Advertisement

The Group Zoo of Classical Reversible Computing and Quantum Computing

  • Alexis De Vos
  • Stijn De Baerdemacker
Chapter
Part of the Emergence, Complexity and Computation book series (ECC, volume 22)

Abstract

By systematically inflating the group of \(n \times n\) permutation matrices to the group of \(n \times n\) unitary matrices, we can see how classical computing is embedded in quantum computing. In this process, an important role is played by two subgroups of the unitary group U(n), i.e. XU(n) and ZU(n). Here, XU(n) consists of all \(n \times n\) unitary matrices with all line sums (i.e. the n row sums and the n column sums) equal to 1, whereas ZU(n) consists of all \(n \times n\) diagonal unitary matrices with upper-left entry equal to 1. As a consequence, quantum computers can be built from NEGATOR gates and PHASOR gates. The NEGATOR is a 1-qubit circuit that is a natural generalization of the 1-bit NOT gate of classical computing. In contrast, the PHASOR is a 1-qubit circuit not related to classical computing.

References

  1. 1.
    Nielsen, M., Chuang, I.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fredkin, E., Toffoli, T.: Conservative logic. Int. J. Phys. 21, 219 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Vos A., Van Rentergem, Y.: From group theory to reversible computers. In: Adamatzky, A., Teuscher, C. (eds.) From Utopian to Genuine Unconventional Computers, pp 183-208. Luniver Press, Frome (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Vos, A.: Reversible Computing. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wille, R., Drechsler, R.: Towards a Design Flow for Reversible Logic. Springer, Dordrecht (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soeken, M., Wille, R., Keszöcze, O., Miller, M., Drechsler, R.: Embedding of large Boolean functions for reversible logic. ACM J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 12, 41 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: The decomposition of U(\(n\)) into XU(\(n\)) and ZU(\(n\)). J. Mult. Val. Log. Soft Comp. 26, 141 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: Matrix calculus for classical and quantum circuits. ACM J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 11, 9 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: On two subgroups of U(\(n\)), useful for quantum computing. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Colloquium on Group-theoretical Methods in Physics, Gent, 14–18 July 2014. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 597, 012030 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sasanian, Z., Miller, D.: Transforming MCT circuits to NCVW circuits. In: Proceedings of the 3 rd International Workshop on Reversible Computation, pp 163–174. Gent (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amy, M., Maslov, D., Mosca, M.: Polynomial-time \(T\)-depth optimization of Clifford\(+T\) circuits via matroid partitioning. In: IEEE Trans. on Comput-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 33, 1486 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selinger, P.: Efficient Clifford\(+T\) approximations of single-qubit operators. Quantum Inform. Comput. 15, 159 (2015)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deutsch, D.: Quantum computation. Phys. World 5, 57 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galindo, A., Martín-Delgado, M.: Information and computation: classical and quantum aspects. Rev. Moder. Phys. 74, 347 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Vos, A., De Beule, J., Storme, L.: Computing with the square root of NOT. Serdica J. Comput. 3, 359 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vandenbrande, S., Van Laer, R., De Vos, A.: The computational power of the square root of NOT. In: Proceedings of the 10 th Interntional Workshop on Boolean Problems, pp 257–262. Freiberg, 19-21 September 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: The NEGATOR as a basic building block for quantum circuits. Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 20, 1350004 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: Scaling a unitary matrix. Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. 21, 1450013 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Idel, M., Wolf, M.: Sinkhorn normal form for unitary matrices. Lin. Algeb. Appl. 471, 76 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beth, T., Rötteler, M.: Quantum algorithms: applicable algebra and quantum physics, In: Alber, G., Beth, T., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, R., Rötteler, M., Weinfurter, H., Werner, R., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum Information, pp 96–150. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barenco, A., Bennett, C., Cleve, R., DiVincenzo, D., Margolus, N., Shor, P., Sleator, T., Smolin, J., Weinfurter, H.: Elementary gates for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. A 52, 3457 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hermann, R.: Lie Groups for Physicists. Benjamin Inc., New York (1966)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bullock, S., Markov, I.: An arbitrary two-qubit computation in 23 elementary gates. Phys. Rev. A 68, 012318 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Vos, A., De Baerdemacker, S.: Symmetry groups for the decomposition of reversible computers, quantum computers, and computers in between. Symmetry 3, 305 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vakgroep elektronika en informatiesystemenUniversiteit GentGentBelgium
  2. 2.Vakgroep anorganische en fysische chemieUniversiteit GentGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations