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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: quantum information theory via dagger-compact categories

Bottom of Page

1 to 9 of 9

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2012
    • (edited Oct 11th 2012)

    the entry that used to be titled quantum mechanics in terms of dagger-compact categories I have renamed into finite quantum mechanics in terms of dagger-compact categories (with a “finite” up front) and I have added to the first sentence the qualifier “finite” and “finite-dimensional” a bunch of times.

    I am currently at “Quantum Physics and Logic 2012” in Brussels, and every second speaker advertizes the formalism of what they call “categorical quantum theory”. It’s all fine for the majority of the audience which is all into quantum information theory, where one is only interested in shuffling a finite bunch of qbits around, but it is rather misleading from an ordinary perspective on quantum physics. Already the particle on the line is not a finite quantum system.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 27th 2013
    • (edited Dec 27th 2013)

    Added to finite quantum mechanics in terms of dagger-compact categories a brief paragraph titled “quantum logic” reading as follows:

    Symmetric monoidal categories such as †-compact categories have as internal logic a fragment of linear logic and as type theory a flavor of linear type theory. In this fashion everything that can be formally said about quantum mechanics in terms of †-compact categories has an equivalent expression in formal logic/type theory. It has been argued (Abramsky-Duncan 05, Duncan 06) that this linear logic/linear type theory of quantum mechanics is the correct formalization of “quantum logic”. An exposition of this point of view is in (Baez-Stay 09).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2022

    added publication data for:

    diff, v29, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2022
    • (edited Nov 7th 2022)

    I have added this pointer:

    But I think I will now make a separate page for the list of references here and then re!include that here…

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2022

    have renamed the entry from “finite quantum mechanics via…” (which is both non-standard and ambiguous) to “quantum information theory via…”

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2022

    have re-named once more, now replacing “…in terms of…” by the shorter “…via…”

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2022

    Seems odd how the word ’finite’ drops out between the first and second sentences. Does something here rely on the ability to recapture finite-dimensional spaces from Hilb?

    In Hilb, an object has a dagger dual if and only if it is finite-dimensional. Because monoidal dagger functors preserve dagger dual objects [12, Theorem 3.14], it follows from Theorem 10 that the finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces can be categorically axiomatised within C\mathbf{C} as the dagger dual objects

    from their characterization of Hilb:

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2022

    Probably you are referring to the first paragraph of the entry’s Idea section here?

    Looking at this now, I have reworded a little for clarity. But this is ancient material which might deserve being re-written from scratch.

    diff, v37, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2022

    OK, right. It was just a simple mistake, Hilb where it should have been FinHilb.

1 to 9 of 9

  1.