Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 153, Issue 2, pp 70–119 | Cite as

Analytic methods in quantum computing

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Here we consider a model of quantum computation, based on the monodromy representation of a Fuchsian system. The rôle of local and entangling operators in monodromic quantum computing is played by monodromy matrices of connections with logarithmic singularities acting on the fiber of a holomorphic vector bundle as on the space of qubits. The leading theme is the problem of constructing a set of universal gates as monodromy operators induced from a connection with logarithmic singularity. In the formal scheme developed by us, already known models — topological and holonomic — can be incorporated.

Keywords

Singular Point Vector Bundle Braid Group Monodromy Group Holomorphic Vector Bundle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical Resonance and Two-Level Atoms, Wiley, New York (1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. V. Anosov and A. A. Bolibruch, The Riemann-Hilbert Problem, Asp. Math., Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden (1994).MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Ataronov, Win van Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, and O. Regev, Adiabatic quantum computation is equivalent to standard quantum computation, ArXiv: quant-ph/0405098.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Barenco, C. Bennett, R. Cleve, D. DiVincenzo, N. Margulus, P. Shor, T. Sleator, J. Smolin, and H. Weinfurter, “Elementary gates for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev., A2, 3457–3467 (1995).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Benioff, Models of quantum Turing machines, ArXiv: quant-ph/9708054.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Berry, “Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatatic changes,” Proc. Royal Soc. London, A392, 45–57 (1984).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. O. Boykin, T. Mor, M. Pulver, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, “On universal and Fault-Tolerant quantum computing: A novel basis and a new constructive proof of universality for Shor’s basis,” in: Proc. 40th Ann. Symp. on Foundations of Comput. Sci., Los Alamitos (1999), pp. 486–494.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.-L. Brylinski and R. Brylinski, Universal quantum gates, ArXiv: quant-ph/0108062.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K.-T. Chen, “Iterated path integrals,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 83, No. 5 (1977).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. A. Clarkson and P. J. Olver, “Symmetry and the Chazy equation,” J. Differ. Equations, 124, No. 1, 225–246 (1996).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer,” Proc. London Roy. Soc., Ser. A, 400, 97–117 (1985).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Geometric manipulation of trapped ions for quantum computation,” Science, 292, 1695 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Dye, Unitary solution to the Yang-Baxter equation in dimension four, LANL quant-ph/0211050.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Ekert, M. Ericsson, P. Hayden, H. Inamori, J. A. Jones, D. K. L. Oi, V. Vedral, “Geometric quantum computation,” J. Mod. Opt., 47, Nos. 14–15, 2501–2513 (2000).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Experimental Proposals for Quantum Computation, S. L. Braunstein, H.-K. Lo, and P. Kok (eds.), Fortschritte der Physik, Prog. Physics, 48, 767–1138 (2000).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Feynman, “Quantum mechanical computations,” Optics News, 11, 11, February (1985).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Freedman, “P/NP and the quantum field computer,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 98–100 (1998).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, and Z. Wang, Simulation of topological field theries by quantum computer, ArXiv: quant-ph/0001071.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Fujii, More on optical holonomic quantum computer, ArXiv: quant-ph/0005129.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Fujii, Mathematical foundations of holonomic quantum computer, ArXiv: quant-ph/0004102.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Giorgadze, “G-Systems and holomorphic principal bundles on Riemann surfaces,” J. Dynam. Control Systems, 8, No. 2, 245–291 (2002).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Giorgadze, “Monodromic approach to quantum computing,” Int. J. Mod. Phys., B16, No. 30, 4593–4605 (2002).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Giorgadze, “Holomorphic quantum computing,” Bull. Georgian Acad. Sci., 166, No. 2, 228–230 (2002).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    G. Giorgadze, “Holomorphic structures and connetions on low-dimensional vector bundles on the Riemann sphere,” Bull. Soc. Sci. Lett. Lodz, 52, 93–100 (2002).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Giorgadze, “On the existence of a irreducible connections and its application,” Bull. Georgian Acad. Sci., 168, No. 2, 227–229 (2003).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Giorgadze, “On representation of connections by exponential iterated integral,” Bull. Georgian Acad. Sci., 168, No. 3, 413–416 (2003).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Giorgadze, “Regular systems on Riemann surfaces,” J. Math. Sci., 118, No. 5, 5347–5399 (2003).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Giorgadze, “On the Hamiltonians induced from a Fuchsian system,” Mem. Diff. Equat. Math. Phys., 31, 69–82 (2004).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Giorgadze and G. Khimshiashvili, “On Schrödinger equations of Okubo type,” J. Dynam. Control Systems, 10, No. 2, 171–186 (2004).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. A. Golubeva and V. P. Leksin, “On two types of representations of braid group associated with the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation of the B n type,” J. Dynam. Control Systems, 5, No. 4, 565–596 (1999).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Y. Haraoka, “Canonical forms of differential equations free from accessory parameters,” SIAM J. Math. Anal., 25, 1203–1226 (1994).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Y. Haraoka, “Monodromy representation of the system of differential equation free from accessory parameters,” SIAM J. Math. Anal., 25, 1595–1621 (1994).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    E. L. Ince, Ordinary Differential Equations, Dover, (1956).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    E. Kamke, Differentalgleichungen. Lüsungsmethoden und Lösungen, Leipzig (1959).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    T. Kato, K. Nakamura, M. Lakshmanan, “Analytic calculation of nonadiabatic transition probabilities from monodromy of differential equations,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 36, 5803–5815 (2003).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    L. Kauffman and S. Lomonaco, Braiding operators are universal quantum gates, LANL quant-ph/0401090.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    T. Kieu, A refurmalition of Hilbert’s tenth problem through quantum mechanics, ArXiv: quant-ph/0111063.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Kitaev, “Quantum computations: algorithms and error corection,” Russ. Math. Surv., 52, No. 6, 1191–1249 (1995).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    V. G. Knizhnik and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Current algebras and Wess-Zumino models in two dimensions,” Nucl. Phys., B247, 83–103 (1984).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T. Kohno, “Monodromy representations of braid groups and Yang-Baxter equation,” Ann. Inst. Fourier, 37, No. 4, 139–160 (1987).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    T. Kohno, “Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and classical Yang-Baxter equation,” Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 28, 255–269 (1988).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    B. Kraus and J. I. Cirac, “Optimal creation of the entanglement using a two-qubit gate,” Phys. Rev., A63, 062309 (2000).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    K. Kuiken, Heun’s equation and the hypergeometric equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 10 No. 3, 655–657 (1979).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    R. Lawrence, Homology representations of braid group, Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford Univ. (1989).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. Leibman, “Some monodromy representations of generalized braid groups,” Commun. Math. Phys., 164, 293–304 (1994).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    V. P. Leksin, “The Riemann-Hilbert problem for analytic families of representations,” Mat. Zametki, 50, No. 2, 89–97 (1991).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. Maier, Transforming the Heun equations to the hypergeometric equation, I: Polynomial transformations, ArXiv: math.CA/0203264.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Y. Matiyasevich, Hilbert’s Tenth Problem, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts (1993).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    H. Nakamura, Nonadiabatic transition: Concepts, Basic Theories and Applications, World Scientific, Singapore (2002).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York (2000).MATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    A. Niskanen, M. Nakahara, and M. Salomaa, Realization of arbitrary gates in holonomic quantum computation, ArXiv: quant-ph/0209015.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    H. Ochiai, T. Oshima, H. Sekiguchi, “Commuting families of symmetric differential operators,” Proc. Jpn. Acad., 70, 62–66 (1994).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. Okubo, On the Group of Fuchsian Equation, Seminar Notes, Tokyo Metropolitan University (1987).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    K. Okubo, K. Takano, and S. Yoshida, “A connection problem for the generalized hypergeometric equation,” Funkcial. Ekvac., 31, 483–495 (1988).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    M. Olshanetsky and A. Perelomov, “Quantum integrable systems related to Lie algebras,” Phys. Rep., 94, 313–404 (1983).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    T. Oshima and H. Sekiguchi, “Commuting families of differential operators invariant under the action of a Weyl group,” J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, 2, 1–75 (1995).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    J. Pachos, P. Zanardi, M. Rasetti, Non-Abelian Berry connections for quantum computation, ArXiv: quant-ph/9907103.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    A. Ronveaux (ed.), Heun’s Differential Equations, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1995).MATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    T. Sasai, “On the monodromy group and irreducibility conditions of a fourth-order Fuchsian differential system of Okubo type,” J. Reine Angew. Math., 299/300, 38–50 (1978).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    T. Sasai and S. Tsuchiya, “On a fourth-order Fuchsian differential equation of Okubo type,” Funkcial. Ekvac., 34, 211–221 (1991).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    A. Shapere and F. Wilczek, eds., Geometric Phases in Physics, World Scientific (1987).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    R. Sovolay, “Lie groups and quantum circuits,” MSRI Conf. on Mathematics of Quantum Computation, Berkeley (2000).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    K. Takemura, “The Heun equation and the Calogero-Moser-Sutherland system, I: the Bethe Ansatz method,” Commun. Math. Phys., 235, 467–494 (2003).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    A. Tsuchiya and Y. Kanie, “Vertex operators in conformal field theory on CP1 and monodromy representations of braid group,” Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 16, 292–372 (1988).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, “Appearance of gauge structure in simple dynamical systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 52, 2111 (1984).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, “Holonomic quantum computation,” Phys. Lett., A264, 94 (1999).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    T. Yakoyama, “On an irreducibility condition for hypergeometric systems,” Funkcial. Ekvac., 38, 11–19 (1995).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of CyberneticsGeorgian Academy of SciencesTbilisiGeorgia

Personalised recommendations