Graphical reasoning in compact closed categories for quantum computation

Article

Abstract

Compact closed categories provide a foundational formalism for a variety of important domains, including quantum computation. These categories have a natural visualisation as a form of graphs. We present a formalism for equational reasoning about such graphs and develop this into a generic proof system with a fixed logical kernel for reasoning about compact closed categories. A salient feature of our system is that it provides a formal and declarative account of derived results that can include ‘ellipses’-style notation. We illustrate the framework by instantiating it for a graphical language of quantum computation and show how this can be used to perform symbolic computation.

Keywords

Graph rewriting Quantum computing Categorical logic Interactive theorem proving Graphical calculi Ellipses notation 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000)

03G30 18C10 03G12 05C20 81P68 

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., Coecke, B.: A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In: LICS 2004, pp. 415–425. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abramsky, S., Gay, S., Nagarajan, R.: Interaction categories and the foundations of typed concurrent programming. In: Broy, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1994 Marktoberdorf Summer School on Deductive Program Design, pp. 35–113. Springer, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asperti, A., Longo, G.: Categories, Types and Structures. MIT, Cambridge (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bundy, A., Richardson, J.: Proofs about lists using ellipsis. In: Proc. of the 6th LPAR. LNAI, vol. 1705, pp. 1–12. Springer, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coecke, B.: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics. Lecture Notes (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coecke, B., Duncan, R.: Interacting quantum observables. In: ICALP 2008. LNCS (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coecke, B., Paquette, E.O.: POVMs and Naimark’s theorem without sums. In: Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coecke, B., Pavlovic, D.: Quantum measurements without sums. In: The Mathematics of Quantum Computation and Technology, CRC Applied Mathematics & Nonlinear Science. Taylor and Francis, London (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duncan, R.: Types for quantum computation. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., Prange, U., Taentzer, G.: Fundamentals of Algebraic Graph Transformation (Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. EATCS Series). Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janssens, D., Rozenberg, G.: Graph grammars with node-label controlled rewriting and embedding. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Graph-Grammars and Their Application to Computer Science, pp. 186–205. Springer, New York (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelly, G.M., Laplaza, M.L.: Coherence for compact closed categories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 19, 193–213 (1980)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kissinger, A.: Graph rewrite systems for complementary classical structures in y-symmetric monoidal categories. Master’s thesis, University of Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kock, J.: Frobenius Algebras and 2-D Topological Quantum Field Theories. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pati, A.K., Braunstein, S.L.: Impossibility of deleting an unknown quantum state. Nature 404, 164–165 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paulson, L.C.: Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover. Springer, New York (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pollet, M., Kerber, M.: Intuitive and formal representations: the case of matrices. In: MKM’04. LNCS, vol. 3119, pp. 317–331. Springer, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prince, R., Ghani, N., McBride, C.: Proving properties about lists using containers. In: FLOPS. LNCS, vol. 4989, pp. 97–112. Springer, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raussendorf, R., Briegel, H.J.: A one-way quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5188–5191 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schfürr, A.: Programmed Graph Replacement Systems, pp. 479–546. World Scientific, River Edge (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Selinger, P.: Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps. In: Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sexton, A.P., Sorge, V.: Semantic analysis of matrix structures. In: ICDAR ’05: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 1141–1145. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shor, P.W.: Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 26(5), 1484–1509 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Velasco, P.P.P., de Lara, J.: Matrix approach to graph transformation: matching and sequences. In: ICGT. LNCS, vol. 4178, pp. 122–137. Springer, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wootters, W., Zurek, W.: A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature 299, 802–803 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations