha_1\alpha_2), (\alpha_3, \beta_3)$

And if we then apply a $CNOT$-gate to the second two qubits the new state will be,

$(\beta_1\alpha_2\alpha_3, \beta_1\alpha_2\beta_3, -\beta_1\beta_2\beta_3, -\beta_1\beta_2\alpha_3, -\alpha_1\beta_2\alpha_3, -\alpha_1\beta_2\beta_3, \alpha_1\alpha_2\beta_3, \alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3)$

It is an $8$-dimensional vector which needs 8 (= $2^3$) complex numbers to represent it instead of 6 (= $2.3$) as it was before introducing any entanglement.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the detailed answer, it illustrates the point perfectly. Edited the question to state 2^n instead of n^2. $\endgroup$ May 22 at 12:01
  • $\begingroup$ You are welcome. I edited my answer to match your question after editing, $\endgroup$ May 22 at 12:09

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.