The paper Projective Plane and Planar Quantum Codes lists three non-equivalent $ [[9,1,3]] $ CSS codes coming from different cellulations of the projective plane (Figures 2, 3 and 4). The code from Figure 4 is the Shor code.

In the answer here https://quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/27699/19675 Adam Zalcman lists yet another $ [[9,1,3]] $ surface code with explicit stabilizer generators given in the comments.

Is it possible that all $ [[9,1,3]] $ CSS codes are surface codes?


1 Answer 1


Not sure if this is too trivial, but take the $[[7,1,3]]$ code and add two dummy qubits.

  • $\begingroup$ Can you explain for which cellulation of which surface this is a surface code? $\endgroup$ Jun 14, 2023 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm I think the original question asked “ Is every [[9,1,3]] CSS code a surface code?” to which the above is a (trivial) counter example. $\endgroup$
    – squiggles
    Jun 15, 2023 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Could you explain more about why adding two dummy qubits to the $ [[7,1,3]] $ code cannot be a surface code? That claim seems plausible but I'm just not very familiar with techniques for showing that a given CSS code cannot be any surface code. Even if you don't have a totally formal proof, I would just be curious to hear any partial proof/approaches you might suggest to showing that the [[7,1,3]] code plus 2 dummy qubits is not a surface code. If you think it's better I can make a separate question "Proof that Steane 7 qubit code is not equivalent to any surface code" $\endgroup$ Jun 15, 2023 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ follow-up asking if Steane code is a surface code quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/32998/… $\endgroup$ Mar 4 at 15:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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