2
$\begingroup$

In the introduction of Eastin and Knill's paper on the no-go Theorem for universal and transversal quantum gate sets, they assert that an error E can only be detected if PEP∝P, where P is the projection operator onto the logical subspace. Why is this true, and is there a nice intuitive reason for this to be the case (or at least a slick geometric proof)?

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

What the condition $PEP\propto P$ says is that the error, when projecting to the code space, does not change the quantum state of the code (up to an overall factor). To be more explicit, suppose $PEP=aP$. If $|\psi\rangle$ is a state in the code space (i.e. $P|{\psi}\rangle=|\psi\rangle$), then $E|\psi\rangle=PEP|\psi\rangle+(1-P)EP|\psi\rangle=a|\psi\rangle + (1-P)E|\psi\rangle$, where the second term $(1-P)E|\psi\rangle$ lives entirely outside the code space, which can be easily captured by measuring the projector and corrected.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ How is this consistent with, say, the surface code? A single X error takes us out of the code space, so $PEP=0$, but a single X error is certainly correctable. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ @JahanClaes $a$ can be $0$, that's the surface code example. $\endgroup$
    – Meng Cheng
    Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 3:34

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.