Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 501–523 | Cite as

Symmetry, Compact Closure and Dagger Compactness for Categories of Convex Operational Models

Article

Abstract

In the categorical approach to the foundations of quantum theory, one begins with a symmetric monoidal category, the objects of which represent physical systems, and the morphisms of which represent physical processes. Usually, this category is taken to be at least compact closed, and more often, dagger compact, enforcing a certain self-duality, whereby preparation processes (roughly, states) are interconvertible with processes of registration (roughly, measurement outcomes). This is in contrast to the more concrete “operational” approach, in which the states and measurement outcomes associated with a physical system are represented in terms of what we here call a convex operational model: a certain dual pair of ordered linear spaces–generally, not isomorphic to one another. On the other hand, state spaces for which there is such an isomorphism, which we term weakly self-dual, play an important role in reconstructions of various quantum-information theoretic protocols, including teleportation and ensemble steering. In this paper, we characterize compact closure of symmetric monoidal categories of convex operational models in two ways: as a statement about the existence of teleportation protocols, and as the principle that every process allowed by that theory can be realized as an instance of a remote evaluation protocol—hence, as a form of classical probabilistic conditioning. In a large class of cases, which includes both the classical and quantum cases, the relevant compact closed categories are degenerate, in the weak sense that every object is its own dual. We characterize the dagger-compactness of such a category (with respect to the natural adjoint) in terms of the existence, for each system, of a symmetric bipartite state, the associated conditioning map of which is an isomorphism.

Keywords

Quantum foundations Convex operational theories Compact closed category Dagger-compact category 

References

  1. 1.
    Abramsky, S., & Coecke, B. (2004). A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In Proceedings of the 19th annual IEEE symposium on logic in computer science: LICS 2004 (pp. 415–425). IEEE Computer Science Press. Also arXiv:0402130v5 [quant-ph/].
  2. 2.
    Abramsky, S., & Coecke, B. (2008). Categorical quantum mechanics. In K. Engesser, D. Gabbay, D. Lehman (Eds.), Handbook of quantum logic and quantum structures II. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abramsky, S., & Duncan, R. (2006). A categorical quantum logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 16, 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alfsen, E.M. (1971). Compact convex sets and boundary integrals. Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alfsen, E.M., & Shultz, F.W. (2002). State spaces of operator algebras: basic theory, orientations, and C*-products. Boston: Birkhauser.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Araki, H. (1980). On a characterization of the state space of quantum mechanics. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 75(1980), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baez, J. (2004). Quantum quandaries: a category-theoretic perspective. quant-ph/0404040.
  8. 8.
    Barnum, H., Barrett, J., Leifer, M., Wilce, A. (2007). Generalized no-broadcasting theorem. Physical Review Letters, 99, 24051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnum, H., Barrett, J., Leifer, M., Wilce, A. (2008). Teleportation in general probabilistic theories. In S. Abramsky & M. Mislove (Eds.), Mathematical foundations of information flow. American Mathematical Society. 2012 also arXiv:0805.3553.
  10. 10.
    Barnum, H., Dahlsten, O., Leifer, M., Toner, B. (2008). Nonclassicality without entanglement enables bit commitment. In Proc. IEEE information theory workshop, Porto, May 2008 (pp. 386–390). Also arXiv:0803.1264.
  11. 11.
    Barnum, H., Fuchs, C., Renes, J., Wilce, A. (2005). Influence-free states on compound quantum systems. quant-ph/0507108.
  12. 12.
    Barnum, H., Gaebler, P., Wilce, A. (2009). Ensemble steering, weak self-duality and the structure of probabilistic theories. arXiv:0912.5532.
  13. 13.
    Barnum, H., & Wilce, A. (2011). Information processing in convex operational theories. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 270, 3–15. Also arXiv:0908.2352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barnum, H., & Wilce, A. (2009). Ordered linear spaces and categories as frameworks for information-processing characterizations of quantum and classical theory. arXiv:0908.2354.
  15. 15.
    Barrett, J. (2007). Information processing in general probabilistic theories. Physical Reviews A, 75, 032304. Also arXiv:0.508211 [quant-ph/].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beltrametti, E., & Cassinelli, G. (1980). The logic of quantum mechanics. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Coecke, B., Paquette, E.O., Pavlovic, D. (2009). Classical and quantum structuralism. In I. Mackie & S. Gay (Eds.), Semantic techniques for quantum computation (pp. 29–69). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    d’Ariano, G.M. (2006). How to derive the Hilbert-space formulation of quantum mechanics from purely operational axioms. arXiv.org:0603011 [quant-ph/].
  19. 19.
    Davies, E.B., & Lewis, J.T. (1970). An operational approach to quantum probability. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 17, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Edwards, C.M. (1970). The operational approach to algebraic quantum theory I. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 16, 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faraut, J., & Korányi, A. (1994). Analysis on symmetric cones. Oxford: Oxford University PresGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gross, D., Müller, M., Colbeck, R., Dahlsten, O.C.O. (2010). All reversible dynamics in maximally nonlocal theories are trivial. Physical Reviews and Letters, 104, 080402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hanche-Olsen, H. (1983). On the structure and tensor products of JC algebras. Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 35, 1059–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanche-Olsen, H. (1985). JB-algebras with tensor products are C∗–algebras. Lecture Notes in Mathematics (Springer), 1132, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heunen, C. (2009). Categorical quantum models and logics. Doctoral thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen. Amsterdam: Pallas Publications.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jordan, P., von Neumann, J., Wigner, E.P. (1934). On an algebraic generalization of the quantum-mechanical formalism. Annals of Mathematics, 35, 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kläy, M. (1988). Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments: the structure of the sample space. Foundations of Physics Letters, 1, 205–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koecher, M. (1958). Die geodätischen von Positivitätsbereichen. Mathematische Annalen, 135, 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koecher, M. (1962). On real Jordan algebras. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 68, 374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koecher, M. (1999). The minnesota notes on Jordan algebras and their applications. In A. Krieg & S. Walcher (Eds.), Physical Review Letters (Vol. 1710). Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keyl, M., & Werner, R. (2007). Channels and maps. In D. Bruss & G. Leuchs (Eds.), Lectures on quantum information (pp. 73–86). Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kelly, G.M., & Laplaza, M.L. (1980). Coherence for compact closed categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 19, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klay, M., Randall, C.H., Foulis, D.J. (1987). Tensor products and probability weights. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 26, 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ludwig, G. (1983). Foundations of quantum mechanics I. Springer.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mackey, G. (1963). Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    MacLane, S. (1997). Categories for the working mathematician, 2nd ed. Springer.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mueller, M., & Ududec, C. (2012). Physical Reviews and Letters, 108, 130401. Also arXiv:1110.3516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Selinger, P. (2007). Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps (extended abstract). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 170, 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Selinger, P. (2004). Towards a semantics for higher-order quantum computation. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on quantum programming languages, Turku, Finland (pp. 127–143). TUCS General Publication No. 33.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Selinger, P. (2010). Autonomous categories in which \({A} \cong A^*\). In Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on quantum physics and logic (QPL 2010) (pp. 151–160). Oxford. Available electronically at www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/bob.coecke/QPLproceedings.html
  41. 41.
    Short, A.J., & Barrett, J. (2601). Strong non-locality: a tradeoff between states and measurements. arXiv:0909.2601.
  42. 42.
    Vinberg, E.B. (1960). Homogeneous cones. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 141, 270–273. English translation: Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 2, 1416–1619 (1961).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    von Neumann, J. (1932). Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Springer. English translation: Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1955).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wilce, A. (1992). Tensor products in generalized measure theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 31, 1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wilce, A. (2012). Four and a half axioms for finite dimensional quantum mechanics. In Y. Ben-Menachem & M. Hemmo (Eds.), Probability in physics. Springer.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wilce, A. (2012). Conjugates, correlation and quantum mechanics. arXiv:1206.2897.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perimeter Institute for Theoretical PhysicsWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Information QuantiqueUniversit Libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsSusquehanna UniversitySelinsgroveUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations