2
$\begingroup$

I've come across this problem in Nielsen & Chuang's Quantum Information book (problem 2.64)

Suppose Bob is given a quantum state chosen from a set $|ψ_1 \rangle, . . . , |ψ_m\rangle$ of linearly independent states. Construct a POVM $\{E_1, E_2, . . ., E_{m+1}\}$ such that if outcome $E_i$ occurs, $1 ≤ i ≤ m$, then Bob knows with certainty that he was given the state $|ψ_i\rangle$. (The POVM must be such that $\langle ψ_i|E_i|ψ_i \rangle > 0$ for each $i$.)

This is my proposed solution:

Denote by $|\phi_i\rangle$ the (unique? I guess it doesn't matter) vector orthogonal to the subspace spanned by $\{ | \psi_j \rangle \}_{j \neq i}$ and define

$$E_i = \sum_{i\neq j} | \phi_j \rangle \langle\phi_j |$$

Then $\langle \psi_j | E_i | \psi_j\rangle = 0$ by construction, and $\langle \psi_i | E_i | \psi_i\rangle > 0$. The last operator is defined to satisfy completeness:

$$E_{m+1} = \mathbb{I} - \sum_{j=1}^m E_j.$$

So, when get gets outcome $i$, he knows it can't have been any of the other $\psi_j$'s, so it must have been $\psi_i$ for sure. If he gets outcome $m+1$, he doesn't know anything. Is this correct?

What happens if now we introduce another vector to the set: $\psi \rangle = a |ψ_1 \rangle + b |ψ_2 \rangle$, i.e. drop the linear independence condition (just on a simple example here). How would that affect the $E_j$'s, is it still possible to construct a POVM like that?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

A crucial hypothesis is missed in your construction.

Each $\phi_i$ must also satisfy $\phi_i \not \perp \psi_i$, otherwise $\langle \psi_i |E_i \psi_i\rangle >0$ is false.

This point provides an answer to your last question as well.

If $\psi$ is an added further vector, linearly dependent on the vectors $\psi_i$, the construction you made cannot be re-proposed as the constraint I pointed out cannot be satisfied. Indeed, even if the correspondingly added normalized vector $\phi$ is orthogonal to all $\psi_i$, it is (evidently) impossible that $\phi \not \perp \psi = \sum_{i=1}^n c_i \psi_i$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So how do I guarantee that $\phi_i \not \perp \psi_i$ in my construction? I thought this was always the case - I was visualizing the situation as a plane in 3D space (subspace spanned by $i \neq j$) and a perpendicular vector to it ($\phi_i$). This vector can never be itself perpendicular to any other vector that's not contained inside the plane. I thought this generalized to the case of a $m-1$ dimensional subspace of an $m$ dim. space? $\endgroup$ – Spine Feast May 1 '16 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ Suppose that the space has $m+q$ dimensions with $q>0$ (as you generally assume when supposing that $E_{m+1}\neq 0$). In this case there necessarily exist a vector $\phi$ which is simultaneously orthogonal to the space spanned by all the $m$ vectors $\psi_i$, thus it is orthogonal to all every $\psi_i$ with $i=1,\ldots, m$. It happens even if they are linearly independent. Therefore it is not always the case and you should pick out the $\phi_i$ imposing also the hypothesis I pointed out. It is always possible. However it is not possible, if the $\psi_i$ are not linearly independent. $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti May 1 '16 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ But in this construction, the space has dimension $m$ and all of these subspaces are $m-1$ dimensional, so I don't see how this applies here. $\endgroup$ – Spine Feast May 1 '16 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ Are you saying that you also assume that the space has dimension $m$ from scratch? $\endgroup$ – Valter Moretti May 1 '16 at 13:35
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that I was indeed assuming that, and for no reason. The question doesn't mention the dimensionality of space at all (though presumably it should be finite-dimensional)... now I understand your point $\endgroup$ – Spine Feast May 1 '16 at 13:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.