Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundle bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2022
    • (edited Oct 1st 2022)

    Am starting a write-up (here) of how (programming languages for) quantum circuits “with classical control and/by measurement” have a rather natural and elegant formulation within the linear homotopy type theory of Riley 2022.

    Aspects of this have a resemblance to some constructions considered in/with “Quipper”, but maybe it helps clarify some issues there, such as that of “dynamic lifting”.

    The entry is currently written without TOC and without Idea-section etc, but rather as a single top-level section that could be !include-ed into relevant entries (such as at quantum circuit and at dependent linear type theory). But for the moment I haven’t included it anywhere yet, and maybe I’ll eventually change my mind about it.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 3rd 2022

    added also the Kleisli map which is the “Bell state measurement”.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2022
    • (edited Nov 11th 2022)

    I have been preparing slides for a brief presentation of these ideas, tomorrow at QTML22.

    An early and incomplete version of the slides is now here.

    All comments are welcome. Hope to finalize these slides tomorrow morning.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2022

    Full-blow -> full-blown

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2022

    Thanks. Will fix this in a moment…

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2022

    On 77/112 you have product as left adjoint to context extension as left adjoint to coproduct. Surely the other way.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2022

    Thanks, I think I had spotted these and fixed. Hopefully. Latest version here. Going live now. Will fully polish up the overlay on the last slides later.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2022

    Oh, now I see which typo you meant. Luckily the organizers mixed up the time zone. Am fixing it now…

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2022

    Given the subsumption of traditional quantum information formalisms within dLHoTT, I wonder if there’s something to be done regarding categorical compositional distributional semantics. Seemed odd to me not to embrace that part of natural language which is evidently dependently typed.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2022

    I don’t expect that I’ll be digging into the claimed relation to natural language formalization anytime soon.

    On the dependent typing: The Oxford community has come ever so close to incorporating this, but maybe falling short (as far as I oversee the literature): Namely the category of (co)algebras over their “classical structures” Frobenius monad is that of dependent linear types, and the corresponding monadic functor is the dependent product-functor. That’s the way to recover dependent linear types if one didn’t start with them. Lem 5.61 in Heunen&Vicary’s book is beginning to see this, minus any monadic language.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2022

    Sounds interesting. Always good to see how something important may be recovered naturally.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2022

    Sounds interesting.

    We have been talking about it, meanwhile it’s recorded as this Prop. at quantum reader monad.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2022

    Oh, I see. Yes.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2022

    starting a section (here) which develops the actual programming (pseudo-)code for quantum circuits which is obtained by using the various monadic effects constructed in dLTT as discussed in the previous sections.

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2022

    I have added a fair bit of detail to the section “Quantum Programming Language” (here):

    First a fairly comprehensive declaration of the (pseudo-)code sugaring of modal dependent linear TT that makes it a quantum programming language,

    then followed by more examples (more basic examples and then the quantum bit flip code in addition the the teleportation protocol).

    diff, v38, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2023

    There’s a typo inside a diagram, so one I can’t fix.

    In the diagram numbered (3), there’s B\circ_B \mathcal{H} which should be B𝒦\circ_B \mathcal{K}, above “read state”.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2023

    Thanks! Fixed now (here).

    This is timely: With Topological Quantum Gates in HoTT done, now I just have to get two referee reports out of the way, and then to finally pick up the story of quantum programming in linear HoTT here.

    diff, v45, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2023

    I’m looking forward to discussing this passage in QS

    Besides these technical properties, the logical language QS is curiously satisfying on quantum-philosophical grounds: For example, the internal language-construct in QS for quantum measurement via the modal logic of necessity is verbatim the same as for classical measurement, only now applied to (dependent) linear types where it happens to imply the collapse of the wavefunction in the categorical semantics. But in the internal logic this effect is just standard conditioning of expectations. In this sense the notorious “measurement problem” of quantum physics disappears when we speak proper QS. (This is analogous to what happens internal to proper quantum probability theory, see there.) Moreover, the deferred measurement principle verified in QS implies that even this collapse of the wavefunction in subsystems may be arbitrarily postponed, by observers who have access to the system at large (the “bath”).

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2023

    What else to say, though? :-)

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2023

    I’ve picked up enough from you of the ’let the maths do the talking’ idea to end a recent article with

    Perhaps the answer to Friedman’s puzzle as to why quantum physics wasn’t integrated into philosophy properly is simply that neither the mathematics nor logic were ready.

    Still, there’s the work to be done (which you are doing) “translating” the formalism into a precise natural language, as with the Gell-Man principle, “The possible is necessary and hence actualized”.

    Then I’m also wondering if this rapprochement between the quantum and classical can be related to that pointed to by Catren and Anel in New Spaces in Physics:

    It could even be argued that symplectic geometry opened the path to the comprehension of quantum mechanics as a continuous extension of classical mechanics and no longer as a sort of “new paradigm” discontinuously separated from the classical one

    (something about category-theoretic ’points’ being Lagrangian submanifolds) which chimes with things we once discussed about the prequantum present in classical physics.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2023
    • (edited Feb 28th 2023)

    That quote (“It could even be argued…”, cf. GoogleBooks) starts our reminding me of the “geometrical formulation of quantum mechanics” (really: “symplectic formulation”), but it ends apparently referring to geometric quantization, which is more about “deforming” or “prequantizing” the symplectic structure to something that is no longer (just) a symplectic structure.

    I would then go a little further and observe that symplectic structure, in turn, is just a shadow of (prequantum) line bundles and that the real point here is that quantization in broad generality is about forming spaces of sections of higher line bundles.

    One cool thing I want to write up my scattered notes on is how Hilbert space structure arises from this abstract perspective: Remarkably, it’s when the “higher lines” are KR-lines that hermitian inner product structure appears on the corresponding quantum states. This is one of those things that sound completely outlandish once you look at it and see that it follows by elementary inspection.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2023

    Does linear HoTT pick up anything of what you say in #21? There was that idea of a “symplectic semantics” for (a fragment of) linear logic.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2023
    • (edited Mar 2nd 2023)

    I’d say this is what “Quantization via Linear Homotopy Types” was all about:

    To recall, with Joost Nuiten I had cleaned up the cohomological formulation of geometric quantization (later sec 5.2 in his thesis, pp. 104) to the extent that it could be formulated as the categorical semantics of what ought to be a construction in linear homotopy type theory (LHoTT) — the latter being the “integral transform” in LHoTT (Def. 4.18, p. 53) that “Quantization via Linear Homotopy Types” revolves around (I guess it revolves so much that people lose sight of the pivot of the revolution… In another life I would rewrite it more concisely to the point).

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2023

    In another life …

    I’d have convinced the philosophy establishment that this is very much what they should be interested in, and have them fund me to explain it to them. From the recent online conference I attended, ’The Heuristic View: Logic, Mathematics, and Science’, the message hasn’t even got through that category can be useful in producing new maths!

    Oh yes, Remark 4.21. That’s great.

    By the way, if you ever revise the article, I picked up three typos on p. 52

    VMod(V) V \in Mod(V); A 1:= i 1(i 2) *A 1A_1 := \sum_{i_1} (i_2)^{\ast}A_1, and more generally in Example 4.15, A 1A_1 and A 2A_2 mixed up; a bite more

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2023

    Perhaps an obvious point, but in the nonlinear case, base change for b:1Bb: 1 \to B,

    b *:H/BHb^{\ast}: \mathbf{H}/B \to \mathbf{H}

    is projecting out the bb-fibre, so that composing with its right adjoint gives a monad on H/B\mathbf{H}/B which maintains the bb-fibre and collapses the rest to *\ast. So like a nonlinear version of quantum measurement.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2023
    • (edited Jul 12th 2023)

    Let me suggest that one may think of this as “inspecting what is the case in world bb”.

    Something similar is used for repeat-until-success computing, where a computation is valid (operated as intended) only if some ancillary qbit is afterwards found to have collapsed to a fixed bBitb \in Bit. The usual idea is that if not, then one goes back (by “uncomputing”) and repeats the computation, until one finds oneself in a world where the flag qbit did collapse to bb.

    But in a more rudimentary form of this computing paradigm, one could do a single run and if it fails just accept failure and throw an exception, of sorts, by setting the quantum state to 0 (not a unitary process, of course). That would be the monadic effect you describe: If you find yourself in world bb then keep the result, in all other worlds flag failure by setting the state to zero.

    (Incidentally, I have a tentative note on a monad that expresses actual repeat-until-success computing: but it’s a little subtle since it invokes a fixed-point-operation to produce the infinite tree of possible worlds of all possible repeat-until-success scenarios. I could share this privately, if you are interested.)

    But I see the point that with all the attention spent on base change along B*B \longrightarrow \ast, one should, if only for some kind of symmetry, discuss also the situation of base change along *B\ast \longrightarrow B. Something to think about more.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2023

    Thanks.

    I could share this privately, if you are interested.

    Yes, that sounds interesting.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2023

    Okay, have sent it.

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 6th 2023

    added improved account (here) of the modal/effectful typing of (controlled) quantum (measurement) gates

    diff, v47, current

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2023
    • (edited Aug 16th 2023)

    [deleted, sorry for the noise]

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2023

    Is there any way in which thinking of linear HoTT as a universal quantum certification language could give rise to a novel idea in parameterized stable homotopy theory?

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2023
    • (edited Sep 29th 2023)

    That’s what I expect.

    As a first example you might count the new model for parameterized H𝕂H\mathbb{K}-module spectra from the EoS article, which was found by pushing this perspective.

    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2023

    It would be fun if the language of quantum information theory (quantum channels, etc.) got transferred over into pure mathematics.

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2023
    • (edited Sep 29th 2023)

    But quantum channels have their very origin in pure mathematics! (Stinespring 1955, Arveson 1969), and quantum information/probability has been quite the subject of pure mathematics since the last decades, just as information/probability theory is. It’s a well-matured subject in pure math, with stable definitions and people busy proving theorems.

    Incidentally, this thread here does not touch on quantum channels. That’s instead the topic of quantum state monad, which gives a first glimpse of a linear modal perspective on quantum information – maybe that’s what you have in mind. This is the (now regrettably slowly evolving) content of section 4.3 in the draft.

    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2023

    I was imagining an influx via LHoTT of quantum informational terms via synthetic parameterized homotopy theory to parameterized spectra, but maybe the latter has all the concepts it needs.

    • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2023
    • (edited Sep 29th 2023)

    It’s not easy to know what you mean to say if you conflate “pure mathematics” with “parameterized spectra”!? ;-)

    But if you look at quantum state monad or that section 4.3, you see that quantum channels get identified with transformations (morphisms) between linear (co)state (co)monads. This concept of monad transformations has not been put to much use in homotopy theory before. So this indeed suggests that there may be room to enrich the theory of parameterized spectra by some new perspective.

    But this is idle speculation at this point. First to actually fully nail down the monadic formulation of quantum channels, then we’ll see where to go from there. The next step will drop at quantum state monad in 5 minutes…

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2023

    We finally have a polished and essentially finalized version of the monadic sub-aspect of the project, now called:

    \,

    The Quantum Monadology (pdf behind this link)

    Abstract. The modern theory of functional programming languages commonly uses monads for encoding computational side-effects and side-contexts beyond bare-bone program logic. Even though quantum computing is intrinsically side-effectful (as in quantum measurement) and context-dependent (as on mixed ancillary states) little of this monadic paradigm has previously been brought to bear on quantum programming languages (the two exceptions being Altenkirch \& Green’s “Quantum IO monad” and Coecke et al.’s “classical structures” Frobenius monad).

    In this paper, we analyzse the system of (co)monads on categories of parameterized spectra – for the present purpose specialized to set-indexed complex vector spaces – which arise from Grothendieck’s “motivic yoga of operations” given by pushing foward and pulling back over maps. Interpreting an indexed vector space as a collection of alternative possible quantum state spaces parameterized by quantum measurement results, we find that these (co)monads provide a natural and expressive language for functional quantum programming.

    We close by indicating a domain-specific quantum programming language (QS) embeddable into the recently constructed linear homotopy type theory (LHoTT) which naturally expresses these monadic quantum effects in transparent do-notation. Once embedded into LHoTT, this should make for formally verifiable universal quantum programming with classical control, dynamic lifting and topological effects (discussed in the companion article [TQP]).

    • CommentRowNumber38.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2023

    What happens then to ’QS: Quantum Programming via Linear Homotopy Types’? Is it to be a book in which Quantum Monadology forms a part?

    • CommentRowNumber39.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 12th 2023

    Yes. The “quantum monadology” is just a sub-selection of sections of the big file equipped with a new title page (and some mild adjustment of cross-references, where necessary).

    We’ll split off further bits in a similar manner, but keep it all unified as a book, eventually.

    • CommentRowNumber40.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2023

    Morning thought: I wonder if quantumly recapitulating further steps of the path we took with classical modalities might be interesting. So from W*W \to \ast (all worlds accessible), we looked at the relative version, WVW \twoheadrightarrow V, to capture equivalence classes of accessible possible worlds.

    Then we looked at a temporal type theory via T 1T 0T_1 \rightrightarrows T_0, time intervals projecting onto their ends, generating the four temporal logic operators.

    Finally, we had the thought that any span ACBA \leftarrow C \to B generates two pairs of adjoint operators, operating between types depending on AA and types depending on BB. It turned out that this is what the authors are using in

    • Brendan Fong, David Jaz Myers, David I. Spivak, Behavioral Mereology: A Modal Logic for Passing Constraints [arXiv:2101.10490].

    Here, when you have a system and two parts of that system, properties of the state of the first may dictate or allow properties of the state of the second. E.g., my left hand being in contact with this table necessitates that my right hand is in this room, and it allows that my right hand touches the bed.

    Is there any value in the quantum version of this? The most direct analogue of Fong et al. would seem to be operators acting on properties of the Hilbert spaces of subsystems. But in Quantum Monadology we’re looking for linear dependency over non-linear sets of measurement values.

    Hmm, could there be something where a quantum system has two different sets of measurement values, corresponding to different operators, and then one passes between corresponding dependent Hilbert spaces?

    • CommentRowNumber41.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2023

    Morning thought:

    Hm, which time zone are you in. Somewhere in Asia?

    In quantum systems, we are certainly interested in different measurement bases. For instance the ZX-calculus derives its name from the fact that it models QBit measurements in the “X-basis” and the “Z-basis”.

    • CommentRowNumber42.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2023

    Somewhere in Asia?

    Yes, my son got married in Singapore, and we extended the trip for a few days to Malaysia.

    In quantum systems, we are certainly interested in different measurement bases.

    Of course, famously giving rise to the uncertainty principle for position and momentum measurements. But then if the span is XX×ZZX \leftarrow X \times Z \to Z, say, for finite sets of measurement outcomes, the ’modalities’ would just be basis change operators, no?

    I was led to the morning thought by the ideas of the free energy principle program which looks to understand self-sustaining entities in terms of the Markov blankets that screen them off from their environment. There’s a quantum version of this (discussed in that paper I sent to you some days back, perhaps this one: A free energy principle for generic quantum systems) which looks at quantum systems which may be decomposed as two weakly-interacting systems interacting through their shared boundary. Maybe more like the Fong et al. situation.

    • CommentRowNumber43.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2023

    Best wishes to your son!

    Regarding the modalities: There would probably be more to say on such interactions, but right now I can’t help with any particular insight along the lines you seem to have in mind.

    Just to point out that non-isomorphic measurement bases on a single Hilbert \mathscr{H} space won’t be reflected in maps of the underlying basis sets. Instead, for a single abstract basis set BB (characterized just by its cardinality, such as card(B)=2card(B) = 2 in the QBit case) its comes from two distinct linear isomorphisms [B]\mathscr{H} \overset{\sim}{\to} \mathbb{C}[B].