We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.

# Tag Info

## Hot answers tagged matrix-representation

16

Specific Circuit The first gate is a Hadamard gate which is normally represented by $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\1&-1\end{bmatrix}$$ Now, since we're only applying it to the first qubit, we use a kronecker product on it (this confused me so much when I was starting out - I had no idea how to scale gates; as you can imagine, it's rather ...

7

From IBM Q Documentation (the link is hard to find) here is the definition of the generic gate: $$U(\theta, \phi, \lambda) = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) & -e^{i\lambda} \sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \\ e^{i\phi} \sin\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) & e^{i(\lambda + \phi)} \cos\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \end{pmatrix}$$ ...

7

The Hilbert space dimension of $n$ qudits is $d^n$, where $d$ is the dimension of the qudit ($d=2$ for qubit, $d=3$ for qutrit, etc). So three qubits have an $8$ dimensional space, two qutrits have a $9$ dimensional space, and one $d=6$ qudit has a six dimensional space. As such, we cannot regard them as equivalent. I guess you meant to compare situations ...

6

This is actually a much easier problem. In the case of states, you're trying to use the PPT criterion, or others, to distinguish if $\rho$ can be written in the form $$\rho=\sum_ip_i\sigma^A_i\otimes\sigma^B_i,$$ where $\sum_ip_i=1$ and the $\sigma^A_i$ and $\sigma^B_i$ are valid states on single sites. The difficulty actually comes from the freedom that ...

6

The Hadamard gate has close ties to the discrete Fourier transform. Consider the DFT for an $N$-level system: $$\vert j \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{N-1} e^{\frac{i2 \pi j k}{N}} \vert k \rangle.$$ For $N=2$ this is simply $$\vert j \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \, \vert k \rangle = H \... 6 For any matrix A we can write$$ A =\sum_{i,j,k,l}h_{ijkl}\cdot \frac{1}{4}\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j\otimes\sigma_k\otimes\sigma_l, $$where$$ h_{ijkl} = \frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}\big((\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j\otimes\sigma_k\otimes\sigma_l)^\dagger \cdot A\big) = \frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}\big((\sigma_i\otimes\sigma_j\otimes\sigma_k\otimes\sigma_l) \cdot A\big) $$... 5 Since your desired operation is a non-injective function, you need a third qubit and a unitary acting on all three qubits. Using an operator on your two input qubits and tensoring this with {\rm I}_2 on the third qubit is not going to work as you might as well forget about the third qubit completely if that were the case. By the way, the two matrices you ... 5 All quantum operators must be unitary. Unitary means the conjugate-transpose of the operator is its inverse. In your case: UU^{\dagger} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & ... 5 The insight that suggests that sparse matrices are useful goes along the lines of: for any H, we can decompose it in terms of a set of H_i whose individual components all commute (making diagonalisation straightforward),$$ H=\sum_{i=1}^mH_i. $$If the matrix is sparse, then you shouldn't need too many distinct H_i. Then you can simulate the ... 5 Immediately, we can see that$$ A = |1\rangle\langle0| + |0\rangle\langle1|. $$If the input and out bases are \{|0\rangle, |1\rangle\}, then$$ |0\rangle = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad |1\rangle = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \quad\textrm{and}\quad \langle0| = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \langle1| = \begin{pmatrix}...

5

A matrix is positive if and only if it is Hermitian (and thus unitarily diagonalizable) and all its eigenvalues are positive (that they are real follows automatically from it being Hermitian). If this is not the way you define a positive operator, then you need to specify how you do so that we can prove the equivalence. In other words, $A$ is positive, $A\... 5 The CNOT gate is a 2-qubit gate, and consequently, its operation cannot be expressed by the tensor product of two one-qubit gates as the example you gave with the Hadamard gates. An easy way to check that such matrix cannot be expressed as the tensor product of two other matrices is to take matrices$A =\begin{pmatrix}a & b \\ c & d\end{pmatrix}...

5


3

I will give you a few elements for the demonstration on real vectors which you can extend to complex. Let {$e_i$} be the standard basis for the space where $U (n*n)$ is defined . Let {$e_j$} be the standard basis for the space where $V (m*m)$ is defined. First, it is a property that the basis {$e_i \otimes e_j$} is a basis for the n*m-matrices space. $U \... 3 $$| \psi_3 \rangle = a | 0 1 1 \rangle + b | 1 1 1 \rangle\\$$ Because the 1 on B and C criterion is met. $$| \psi_4 \rangle = a | 0 0 1 \rangle + b | 1 1 1 \rangle\\$$ Because only the first term meets the criterion for the controls so it is the only part affected to flip the B index. $$| \psi_5 \rangle = a | 0 0 0 \rangle + b | 1 1 1 \rangle\\$$ ... 3 Your bit strings$x$in the case when you specify$2$bits are$00$,$01$,$10$,$11$. Now you want to output the result in another bit/qubit. Whether the outpit bit/qubit is initialized as$0$or$1$should not change your unitary operation. The only thing changing is the initial quantum state your system is onto where you apply the unitary operation ... 3 Note that the first two are proportional with a$e^{i \theta /2}$factor. Even as you tensor with other gates and continue multiplying, this just comes out in front as an unobservable global phase. Distinguishing the last one you can tell by looking at the range of angles they allow. 0 to$2\pi$etc. If the authors fail to include their conventions , you ... 3 Whether you use$+i$or$-i$is entirely up to you. After all, your definition of$\pm i$is merely a convention. On the other hand, I think I've only ever seen it with$+i$. On a more general footing, you can consider that iSWAP is the gate obtained by time-evolving with an XX interaction ($H=-\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x - \sigma_y\otimes\sigma_y$), in ... 3 I like to use the projectors $$P_0=|0\rangle\langle 0|\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\qquad P_1=|1\rangle\langle 1|\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)$$ to express the intuition of the controlled-not when constructing it: $$CNOT=P_0\otimes\mathbb{I}+P_1\otimes X.$$ Here you can ... 3 $$CNOT = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \end{bmatrix}$$But what does this matrix mean? The above matrix means: on a two qubit system (such as$\left|00\right>$,$\left|10\right>$,$\left|11\right>\$, etc.) if the first qubit is a one,...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible