3
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to relate some notions of set theory to POVMs. I firstly explain the scenario with set theory and then in the POVM setting.

For some finite $N \in \mathbb{N}$, let $A_i$ and $B_i$ for $i=1,...,N$ be sets and assume there is some larger set $C$ such that $A_i\subset C, B_i\subset C$ for all $i$. Let's say for $J=\{1,...,N/2\}$ (just take $N$ even), I'd like to compute $$ \left(\bigcup_{i\in J} A_i\times B_i\right)^c.$$

By De Morgan's laws we can write, $$\left(\bigcup_{i\in J} A_i\times B_i \right)^c = \bigcap_{i\in J} (A_i\times B_i)^c = \bigcap_{i\in J} A_i^c\times B_i \cup A_i\times B_i^c \cup A_i^c \times B_i^c$$

Now I'd like to do something similar for POVMs. Let's say I have two POVMs, $A = \{A_1,...,A_N \}$ and $B=\{B_1,...,B_N\}$.

For either POVM, I think it's clear how to define a complement for a subset. For example, if I want the complement of $\{A_2, A_3\}$, then I can do $\mathbb{1} - A_2 - A_3$. My interpretation is, $\mathbb{1} - A_2 - A_3$ encompasses all events except $A_2$ or $A_3$. Now I want to define a (or be given a known) complement for a joint measurement.

Let's again say I have some $J = \{1, ..., N/2\}$ and I want to determine the complement of the sum joint measurements indexed over $J$. That is, I want somehow to define

$$\left(\sum_{i\in J}A_i \otimes B_i\right)^c$$

My first thought was to have

$$\left(\sum_{i\in J}A_i \otimes B_i\right)^c = \mathbb{1} - \sum_{i\in J}A_i \otimes B_i$$

But this only encompasses the analog of $\bigcup_{i \in J} A_i^c \times B_i^c$ and misses the analogs of $A_i^c \times B_i$ and $A_i\times B_i^c$.

Then I thought, in a De Morgan sense

$$\left(\sum_{i\in J}A_i \otimes B_i\right)^c = \prod_{i\in J} (A_i \otimes B_i)^c = \prod_{i\in J} (\mathbb{1} - A_i)\otimes B_i + A_i \otimes (\mathbb{1}-B_i) + (\mathbb{1} - A_i)\otimes (\mathbb{1}-B_i)$$

This I think is logical, but I've not yet convinced myself that it's true. Has anyone had a similar scenario?

Thanks for your time and sorry if the question isn't clear.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ If you don't get any answers here, you may want to try e.g. Mathematics or Math Overflow $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 18:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I should have clarified that if you don't get any answers on this site in a couple days, try either of those. Generally speaking, cross posting your questions on multiple sites is looked upon as a bad thing. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ I see. I deleted the post I made on the math forum. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ I've come to the conclusion that the definition of the complement as I've written doesn't make sense for POVMs. It assumes that the product of two elements is a simultaneous event which is false. What I found is, because I'm dealing with probabilities and for me this was a "fail" event, I just switch my notion to 1 - "success" and I don't have to use any complements. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 12, 2018 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ if you believe that answers your question, you are allowed (and is often encouraged) to write your own answer :) $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Mar 12, 2018 at 12:01

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I've come to the conclusion that the definition of the complement as I've written doesn't make sense for POVMs. It assumes that the product of two elements is a simultaneous event which is false. What I found is, because I'm dealing with probabilities and for me this was a "fail" event, I just switch my notion to 1 - "success" and I don't have to use any complements

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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