arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 3 Feb 2015

Transcription

1 From reversible comutation to quantum comutation by Lagrange interolation Alexis De Vos and Stin De Baerdemacker 2 arxiv: v [quant-h] 3 Feb 205 Cmst, Imec v.z.w., vakgroe elektronica en informatiesystemen, Universiteit Gent, B Gent, Belgium alex@elis.ugent.be 2 Ghent Quantum Chemistry Grou, vakgroe anorganische en fysische chemie, Universiteit Gent, B Gent, Belgium Stin.DeBaerdemacker@ugent.be Abstract. Classical reversible circuits, acting on w bits, are reresented by ermutation matrices of size 2 w 2 w. Those matrices form the grou P(2 w ), isomorhic to the symmetric grou S 2 w. The ermutation grou P(n), isomorhic to S n, contains cycles with length, ranging from to L(n), where L(n) is the so-called Landau function. By Lagrange interolation between the matrices of the cycle, we ste from a finite cyclic grou of order to a -dimensional Lie grou, subgrou of the unitary grou U(n). As U(2 w ) is the grou of all ossible quantum circuits, acting on w qubits, such interolation is a natural way to ste from classical comutation to quantum comutation. Introduction Too often conventional (every-day) comuters and (futuristic) quantum comuters are considered as two searate worlds, far from each other. Conventional comuters act on classical bits, say ure zeroes and ones, by means of Boolean logic gates, such as AND gates and OR gates []. The oerations erformed by these gates usually are described by truth tables. Quantum comuters act on qubits, say comlex vectors, by means of quantum gates, such as ROTATOR gates and T gates [2]. The oerations erformed by these gates usually are described by unitary matrices. Because the world of classical comutation and the world of quantum comutation are based on such different science models, it is difficult to see the relationshi (both analogies and differences) between these two comutation aradigms. In order to remedy this roblem, in recent years, NEGATOR gates and PHASOR gates have been develoed as basic building-blocks of quantum circuits [3] [4] [5]. In the resent aer, we bridge the ga between the two sciences by deriving the NEGATOR gates in an alternative way. The common tool we have chosen for describing both reversible comutation and quantum comutation is the matrix reresentation. Classical reversible circuits [], acting on w bits, are

2 2 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker reresented by ermutation matrices of size 2 w 2 w, whereas quantum circuits [2], acting on w qubits, are reresented by unitary matrices of size 2 w 2 w. Invertible matrices form a grou under the oeration of matrix multilication. The matrix grou consisting of ermutation matrices is a subgrou of the grou of unitary matrices. In the resent aer, we show how to enlarge the subgrou to its suergrou, in other words: how a classical comuter can be ugraded to a quantum comuter. It is surrising that a mathematical tool for this tour-deforce is the good-old olynomial interolation formula of Lagrange. By Lagrange interolation between two (or more) ermutation matrices we indeed obtain an infinity of unitary matrices. 2 The Lagrange interolation We consider the n n unitary matrix q. The only restriction is the finiteness of its order. In other words: we assume that q equals the n n unit matrix u and that none of the matrices q s with 0 < s < equals u. Thus the set {q,q 2,q 3,...,q,q } (with q = q 0 = u) constitutes a finite matrix grou isomorhic to the cyclic grou Z of order. We construct a -dimensional Lie grou which constitutes a smooth interolation between the matrices q. For this urose, we are insired by the interolation formula of Lagrange: if, for the values x = x, a function y(x) evaluates to y, then the olynomial (x) = k (x x k) k (x x k ) y automatically satisfies (x ) = y, for all x. The function (x) connects the oints (x,y ) in an analytic and smooth way. By analogy, we construct the matrix m(θ) = k (eiθ ω k ) k (ω ω k ) q, () where the constant ω is the rimitive th root of unity, i.e. e i2π/. Here, indices ( and k) run from 0 to. The reader can easily verify that indeed we automatically have m(2π/) = q. In articular we have m(0) = q 0 = u. Exression () constitutes a generalization of the case = 2, discussed in Aendix A of [5]. Indeed, for = 2, eqn () recovers the exression found in [5]: Rewriting () as m(θ) = +eiθ 2 m(θ) = q 0 + eiθ 2 q. (2) m (θ)q, (3) Also in the rest of the aer, each time the limits of a summing index are not secified, they equal 0 and.

3 Lagrange interolation 3 the coefficients m (θ) (known as the Lagrange basis olynomials or Lagrange fundamental olynomials [6]) have the roerty that m (k2π/) equals for k = but equals 0 otherwise. This is illustrated for = 3 in Figure, where we see the modulus squared of the three coefficients m 0 (θ) = eiθ ω ω m (θ) = eiθ ω m 2 (θ) = eiθ ω 2 e iθ ω 2 ω 2 e iθ ω 2 ω ω 2 e iθ ω ω 2 ω, where ω is the rimitive cubic root of unity, i.e. e i2π/3 = /2+i 3/ m 0 2 m 2 m 2 2 mi(θ) π 2π π 3 3 2π θ Fig.. The moduli squared of the three coefficients m (θ) in 2 =0 m(θ)q, the Lagrange interolation between the three unitary matrices q 0, q, and q 2. 4π 5π There exist various different exressions equivalent to (): m(θ) = ω q k (e iθ ω k ) (4) m(θ) = (eiθ ) ω e iθ ω q (5) m(θ) = q ω r e irθ. r (6) Aendix A describes how they are deduced from (). Eqn (4) is more comact than eqn (), as it contains only one instead of two roducts. Exression (5)

4 4 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker corresonds with the so-called first barycentric form of the Lagrange interolation formula. It has the advantage that it contains no roduct at all. However, it has a disadvantage with resect to (4): in eqn (4) we clearly see that m is a olynomial (of degree ) in the variable e iθ ; in eqn (5) this fact is hidden. The exression (6) constitutes a good comromise between (4) and (5): we still recognize the olynomial nature of the exression, while the sum of roducts in (4) is simlified to a sum of sums in (6). In Aendix B, we rove that m(θ) has the roerty m(θ )m(θ 2 ) = m(θ +θ 2 ), such that the multilication of two m(θ) matrices yields a third m(θ) matrix. In articular we have m(θ)m( θ) = m(0) = u, such that m(θ) = m( θ). Hence, all conditions are fulfilled to say that the set m(θ), together with the oeration of ordinary matrix multilication, forms a grou. It is a continuous grou: a - dimensional Lie grou. In Aendix C we demonstrate that the matrices m(θ) are unitary. We thus may conclude that the grou is isomorhic to the unitary grou U(). Any -dimensional Lie grou m(θ) has a generator: g = i dm lim θ 0 dθ. With the hel of (5) we find: g = 0 ω ω q +lim[ e iθ e iθ (eiθ )e iθ (e iθ ) 2 ] q0 = 2 q ω ω q. With the hel of (6) we find an alternative exression for this n n matrix: g = q r rω r. For the case = 2, both exressions simlify to g = (q 0 q )/2, a result that can also be retrieved directly from (2). 3 Examles The n n unitary matrices form the unitary grou U(n). Within this infinite grou figures the finite subgrou P(n) of all n n ermutation matrices. We choose as matrix q of the revious section, one of these n! ermutation matrices. Suchmatrixgeneratesafinitesetofmatrices{q,q 2,...,q }.Thissetisasubgrou of P(n), isomorhic to the cyclic grou Z of order. The value of deends

5 Lagrange interolation 5 on the articular choice of the ermutation matrix q. The minimum value is (for the trivial choice q = u); the maximum value is L(n), where L denotes the Landau function [7]. The grou P(n) is isomorhic to the symmetric grou S n. The cycle grah of a finite grou deicts its cyclic subgrous. By convention, only the rimitive or maximal cycles (i.e. those cycles that are not subsets of another cycle) are shown. As a first examle, we investigate P(2), i.e. the grou of all 2 2 ermutation matrices. It contains two elements, forming a single 2-cycle: the two matrices q = ( ) 0 0 and q 2 = ( ) 0 0 = q 0, the matrix q reresenting the NOT gate. After (2), the interolation between q 0 and q is m(θ) = ( ) +e iθ e iθ 2 e iθ +e iθ, called the NEGATOR gate [8]. It is a quantum gate, generalization of the classical gates m(0) (i.e. the IDENTITY gate) and m(π) (i.e. the NOT gate). We note that, for any value of the angle θ, both row sums and both column sums of m(θ) are equal to. The generator of m(θ) is g = 2 ( ) a matrix with all line sums equal to 0. As a second examle, we take P(3), i.e. the grou of all 3 3 ermutation matrices. It consists of 3! = 6 elements, ordered in four maximal cycles: three 2-cycles: the two matrices q = and q 2 = = q the two matrices q = and q 2 = = q the two matrices q = and q 2 = = q one 3-cycle, consisting of the three matrices q = , q 2 = , and q 3 = = q ,

6 6 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker Fig.2. Cycle grah of the grou P(3) of 3 3 ermutation matrices. There exist no longer cycles, as L(3) = 3. Figure 2 dislays the grah. We now examine the 3-cycle in detail. After (5) and (6), resectively, its unitary interolation is m(θ) = 3 (ei3θ ) ( e iθ q0 + ω e iθ ω q + ) ω2 e iθ ω 2 q2 = 3 [ (ei2θ +e iθ +) q 0 +(ωe i2θ +ω 2 e iθ +) q +(ω 2 e i2θ +ωe iθ +) q 2 ] = x2 +x+ ωx 2 +ω 2 x+ ω 2 x 2 +ωx+ ω 2 x 2 +ωx+ x 2 +x+ ωx 2 +ω 2 x+, 3 ωx 2 +ω 2 x+ ω 2 x 2 +ωx+ x 2 +x+ where x is a short-hand notation for e iθ and ω again is the rimitive cubic root of unity. As exected, we have m(0) = q 0, m(2π/3) = q, m(4π/3) = q 2, and m(2π) = q 0 again. We notice that all six line sums (i.e. three row sums and three column sums) of m(θ) are equal to. Therefore, we say that m belongs to the subgrou XU(3) of U(3), described in detail in Aendix B of [8]. Here, XU(n) is the subgrou of U(n) consisting of all n n unitary matrices with all 2n line sums (i.e. n row sums and n column sums) equal to unity [3] [4] [5]. This is no coincidence. In Aendix D, we rove that, if q is a unitary matrix from XU(n), then also the interolation is a member of XU(n).

7 Lagrange interolation 7 For the generators of the four cycles we find: , 0 0, , and 3 ω ω2 ω 2 3 ω, ω ω 2 3 resectively. Each has all line sums equal to 0. Searately, each of these generators generates a -dimensional subgrou of XU(3); together they generate the full 4-dimensional grou XU(3), subgrou of the 9-dimensional grou U(3). 4 Classical and quantum comuting Because classical reversible circuits [] acting on w bits, are reresented by matrices from P(2 w ) and quantum circuits [2] acting on w qubits, are reresented by matrices from U(2 w ), we have secial attention for the case n = 2 w. As an examle, we investigate the grou P(4), reresenting all ossible reversible circuits with 2 bits at the inut and 2 bits at the outut. There exist 4! = 24 such circuits. Because P(4) is isomorhic to S 4, we investigate the cycle grah of this symmetric grou. It consists of six 2-cycles, four 3-cycles, and three 4-cycles. No longer cycles exist, as L(4) = 4. We have a closer look at one of the 4-cycles: q = , q2 = , q3 = , q4 = = q For the interolation between u, q, q 2, and q 3, we find +x+x 2 +x 3 ix x 2 +ix 3 x+x 2 x 3 +ix x 2 ix 3 m(θ) = +ix x 2 ix 3 +x+x 2 +x 3 ix x 2 +ix 3 x+x 2 x 3 4 x+x 2 x 3 +ix x 2 ix 3 +x+x 2 +x 3 ix x 2 +ix 3. ix x 2 +ix 3 x+x 2 x 3 +ix x 2 ix 3 +x+x 2 +x 3 We note that the matrix Q = q 2 not only belongs to this 4-cycle, but also is member of a 2-cycle (although not a maximal 2-cycle): Q = , Q2 = = Q For the interolation between u and Q, we find the Lagrange interolation +x 0 x 0 M(θ) = 0 +x 0 x 2 x 0 +x 0, 0 x 0 +x

8 8 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker Fig.3. One maximal 4-cycle and one non-maximal 2-cycle of the grou P(4) of 4 4 ermutation matrices. different from m(θ). Figure 3 dislays both the 4-cycle and the 2-cycle. Although we have M(0) = m(0) = u and M(π) = m(π) = Q, we have M(π/2) m(π/2). Indeed, m(π/2) = q is a ermutation matrix, whereas M(π/2) is a comlex unitary matrix: i 0 i 0 m(π/2) = and M(π/2) = 0 +i 0 i 2 i 0 +i i 0 +i They reresent the circuits V and, reectively. The former is the cascade of a controlled NOT and a NOT; the latter is a square root of NOT (a.k.a. a V gate). The former is a classical circuit; the latter is a quantum circuit. Both circuits are square roots of the classical circuit with matrix reresentation Q. We close this section by remarking that the above two matrix sets m(θ) and M(θ), both -dimensional interolations between the unit matrix and the matrix Q, illustrate that a unitary interolation between two unitary matrices is not necessarily unique.

9 Lagrange interolation 9 Efficient circuit design alying V gates, controlled V gates, W gates, or controlled W gates [0] [], can be interreted as using cycles of dyadic 2 2 unitary matrices [2] as matrix q of Section 2, rather than ermutation matrices. 5 Conclusion By Lagrange interolation, it is ossible to embed a finite cyclic grou in a - dimensional cyclic Lie grou. By alying this technique to a cycle of an n n ermutation matrix, one obtains a -dimensional subgrou of the unitary grou U(n). In this way, we can bridge the ga between classical reversible comutation (reresented by ermutation matrices) and quantum comutation (reresented by unitary matrices). References. De Vos, A.: Reversible comuting. Wiley VCH, Weinheim (200) 2. Nielsen, M., Chuang, I.: Quantum comutation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000) 3. De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: The decomosition of U(n) into XU(n) and ZU(n). Proceedings of the 44 th International Symosium on Multile-Valued Logic, Bremen, 9-2 May 204, De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: On two subgrous of U(n), useful for quantum comuting. Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Proceedings of the 30 th International Colloquium on Grou-theoretical Methods in Physics, Gent, 4-8 July De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: Matrix calculus for classical and quantum circuits. ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Comuting Systems, volume, 9 (204) 6. Davis, P.: Interolation and aroximation. Dover Publications, New York (975) 7. Landau, E.: Über die Maximalordnung der Permutationen gegebenen Grades. Archiv der Mathematik und Physik, 3. Reihe, volume 5, (903) 8. De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: The NEGATOR as a basic building block for quantum circuits. Oen Systems & Information Dynamics, volume 20, (203) 9. Fichtner, A.: SES3D version df (2009) 0. Rahman, M., Dueck, G., Baneree, A.: Otimization of reversible circuits using reconfigurable temlates. Proceedings of the 3 rd International Worksho on Reversible Comutation, Gent, 4-5 July 20, Sringer Lecture Notes in Comuter Science 765, Berlin (202), Sasanian, Z., Miller, D.: Transforming MCT circuits to NCVW circuits. Proceedings of the 3 rd International Worksho on Reversible Comutation, Gent, 4-5 July 20, Sringer Lecture Notes in Comuter Science 765, Berlin (202), De Vos, A., Van Laer, R., Vandenbrande, S.: The grou of dyadic unitary matrices. Oen Systems & Information Dynamics, volume 9, (202)

10 0 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker A Alternative exressions for the Lagrange interolation Assume the numbers ω 0, ω, ω 2,..., and ω are the solutions of the equation x = 0. Hence: x = k (x ω k ), such that k (x ω k ) = x x ω. (7) We aly this result twice: With x = ω e iǫ and subsequently ǫ 0 we obtain (ω ω k ω e iǫ ) = lim ǫ 0 ω e iǫ ω = lim ǫ 0 k e iǫ ω (e iǫ ) = iǫ ω lim ǫ 0 iǫ = ω, such that () becomes (4). With x = e iθ we obtain (e iθ ω k ) = eiθ e iθ ω, k such that (4) becomes (5). Eqn (6) is obtained from eqn (4) by comuting ω k (eiθ ω k ). We find its value as follows: r ω r x r = r (ω x) r = (ω x) ω x = ω x ω x = x ω x = ω x x ω = ω k (x ω k ).

11 Lagrange interolation B Proof of the grou structure of the Lagrange interolation Assume a general oerator (e.g. in matrix form) â of the following form â = a ˆq, =0 with a i C elements over the comlex field, and ˆq =. From now on, we will omit the oerator hat notation on the q oerators. First, a straightforward rearrangement shows that Lemma Given two oerators â and ˆb, then the roduct oerator ĉ = âˆb has coefficients c i = i a m b i m + m=i+ a m b +i m. Note that, in c i, the indices of the coefficients of â and ˆb add u to i in the first summation and to +i in the second summation. We take the summations to be strictly increasing, such that the second term of c vanishes by definition. Proof. The roof is based on a simle rearrangement of terms. Exlicitly, one can write âˆb = a b k q +k, (8) =0 k=0 and break this double summation down in three different regions, corresonding to resectively regions (A), (B) and (C) in Figure 4, 2 âˆb = =0 2 k=0 a b k q +k + =0 a b q + = k= a b k q +k. A change of dummy summation indices {i = +k,l = 2 (k )} gives2 âˆb = 2 i 2 i=0 l= i i= a i 2 lb i 2 +l qi + i l= l= i 2 + a i 2 lb i 2 +l qi. 2 Note that l can take half-integer values. a 2 lb l q

12 2 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker i C 0 B l A 0 k Fig. 4. Decomosition of the summation in eq. (8). The index i is always larger (or equal) to in the last summation, such that âˆb = 2 i 2 i=0 l= i a i 2 lb i 2 +l qi + 2 m l= l= m a 2 +m 2 l b 2 +m 2 +l q m, a 2 2 l b 2 2 +l q where q = has been used. Reintroducing dummy summation index = i 2 l in the first summation, while defining it as = 2 2 l in the second, and = 2 + m 2 l in the last, we obtain âˆb = 2 i i=0 =0 a b i q i + =0 This leads us to [ i âˆb = a m b i m + i=0 2 a b q + m=i+ i=0 =i+ a m b +i m ]q i, a b +i q i. which comletes the roof of the lemma. The -arameter grou structure of the Lagrange interolation oerators can now be roven. As demonstrated in Aendix A, there are multile reresenta-

13 Lagrange interolation 3 tions for the m coefficients in (3). We will emloy here exression (5): m (θ) = e iθ e iθ ω ω. Lemma 2 Given two Lagrange interolation oerators ˆm(θ ) and ˆm(θ 2 ) with coefficients m (θ k ) = e iθ k e iθ k ω ω for k {,2}, then the roduct oerator â = ˆm(θ )ˆm(θ 2 ) has coefficients a = Proof. The revious lemma states that a = + m=+ e iθ e iθ ω m ωm e i(θ+θ2) e i(θ+θ2) ω ω. e iθ e iθ ω m ωm Using ω =, this can be shortened to [ a = 2 )(e (eiθ iθ2 )ω e iθ2 ω m e iθ2 ω m e iθ2 e iθ2 ω + m ω+ m. ] e iθ ω m e iθ2 ω m The summation in (9) can be reduced using artial fractions: e iθ ω m e iθ2 ω m = e iθ2 = = = e i(θ+θ2) ω e i(θ+θ2) ω e i(θ+θ2) ω e iθ ω m ( ω m ω m ω e iθ2 [ ω m e iθ ω m + [ e iθ e iθ +ω m e iθ e iθ ω m ω m ω m ω e iθ2 ] + ωm ω e iθ2 +ω ] e iθ2 ω m ω e iθ2 ) e iθ ω m ω e iθ2 This formula can be even further reduced by realizing that (x ω k ) = d dx k m k ω e iθ2 ω m. (9). (0) (x ω k ) = d dx (x ) = x ()

14 4 A. De Vos and S. De Baerdemacker and thus x ω m = k m (x ωk ) = k (x ωk ) k (x ωk ) k m (x ω k ) = x x. Inserting this relation in both sums of (0), we gather e iθ ω m e iθ2 ω m = = e i(θ+θ2) ω e i(θ+θ2) ω ( ei( )θ iθ e e iθ ω e iθ2 ω( ) e i( )θ2 ω e iθ2 e i(θ+θ2) (e iθ )( e iθ2 ), in which we have used that ω =. Inserting this result in eq. (9) leads to a = e i(θ+θ2) e i(θ+θ2) ω ω = m (θ +θ 2 ). This means that ˆm(θ )ˆm(θ 2 ) equals ˆm(θ +θ 2 ), which is what had to be roven. ) C Proof of the unitarity of the Lagrange interolation Because of Aendix B we have the matrix equality m(θ )m(θ 2 ) = m(θ +θ 2 ), and hence, in articular, m(θ)m( θ) = u or m(θ) = m( θ). We comute m( θ) from () by changing from indices and k to indices J = and K = k: m( θ) = k (e iθ ω k ) k (ω ω k q ) = K J (e iθ ω K ) J K J (ω J ω K ) q J = J = J K J (e iθ ω K ) K J (ω J ω K ) q J K J (e iθ ω K ) K J (ωj ω K ) (q ) J = [m(θ)], where we took into account that q is unitary: q = q. We can conclude that m(θ) equals [m(θ)] and thus that m(θ) is unitary.

15 Lagrange interolation 5 D Proof of the XU roerty of the Lagrange interolation For the classical Lagrange interolation, the sum of the Lagrange fundamental olynomials is equal to unity, a roerty known as the first Cauchy relation [6] [9]. We rove here that a similar roerty holds for the matrix interolation ()-(3): m (θ) =. Indeed, by alying eqn (4), we find: m (θ) = ω (x ω k ) k = [ (x ω ) x ] (x ω k ) = k (x ω ) (x ω k )+ x k (x ω k ). Alying (7) for the former sum and () for the latter sum, we obtain (x )+x and thus unity. If a matrix q belongs to the grou XU(n), then all q belong to XU(n). Because the row sum of a sum of matrices equals the sum of the row sums of the constituent matrices, the row sum of m = m q equals m times the unit row sum of q and thus equals m. Because of the above Cauchy relation, this quantity is equal to. Hence, the matrix m has all n row sums equal to unity. We obtain a similar result for the n column sums. Hence, the interolation matrix m belongs to XU(n). In fact, the matrices m(θ) constitute a -dimensional subgrou of the (n ) 2 -dimensional grou XU(n). k