Finish quantum circuits subsection
This commit is contained in:
@@ -643,6 +643,8 @@ output \cite[Sec.~3.2.2]{griffiths_introduction_1995}.
|
||||
Operators are useful to describe the relations between different
|
||||
quantities relating to a particle.
|
||||
An example of this is the differential operator $\partial x$.
|
||||
Two operators $P_1$ and $P_2$ are said to \emph{commute}, if $P_1P_2
|
||||
= P_2P_1$ and \emph{anti-commute} if $P_1P_2 = -P_2P_1$.
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\subsection{Observables}
|
||||
@@ -871,7 +873,7 @@ Take for example the two qubits
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
% TODO: Fix the fact that \psi is used above for the single-qubit
|
||||
% case and below for the multi-qubit case
|
||||
We examine the state $\ket{\psi}$ of the composite system as.
|
||||
We examine the state $\ket{\psi}$ of the composite system.
|
||||
Assuming the qubits are independent, this is a \emph{product state}
|
||||
$\ket{\psi} = \ket{\psi_1}\otimes\ket{\psi_2}$.
|
||||
When not ambiguous, we may omit the tensor product symbol or even write
|
||||
@@ -933,7 +935,7 @@ After examining the modelling of single- and multi-qubit systems,
|
||||
we now shift our focus to describing the evolution of their states.
|
||||
We model state changes as operators.
|
||||
Unlike classical systems, where there are only two possible states and
|
||||
thus the only possible state change is a bit-flip, a gerenal qubit
|
||||
thus the only possible state change is a bit-flip, a general qubit
|
||||
state as shown in \autoref{eq:gen_qubit_state} lives on a continuum of values.
|
||||
We thus technically also have an infinite number of possible state changes.
|
||||
Luckily, we can express any operator as a linear combination of the
|
||||
@@ -970,10 +972,15 @@ Luckily, we can express any operator as a linear combination of the
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
$I$ is the identity operator and $X$ and $Z$ are referred to as
|
||||
\emph{bit-flips} and \emph{phase-flips} respectively.
|
||||
We also call these operators \emph{gates}.
|
||||
In fact, if we allow for complex coefficients, the $X$ and $Z$
|
||||
operators are sufficient to express any other operator as a linear
|
||||
combination \cite[Sec.~2.2]{roffe_quantum_2019}.
|
||||
|
||||
In the context of modifying qubit states, we also call operators \emph{gates}.
|
||||
When working with multi-qubit systems, we can also apply Pauli gates
|
||||
to individual qubits independently, e.g., $I_1 X_2 I_3 Z_4 Y_5$.
|
||||
We often omit the identity operators, instead writing $X_2 Z_4 Y_5$.
|
||||
to individual qubits independently, which we write ask e.g., $I_1 X_2
|
||||
I_3 Z_4 Y_5$.
|
||||
We often omit the identity operators, instead writing, e.g., $X_2 Z_4 Y_5$.
|
||||
Other important operators include the \emph{Hadamard} and
|
||||
\emph{controlled-NOT (CNOT)} gates \cite[Sec.~1.3]{nielsen_quantum_2010}
|
||||
\vspace*{-7mm}
|
||||
@@ -1010,20 +1017,51 @@ Other important operators include the \emph{Hadamard} and
|
||||
\noindent Many more operators relevant to quantum computing exist, but they are
|
||||
not covered here as they are not central to this work.
|
||||
|
||||
\indent\red{[We only need to consider X and Z errors]
|
||||
\cite[Equation~8]{roffe_quantum_2019}} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[Explain commuting/anticommuting property of operators]
|
||||
[Journal~p.~46]}
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\subsection{Quantum Circuits}
|
||||
\label{Quantum Circuits}
|
||||
|
||||
\noindent\indent\red{[Controlled operations]
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~4.3]{nielsen_quantum_2010}} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[In case this reference is needed: Measurements
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~4.4]{nielsen_quantum_2010}]} \\
|
||||
\indent\red{[General circuit stuff] \cite[Sec.~1.3.4]{nielsen_quantum_2010}}
|
||||
% Intro
|
||||
|
||||
Using these quantum gates, we can construct \emph{circuits} to manipulate
|
||||
the states of qubits \cite[Sec.~1.3.4]{nielsen_quantum_2010}.
|
||||
Circuits are read from left to right and each horizontal wire
|
||||
represents a qubit whose state evolves as it passes through
|
||||
successive gates.
|
||||
|
||||
% General notation
|
||||
|
||||
A single line carries a quantum state, while a double line
|
||||
denotes a classical bit, typically used to carry the result of a measurement.
|
||||
A measurement is represented by a meter symbol.
|
||||
In general, gates are represented as labeled boxes placed on one or more wires.
|
||||
An exception is the CNOT gate, where the operation is represented as
|
||||
the symbol $\oplus$.
|
||||
|
||||
% Controlled gates & example
|
||||
|
||||
We can additionally add a control input to a gate.
|
||||
This conditions its application on the state of another qubit
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~4.3]{nielsen_quantum_2010}.
|
||||
The control connection is represented by a vertical line connecting
|
||||
the gate to the corresponding qubit, where a filled dot is placed.
|
||||
A controlled gate applies the respective operation only if the
|
||||
control qubit is in state $\ket{1}$.
|
||||
An example of this is the CNOT gate introduced in
|
||||
\autoref{subsec:Qubits and Multi-Qubit States}, which is depicted in
|
||||
\autoref{fig:cnot_circuit}.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{figure}[t]
|
||||
\centering
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{quantikz}
|
||||
\lstick{$\ket{\psi}_1$} & \ctrl{1} & \\
|
||||
\lstick{$\ket{\psi}_2$} & \targ{} & \\
|
||||
\end{quantikz}
|
||||
|
||||
\caption{CNOT gate circuit.}
|
||||
\label{fig:cnot_circuit}
|
||||
\end{figure}
|
||||
|
||||
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
||||
\section{Quantum Error Correction}
|
||||
@@ -1261,8 +1299,10 @@ Formally, we define the \emph{stabilizer group} $\mathcal{S}$ as
|
||||
\mathcal{S} = \left\{P_i \in \mathcal{G}_n ~:~ P_i \ket{\psi}_\text{L} =
|
||||
(+1)\ket{\psi}_\text{L} \forall \ket{\psi}_\text{L} ~\cap~
|
||||
[P_i,P_j] = 0 \forall i,j\right\}
|
||||
.%
|
||||
,%
|
||||
\end{align*}
|
||||
where $[P_i,P_j] := P_iP_j - P_j P_i$ is called the \emph{commutator}
|
||||
of $P_i$ and $P_j$.
|
||||
We care in particular about the commuting properties of stabilizers
|
||||
with respect to possible errors.
|
||||
The measurement circuit for an arbitrary stabilizer $P_i$ modifies
|
||||
@@ -1388,25 +1428,8 @@ $Z$ operators and some with only $X$ operators.
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\textbf{Content:}
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item General context
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item Why we need QEC (correcting errors due
|
||||
to noisy gates)
|
||||
\item Main challenges of QEC compared to classical
|
||||
error correction
|
||||
\item Logical vs physical states, logical vs
|
||||
physical operators
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\item Stabilizer codes
|
||||
\begin{itemize}
|
||||
\item Definition of a stabilizer code
|
||||
\item The stabilizer its generators (note somewhere
|
||||
that the generators have to commute
|
||||
to be able to
|
||||
be measured without disturbing each other)
|
||||
(Why we need commutativity of the
|
||||
stabilizers [Journal,
|
||||
p.~51], [Got97, p.~6])
|
||||
\item syndrome extraction circuit
|
||||
\item Stabilizer codes are effectively the QM
|
||||
% TODO: Actually binary linear codes or
|
||||
@@ -1418,8 +1441,6 @@ $Z$ operators and some with only $X$ operators.
|
||||
rather than working with the states directly
|
||||
\cite[Sec.~10.5.1]{nielsen_quantum_2010}
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
\item Digitization of errors
|
||||
\item CSS codes
|
||||
\item Color codes?
|
||||
\item Surface codes?
|
||||
\end{itemize}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
|
||||
% sorting=nty,
|
||||
% ]{biblatex}
|
||||
\usepackage{todonotes}
|
||||
\usepackage{quantikz}
|
||||
|
||||
\usetikzlibrary{calc, positioning, arrows, fit}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user