Nielsen, Chuang - QCQI Chapter 2

Rourke Sekelsky

1 Exercises
2.1 The vectors (1, −1), (1, 2), and (2, 1) are linearly dependent because we can write (1, −1) + (1, 2) − (2, 1) = 0.
2.2 Let V be a vector space with a basis B = {|0i , |1i}, and A is a linear operator defined on V such that A |0i = |1i and
A |1i = |0i. Note that A |v1 i = |v2 i and A |v2 i = |v1 i. The matrix representation of A relative to B is given by
 
X 0 1
A |vj i = Aij |vi i =⇒ [A]B = .
1 0
i

Consider the new basis B 0 :  

0 1 1
B = √ (|0i + |1i), √ (|0i − |1i) .
2 2
Then
1 1 1 1
A |v1 i = √ (A |0i + A |1i) = √ (|1i + |0i) = |v1 i , A |v2 i = √ (A |0i − A |1i) = √ (|1i − |0i) = − |v2 i .
2 2 2 2
The matrix representation of A relative to B 0 is thus
 
1 0
[A]B 0 = .
0 −1

2.3 Let A : V 7→ W and B : W 7→ X be linear operators between vector spaces, where |vi i, |wi i, and |xi i are basis vectors
for their respective spaces. The matrix representation of BA : V 7→ X can be constructed from the individual matrix
representations of A and B. By definition:
X X X
A |vj i = Aij |wi i , B |wk i = Blk |xl i , BA |vj i = (BA)ij |xi i .
i l i
! ! !
X X X X X X
BA |vj i = B Aij |wi i = Aij B |wi i = Aij Bli |xl i = Bli Aij |xl i .
i i i l l i

This sum in parentheses is the product of the matrix representations of B and A, denoted by (BA)lj . Comparing to
the definition of BA |vj i, we see that the matrix representation of BA is the product of matrix representations of B
and A.
2.4 The identity operator I on a vector space V with basis vectors |vi i acts as I |vi i = |vi i, and since
X
I |vj i = Iij |vi i = |vj i ,
i

it’s evident that Iij = δij . Then the matrix representation of I with respect to a single basis is 1 along the diagonal
(where i = j) and zero everywhere else.
2.5 Define the inner product on CN as X
((y1 , ..., yn ), (z1 , ..., zn )) = yi∗ zi .
i

To verify this is an inner product, we need to check the three conditions:

(1) Linear in the second argument:
! !  
X X X X X X
(y1 , ..., yn ), λi (z1 , ..., zn )i = yj∗ λi zji = λi  yj∗ zji  = λi ((y1 , ..., yn ), (z1 , ..., zn )i ).
i j i i j i

1
 (2) (|vi , |wi) = (|wi , |vi)∗ :
!∗
X X
((y1 , ..., yn ), (z1 , ..., zn )) = yi∗ zi = zi∗ yi = ((z1 , ..., zn ), (y1 , ..., yn ))∗ .
i i

(3) (|vi , |vi) ≥ 0 with equality iff |vi = 0:

X X
((y1 , ..., yn ), (y1 , ..., yn )) = yi∗ yi = |yi |2 .
i i

Since |yi | is a positive real number, it’s clear this sum is greater than zero, unless each |yi | = 0. In that case we require
yi = 0 for every i, so (y1 , ..., yn ) = (0, ..., 0) = 0.
Since these three conditions hold, our definition of (·, ·) is an inner product.
2.6 Using its first two conditions, we can show that the inner product (·, ·) is conjugate-linear in the first argument:
! !∗
X X X X
λi |wi i , |vi = |vi , λi |wi i = λ∗i (|vi , |wi i)∗ = λ∗i (|wi i , |vi).
i i i i

2.7 The vectors |wi = (1, 1) and |vi = (1, −1) are orthogonal:
 

1
hw|vi = 1 1 = 0.
−1

The normalized forms of |wi and |vi are found from dividing the respective vector by its norm:
s s
√ √
   
p
1 p
1
|| |wi || = hw|wi = 1 1 = 2, || |vi || = hv|vi = 1 −1 = 2.
1 −1

|wi 1 |vi 1
= √ (1, 1), = √ (1, −1).
|| |wi || 2 || |vi || 2
2.8 We prove the Gram-Schmidt procedure produces an orthonormal basis for a vector space V through induction. For the
base case, consider |v1 i = |w1 i /|| |w1 i ||, where |wi i is some basis set for V . The condition of orthogonality trivially
holds in the case of a single vector, and |v1 i is a unit vector, so it’s trivially orthonormal.
Suppose the procedure generates k orthonormal vectors |vi i. For the induction step, we need to show that the (k + 1)th
vector |vk+1 i is also orthonormal to the |vi is:
Pk Pk
|wk+1 i − i=1 hvi |wk+1 i |vi i hvj |wk+1 i − i=1 hvi |wk+1 i hvj |vi i
|vk+1 i = Pk =⇒ hvj |vk+1 i = Pk .
|| |wk+1 i − i=1 hvi |wk+1 i |vi i || || |wk+1 i − i=1 hvi |wk+1 i |vi i ||

Since all the |vi is are orthonormal to each other for i = 1, ..., k, we know hvj |vi i = δij . In the case i = j, we obtain

hvj |wk+1 i − hvj |wk+1 i

hvj |vk+1 i = Pk = 0.
|| |wk+1 i − i=1 hvi |wk+1 i |vi i ||

Thus we see that this new |vk+1 i is orthogonal to all the prior |vi is, and it’s obvious that |vk+1 i is a unit vector by
construction, so the |vi is are orthonormal for i = 1, ..., k + 1. This proves the desired result.
P
2.9 We can express the Pauli matrices in outer product notation if we apply σ = ij hvj |σ|vi i |vj i hvi |:

0 1
σ0 = =⇒ σ0 |0i = |0i , σ0 |1i = |1i =⇒ σ0 = |0i h0| + |1i h1| .
1 0
 
0 1
σ1 = =⇒ σ1 |0i = |1i , σ1 |1i = |0i =⇒ σ1 = |1i h0| + |0i h1| .
1 0
 
0 −i
σ2 = =⇒ σ2 |0i = i |1i , σ2 |1i = −i |0i =⇒ σ2 = i |1i h0| − i |0i h1| .
i 0
 
1 0
σ3 = =⇒ σ3 |0i = |0i , σ3 |1i = − |1i =⇒ σ3 = |0i h0| − |1i h1| .
0 −1

2
2.10 Consider the operator |vj i hvk |, where |vi i is an orthonormal basis for the vector space V . This operator acts as
|vi i 7→ |vj i hvk |vi i = δik |vj i, so it sends |vk i 7→ |vj i and all other |vi i 7→ 0. The matrix representation of this operator
relative to |vi i is thus a 1 in the kth column and jth row (or the (j, k)th position) and zero everywhere else.
2.11 We find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Pauli matrices using the characteristic equation:
 
−λ 1
c(λ)X = det(X − λI) = det = λ2 − 1 = 0 =⇒ λ = ±1.
1 −λ
        
0 1 v1 v 1 1 1 1
X |vi i = λi |vi i =⇒ =± 1 =⇒ |v+ i = √ , |v− i = √ .
1 0 v2 v2 2 1 2 −1
√
The leading 1/ 2 is included to make the eigenvectors orthonormal. This provides us with a diagonal representation
of X = |v+ i hv+ | − |v− i hv− |.
 
−λ −i
c(λ)Y = det(Y − λI) = det = λ2 − 1 = 0 =⇒ λ = ±1.
i −λ
        
0 −i v1 v 1 1 1 1
Y |vi i = λi |vi i =⇒ =± 1 =⇒ |v+ i = √ , |v− i = √ .
i 0 v2 v2 2 i 2 −i
We obtain the same diagonal representation Y = |v+ i hv+ | − |v− i hv− |, although the vectors |v± i are different.
 
1−λ 0
c(λ)Z = det(Z − λI) = det = λ2 − 1 = 0 =⇒ λ = ±1.
0 −1 − λ
    
1 0 v1 v
Z |v+ i = λ |v+ i =⇒ =± 1 =⇒ |v+ i = |0i , |v− i = |1i .
0 −1 v2 v2
This gives the diagonal representation Z = |0i h0| − |1i h1|.
2.12 We first find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this matrix:
   
1 0 1−λ 0
A= =⇒ c(λ) = det(A − λI) = det = (1 − λ)2 = 0 =⇒ λ = 1.
1 1 1 1−λ

There’s only one eigenvalue, so for this matrix to be diagonalizable it will need two degenerate eigenvectors.
      
1 0 v1 v1 0
A |vi i = λ |vi i =⇒ = =⇒ |vi i = .
1 1 v2 v2 v2

This is the only allowable form for an eigenvector |vi i, and we can see that all the |vi i will be linearly dependent. Thus
A does not have a diagonal representation, and is not diagonalizable.
2.13 Since (|xi , A |yi) = (A† |xi , |yi), we can apply this to the operator A = |wi hv|:

(|xi , A |yi) = (|xi , |wi hv|yi) = (|vi , |yi)(|xi , |wi).

We can see that letting A† = |vi hw| satifies this equality:

(A† |xi , |yi) = (hw|xi |vi , |yi) = (|wi , |xi)∗ (|vi , |yi) = (|xi , |wi)(|vi , |yi).

Here we used the linearity in the second entry of the inner product.

2.14 Now let our operator A be a linear combination of operators Ai , where (|xi , Ai |yi) = (A†i |xi , |yi):

ai (A†i |xi , |yi).

X X X
A= ai Ai =⇒ (|xi , A |yi) = ai (|xi , Ai |yi) =
i i i

Utilizing the conjugate condition on the inner product:

!∗ !
ai (|yi , A†i a∗i A†i a∗i A†i
X X X
∗
(|xi , A |yi) = |xi) = |yi , |xi = |xi , |yi .
i i i

We see that this will satisfy the adjoint condition if A† = a∗i A†i . That is, the adjoint is anti-linear.
P
i

3
2.15 The operator A satisfies
(|xi , A |yi) = (A† |xi , |yi), (|xi , A† |yi) = ((A† )† |xi), |yi).
From here we can see
(|xi , A† |yi) = (A† |yi , |xi)∗ = (|yi , A |xi)∗ = (A |xi , |yi).
Comparing to the second equation we wrote, it’s clear that (A† )† = A.
2.16 Since the |ii form an orthonormal basis for the space, we know hi|ji = δij :

k
!2 k k k
X X X X
2
P = |ii hi| = |ii hi|ji hj| = δij |ii hj| = |ii hi| = P.
i=1 i,j i,j i=1

Thus P 2 = P .

2.17 Let M be a normal matrix acting on a space V . Through spectral decomposition M is diagonalizable with respect to
some orthonormal basis for V . Then M has a diagonal representation where M T = M and (M ∗ )T = M ∗ .
Suppose M is Hermitian, so M † = (M ∗ )T = M . Since we know (M ∗ )T = M ∗ , it must be that M ∗ = M , and M has
real eigenvalues.

2.18 Let |vi be an eigenvector of a unitary operator U with eigenvalue v. Then hv|vi = hv|U † U |vi = v ∗ v hv|vi = |v|2 hv|vi,
since U † U = I. This tells us that |v|2 = 1, or |v| = 1, and thus any eigenvalue of a unitary operator U has modulus 1.
2.19 If a matrix σ is Hermitian, it’s also unitary if σ 2 = I. We can see the Pauli matrices are both Hermitian and unitary:
     
0 1 0 1 1 0
σx = , σx† = , σx2 = .
1 0 1 0 0 1
     
0 −i 0 −i 1 0
σy = , σy† = , σy2 = .
i 0 i 0 0 1
     
1 0 1 0 1 0
σz = , σz† = , 2
σz = .
0 −1 0 −1 0 1

2.20 Let A0ij = hvi |A|vj i and A00ij = hwi |A|wj i. By inserting the identity matrix, we have
X X
A00ij = hwi |IAI|wj i = hwi |vk i hvk |A|vl i hvl |wj i = hwi |vk i A0kl hvl |wj i .
k,l k,l

∗ P
Note that hwj |vi i =P
hvi |wj i . Let U = i |wi i hvi | be the matrix that transforms |vi i coordinates into |wi i coordinates.
Note that U |vi i = k |wk i hvk |vi i = |wi i, so in |vi i coordinates we have Uij = hvi |U |vj i = hvi |wj i. U is also unitary
by construction. X X †
A00ij = ∗ 0
Uki Akl Ulj = Uik A0kl Ulj =⇒ A00 = U † AU.
k,l k,l
00 0
We see that A and A are related by this matrix multiplication with U .

2.21 Let M be a Hermitian matrix on a vector space V . We can prove that M is diagonalizable with respect to some
orthonormal basis for V by induction on the dimension d of V .
For d = 1 M is trivially diagonalizable.
Suppose d = k − 1. Let λ be an eigenvalue of M , P the projector onto the λ eigenspace, and Q the projector onto the
orthogonal complement. Then we can write M = (P + Q)M (P + Q) = P M P + P M Q + QM P + QM Q. We know
P M P = λP . Also, QM P = 0 because M takes the subspace P into itself, and since all three operators are Hermitian,
we know (QM P )† = P M Q = 0 as well. Thus M = λP + QM Q. We know that QM Q is Hermitian, since both M and
Q are Hermitian. Thus M is the sum of two matrices that are already diagonal with respect to orthonormal bases for
subspaces with dimension di < k, and thus M is diagonalizable with respect to some orthonormal basis for the entire
space V .

2.22 Let H |vi = v |vi and H |wi = w |wi, where H is some Hermitian operator, and v 6= w. Consider that hv|Hwi = w hv|wi,
but also hv|Hwi = hH † v|wi = v hv|wi. Then we have w hv|wi = v hv|wi, and since w 6= v the only possibility is for
hv|wi = 0. Thus eigenvectors of a Hermitian operator with distinct eigenvalues must be orthogonal.

4
2.23 Let V be a vector space with orthonormal basis |1i , ..., |di and W a subspace of V with orthonormal basis |1i , ..., |ki.
Pd Pk
Any vector |vi ∈ V can be written as |vi = i=1 ci |ii. The projector onto the space W is given by P = i=1 |ii hi|,
so any eigenvector |vi of P satisfies the condition
k X
X d d
X
P |vi = v |vi =⇒ cj hi|ji |ii = v ci |ii .
i=1 j=1 i=1

The basis |ii is orthonormal, so each of the terms with j > k will become zero:
k
X k
X d
X
P |vi = ci |ii =⇒ ci |ii = v ci |ii .
i=1 i=1 i=1

The difference between the summation indices gives us two cases for eigenvectors. Either |vi ∈ W , in which case ci = 0
for i > k, and our eigenvalue v = 1. Or, |vi ∈ W⊥ and ci = 0 for i ≤ k, and then v = 0. Any other collection of ci do
not produce an eigenvector. Thus the only eigenvalues of projectors are 0 or 1.
2.24 Let A be a positive operator. That is, hv|Avi ≥ 0 for all |vi. First, note that any arbitrary operator A can be written
as A = B + iC, where B and C are Hermitian:
1 i
A= (A + A† ) − (iA − iA† ) = B + iC.
2 2
1 1 †
B= (A + A† ) =⇒ B† = (A + A) =⇒ B = B†,
2 2
1 1 1
C = − (iA − iA† ) =⇒ C † = − (−iA† + iA) = − (iA − iA† ) =⇒ C = C †.
2 2 2
So our positive operator A can be written A = B + iC. However, note that hv|Avi = hAv|vi, because hv|Avi is
real-valued. We can compute both of these terms, then set them equal to compare:

hv|Avi = hv|(B + iC)vi = hv|Bvi + i hv|Cvi .

∗
hAv|vi = h(B + iC)v|vi = hv|(B + iC)vi = hv|Bvi − i hv|Cvi .
hv|Bvi + i hv|Cvi = hv|Bvi − i hv|Cvi =⇒ hv|Cvi = 0.
P
Since C is Hermitian, the spectral decomposition says C is diagonalizable, and we can write C = i λi |ii hi| for some
orthonormal basis |ii. However, since hv|Cvi = 0 for all |vi it must be that the only eigenvalue of C is λi = 0. Thus
C is the zero operator. Then our positive operator A = B, where B is Hermitian, and it must be that any positive
operator is also Hermitian.
2.25 For some arbitrary operator A and vector |vi, consider the inner product hv|A† Avi = hAv|Avi ≥ 0. By the definition
of the inner product, we see that A† A is a positive operator.
√ ⊗2
2.26 Let |ψi = 1/ 2(|0i + |1i). We can find |ψi using tensor product notation, as well as the Kronecker product. Let
|0i = (1, 0) and |1i = (0, 1):
 
⊗2 1 ⊗2 1 1 |ψi 1
|ψi = (|0, 0i + |0, 1i + |1, 0i + |1, 1i) , |ψi = √ = (1, 1, 1, 1).
2 2 1 |ψi 2
⊗3
We can do the same thing for |ψi :

⊗3 ⊗2 1
|ψi = |ψi |ψi = √ (|0, 0, 0i + |0, 1, 0i + |1, 0, 0i + |1, 1, 0i + |0, 0, 1i + |0, 1, 1i + |1, 0, 1i + |1, 1, 1i) ,
2 2

1 1 |ψi⊗2
 
⊗3 1
|ψi = √ ⊗2 = √ (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1).
2 1 |ψi 2 2

2.27 (a)  
  0 0 1 0
0 Z 0 0 0 −1
X ⊗Z = =
 .
Z 0 1 0 0 0
0 −1 0 0

5
 (b)  
  0 1 0 0
X 0 1 0 0 0
I ⊗X = = .
0 X 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0
(c)  
  0 0 1 0
0 I 0 0 0 1
X ⊗I = = .
I 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
From these computations we can see that the tensor product is not commutative.
∗
2.28 Consider the entry (A ⊗ B)ijkl = Aij Bkl . For conjugation, we have (A ⊗ B)∗ijkl = (Aij Bkl )∗ = A∗ij Bkl , so we know
∗ ∗ ∗
(A ⊗ B) = A ⊗ B . For transposition, we have (A ⊗ B)ijkl = (A ⊗ B)jikl = Aji Blk , so (A ⊗ B) = A ⊗ B T . Then
T T T

by applying both of these, consider:

(A ⊗ B)† = ((A ⊗ B)∗ )T = (A∗ ⊗ B ∗ )T = (A∗ )T ⊗ (B ∗ )T = A† ⊗ B † .

So the adjoint distributes over the tensor product as well.

2.29 Let U1 and U2 be unitary operators on the spaces V and W respectively. That is, U1† U1 = IV and U2† U2 = IW . Let
U = U1 ⊗ U2 be an operator on V ⊗ W . Then U † = (U1 ⊗ U2 )† = U1† ⊗ U2† , and

U † U = (U1† ⊗ U2† )(U1 ⊗ U2 ) = U1† U1 ⊗ U2† U2 = IV ⊗ IW = IV ⊗W .

Thus U is also unitary.

2.30 Let H1 and H2 be Hermitian operators on the spaces V and W respectively. That is, H1† = H1 and H2† = H2 . Let
H = H1 ⊗ H2 be an operator on V ⊗ W . Then H † = (H1 ⊗ H2 )† = H1† ⊗ H2† = H1 ⊗ H2 = H, so H is Hermitian also.
2.31 Let A1 and A2 be positive operators on the spaces V and W respectively. That is, hv|A1 vi ≥ 0 and hw|A2 wi ≥ 0 for
|vi ∈ V and |wi ∈ W . Let A = A1 ⊗ A2 be an operator on V ⊗ W . Then

hv, w|A|v, wi = hv, w|(A1 ⊗ A2 )|v, wi = hv|A1 |wi hw|A2 |wi ≥ 0.

Thus A is positive as well.

Pk1 Pk2
2.32 Let P1 = i=1 |ii hi| and P2 = j=1 |ji hj| be projectors onto the spaces V and W respectively, where |ii and |ji form
orthonormal bases for the spaces V and W respectively. Let P = P1 ⊗ P2 :
! k 
kX
Xk1 X 2 1 ,k2

P = |ii hi| ⊗  |ji hj| = |i, ji hi, j| .

i=1 j=1 i,j

We see that P is also a projector, where |i, ji forms an orthonormal basis for V ⊗ W .
2.33 Consider the Hadamard operator on one qubit:
1
H = √ ((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) .
2
To apply the Hadamard transform on n qubits, we need to compute H ⊗n :
 ⊗n
1 1 ⊗n
H ⊗n = √ ((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) = √ ((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) .
2 2n
We can prove by induction that this tensor product is equivalent to x,y (−1)x·y |xi hy|, where x · y = i xi yi . For the
P P
base case, let n = 1. Then
X
((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) = (−1)0·0 |0i h0| + (−1)1·0 |1i h0| + (−1)0·1 |0i h1| + (−1)1·1 |1i h1| = (−1)x·y |xi hy| .
x,y

Now suppose this equation holds for n = k − 1, and consider n = k:

⊗k ⊗k−1
((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) = ((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) ((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|)

6
 X
= (−1)x·y |xi hy| ⊗ ((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|)
x,y∈{0,1}k−1
X
= (−1)x·y (|x, 0i hy, 0| + |x, 1i hy, 0| + |x, 0i hy, 1| − |x, 1i hy, 1|) .
x,y∈{0,1}k−1

By adding the new bit to the string x ∈ {0, 1}k−1 we add 2 new possibilities for a k-length string, and likewise for y,
providing 2 · 2 = 4 new k-length strings. Thus this new sum is equivalent to summing over strings of length k. Note
that the binary inner product |x, ai · |y, bi remains unchanged unless a = b = 1, corresponding to the sign change we
see in the term |x, 1i hy, 1|. Thus we have
⊗k
X
((|0i + |1i) h0| + (|0i − |1i) h1|) = (−1)x·y |xi hy| .
x,y∈{0,1}k

This proves that we can write the Hadamard transform H ⊗n as

1 X
H ⊗n = √ (−1)x·y |xi hy| .
2n x,y

2.34 To apply functions to a matrix A, we must first find its spectral decomposition:
   
4 3 4−λ 3
A= =⇒ det(A − λI) = det = (4 − λ)2 − 9 = 0,
3 4 3 4−λ

λ2 − 8λ + 7 = (λ − 7)(λ − 1) = 0 =⇒ λ = 1, 7.
Now we find the eigenvector for each eigenvalue:
      
4 3 v1 v 1 1
A |vi = |vi =⇒ = 1 =⇒ |v1 i = √ ,
3 4 v2 v2 2 −1
      
4 3 v1 v 1 1
A |vi = 7 |vi =⇒ =7 1 =⇒ |v2 i = √ .
3 4 v2 v2 2 1
Now we have the spectral decomposition of A as A = |v1 i hv1 | + 7 |v2 i hv2 |. Then we can find the square root and
logarithm of A:
 √  √
√ √
  √ 
1 1 −1 7 1 1 1
A = |v1 i hv1 | + 7 |v2 i hv2 | = + = √7 + 1 √7 − 1 .
2 −1 1 2 1 1 2 7−1 7+1
 
log(7) 1 1
log(A) = log(1) |v1 i hv1 | + log(7) |v2 i hv2 | = .
2 1 1

2.35 Let v̂ = (v1 , v2 , v3 ) be a real, 3-dimensional unit vector and θ ∈ R. Consider the expresssion exp(iθv̂ · ~σ ), where
~σ = (X, Y, Z). To get the desired form we should first calculate v̂ · ~σ :
   
v3 v1 − iv2 v3 v1 − iv2
v̂ · ~σ = v1 X + v2 Y + v3 Z = =⇒ A = iθv̂ · ~σ = iθ .
v1 + iv2 −v3 v1 + iv2 −v3

We now construct the spectral decomposition for A:

 
iθv3 − λ θ(iv1 + v2 )
det(A − λI) = det = (iθv3 − λ)(−iθv3 − λ) − θ2 (iv1 + v2 )(iv1 − v2 ) = 0,
θ(iv1 − v2 ) −iθv3 − λ

θ2 v32 + λ2 − θ2 (−v12 − v22 ) = θ2 + λ2 = 0 =⇒ λ = ±iθ.

Here we used the fact that v̂ is a real unit vector, so v12 + v22 + v32 = 1. Now we find the eigenvectors:
      
v3 v1 − iv2 x1 x1 1 1 + v3
A |xi = iθ |xi =⇒ = =⇒ |x+ i = p .
v1 + iv2 −v3 x2 x2 2(1 + v3 ) v1 + iv2
      
v3 v1 − iv2 x1 x 1 −1 + v3
A |xi = −iθ |xi =⇒ =− 1 =⇒ |x− i = p .
v1 + iv2 −v3 x2 x2 2(1 − v3 ) v1 + iv2

7
 With the spectral decomposition, we can find exp(A):

exp(A) = eiθ |x+ i hx+ | + e−iθ |x− i hx− | ,

   
1 1 + v3 v1 − iv2 1 1 1 − v3 −v1 + iv2 1
|x+ i hx+ | = = (I + v̂ · ~σ ), |x− i hx− | = = (I − v̂ · ~σ ).
2 v1 + iv2 1 − v3 2 2 −v 1 − iv2 1 + v3 2
eiθ e−iθ 1 1
exp(A) = (I + v̂ · ~σ ) + (I − v̂ · ~σ ) = (eiθ + e−iθ )I + (eiθ − e−iθ )v̂ · ~σ = cos(θ)I + i sin(θ)v̂ · ~σ .
2 2 2 2
Thus we have the relation
exp(iθv̂ · ~σ ) = cos(θ)I + i sin(θ)v̂ · ~σ .

2.36 The Pauli matrices (except I) all have zero trace:

tr(X) = 0 + 0 = 0, tr(Y ) = 0 + 0 = 0, tr(Z) = 1 − 1 = 0.

2.37 Let A and B be linear operators. We can find that the trace is cyclic:
X X X X
tr(AB) = (AB)ii = Aij Bji = Bji Aij = (BA)jj = tr(BA).
i i,j i,j j

2.38 Let A and B be linear operators, and c and d complex numbers. We can find that the trace is linear:
X X X
tr(cA + dB) = (cA + dB)ii = c Aii + d Bii = c tr(A) + d tr(B).
i i i

2.39 (1) Consider the function (·, ·) on LV × LV defined by

(A, B) = tr A† B .

We can show that this is an inner product function.

(1.1) Linear in the second argument:
   
X X X
X
A, bj Bj  = tr A† bj Bj  = bj tr A† Bj = bj (A, Bj ).
j j j j

(1.2) (A, B) = (B, A)∗ :

∗
(A, B) = tr A† B = tr (A† B)T = tr B T A∗ = tr B † A = (B, A)∗ .

(1.3) (A, A) ≥ 0:

X † X X
(A, A) = tr A† A = (A A)ii = A∗ji Aji = |Aji |2 ≥ 0.
i i,j i,j

Since these three conditions hold, we see that (·, ·) as defined is an inner product.
(2) Suppose V has dimension d. I claim that the set {Xij } is a basis for LV , where Xij is the matrix with 1 in the
(i, j)th position and zero everywhere else. From this construction it’s clear that {Xij } is linearly independent and
generates the space LV , since any operator A ∈ LV can have arbitrary entries Aij . Since V has dimension d, the
matrices Xij will have d2 entries, and there are d2 matrices in the basis {Xij }. Thus the dimension of LV is d2 .
(3) If we want to construct an orthonormal basis for LV of Hermitian matrices, then we need a set of d2 matrices Ai
with A†i = Ai and (Ai , Aj ) = tr(Ai Aj ) = δij . Consider the set of matrices

B = {1ij , ikl }, i ≥ j, k > l.

√
We define these matrices as follows: Let 1ij with i 6= j be the matrix with 1/ 2√in the (i, j)th and (j, i)th position.√
Let 1ii be the matrix with 1 in the (i, i)th position. Let iij is the matrix with −i/ 2 in the (i, j)th position and i/ 2
in the (j, i)th position. There are 1/2(d2 − d) of each of the matrices 1ij and iij with i 6= j, and d of the matrices 1ii ,
giving us a total of d2 matrices.
First we should check this set forms a basis for LV . We can see this set will generate the space LV , since
1 1
Xij = √ (1ij + i · iij ), i > j; Xij = √ (1ij − i · iij ), i < j; Xii = 1ii .
2 2

8
 and we know that {Xij } generates LV . For linear independence, we only have to consider the matrices 1ij and iij for
matching (i, j), and it’s clear these two matrices will be linearly independent because of the sign pairing (+, +) on the
entries in 1ij and (+, −) on the entries in iij . So B is indeed a basis for LV .
Now we must check that the given conditions are met. The matrices in the basis B are all Hermitian by construction,
so we only need to check that they are orthonormal. There are six combinations of matrix forms from B for the inner
product (xij , ykl ), but we can deduce all combinations by showing that (x, y) = (1, 1) and (x, y) = (1, i) satisfy the
requirements (xij , ykl ) = δxy δik δjl :
(
X 1, (i, j) = (k, l),
(1ij , 1kl ) = tr(1ij 1kl ) = (1ij )ab (1kl )ba = = δik δjl .
a,b
0, (i, j) 6= (k, l)

From this we can see that (iij , ikl ) = δ(ij)(kl) as well.

(
X i − i, (i, j) = (k, l),
(1ij , ikl ) = tr(1ij ikl ) = (1ij )ab (ikl )ba = = 0.
a,b
0, (i, j) 6= (k, l)

By reversing the order of the inner product, we also obtain that (iij , 1kl ) = 0. Lastly, we would need to check inner
product combinations of the form (1ii , xjk ) for j 6= k, but since xjk has no diagonal entries we know this inner product
will be zero. Thus the condition (xij , ykl ) = δxy δik δjl holds, and this basis B is an orthonormal Hermitian basis for LV .
2.40 The Pauli matrices satisfy the relations
           
0 1 0 −i 0 −i 0 1 i 0 −i 0 1 0
[X, Y ] = − = − = 2i = 2iZ,
1 0 i 0 i 0 1 0 0 −i 0 i 0 −1
           
0 −i 1 0 1 0 0 −i 0 i 0 −i 0 1
[Y, Z] = − = − = 2i = 2iX,
i 0 0 −1 0 −1 i 0 i 0 −i 0 1 0
           
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 −1 0 −i
[Z, X] = − = − = 2i = 2iY.
0 −1 1 0 1 0 0 −1 −1 0 1 0 i 0
Thus they satisfy the general relation X
[σi , σj ] = 2i ijk σk .
k

2.41 The Pauli matrices satisfy the relations

           
i 0 −i 0 0 i 0 −i 0 1 0 −1
{X, Y } = + = 0, {Y, Z} = + = 0, {Z, X} = + = 0.
0 −i 0 i i 0 −i 0 −1 0 1 0

Thus they satisfy the {σi , σj } = 0 for all i 6= j. For i = j, recall that the Pauli matrices are both Hermitian and unitary,
so σi2 = I, and thus {σi , σi } = 2I.
2.42 We can write the product AB in terms of their commutator and anti-commutator:
1
[A, B] + {A, B} = AB − BA + AB + BA = 2AB =⇒ AB = ([A, B] + {A, B}) .
2

2.43 Yet another property of the Pauli matrices can be found by combining the last three exercises:
!
1 1 X X
σi σj = ([σi , σj ] + {σi , σj }) = 2i ijk σk + 2δijI = δij I + i ijk σk .
2 2
k k

2.44 Let A be invertible, and suppose [A, B] = {A, B} = 0. Then AB = BA, so {A, B} = 2AB = 0. Multiplying by A−1 on
the left gives the equation 2B = 0, so it must be that B = 0.
2.45 The commutator has the property

[A, B]† = (AB − BA)† = B † A† − A† B † = [B † , A† ].

2.46 The commutator also has the property

[A, B] = AB − BA = −(BA − AB) = −[B, A].

9
2.47 Let A and B be Hermitian. Consider the operator i[A, B]:

i[A, B] = i(AB − BA) =⇒ (i[A, B])† = −i(AB − BA)† = i(A† B † − B † A† ) = i(AB − BA) = i[A, B].

Thus i[A, B] is also Hermitian.

2.48 Let P be a positive matrix. Then its polar decomposition is itself; that is, P = IP = P I, since the identity matrix I
is unitary. (I † = I, so I † I = I 2 = I.)
Let U be a unitary matrix. Then its polar decomposition is itself; that is, U = U I = IU , since the identity matrix is
positive. (hv|Ivi = hv|vi ≥ 0.)
√ √
Let H be a Hermitian matrix. Then its polar decomposition can be computed from J = H † H = H 2 = |H|, where
|H| is the version of H with non-negative eigenvalues. To see this, note that H has a spectral decomposition with real
eigenvalues λi :
X X X √ X
H= λi |ii hi| =⇒ H2 = λi λj hj|ii |ji hi| = λ2i |ii hi| =⇒ |H| = H 2 = |λi | |ii hi| .
i i,j i i

Then it’s the responsibility of the unitary operator U to reinsert the negative signs where they belong:
X
U= sgn(λi ) |ii hi| .
i

We can check that this indeed reproduces the spectral decomposition of H:

X X X
UJ = sgn(λi )|λj | hi|ji |ii hj| = sgn(λi )|λi | |ii hi| = λi |ii hi| = H.
i,j i i

2.49 Let N be a normal matrix. Then N has a spectral decomposition:

X X X √ X
N= λi |ii hi| , N † = λ∗i |ii hi| =⇒ N †N = |λi |2 |ii hi| =⇒ J= N †N = |λi | |ii hi| .
i i i i

However, this time λi ∈ C instead of R. Thus the role of the unitary matrix is to restore the “complexity” of the
eigenvalues. Let λi = |λi |eiφi : X
U= eiφi |ii hi| .
i

Then we check that the polar decomposition holds:

X X
UJ = eiφi |λi | |ii hi| = λi |ii hi| = N.
i i

2.50 Consider the matrix      

1 0 2 1 1 1
A= =⇒ A† A = , AA† = .
1 1 1 1 1 2
√ √
To find the matrices J = A† A and K = AA† , we have to find the spectral decompositions of these matrices. This
is a particularly tedious calculation, so assuming we know how to find the spectral decomposition, we’ll just use a
calculator to find J and K:
√ 
1 3 1
 √ 
1 2 1

J = A† A = √ , K = AA† = √ .
5 1 2 5 1 3
Since we expect A = U J, we can calculate U = AJ −1 since J is invertible:
      
−1 1 2 −1 −1 1 1 0 2 −1 1 2 −1
J =√ =⇒ U = AJ = √ =√ .
5 −1 3 5 1 1 −1 3 5 1 2

It’s simple enough to check that U is indeed unitary. Then our polar decompositions of A are given by
           
1 2 −1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 −1
A = UJ = √ √ , A = KU = √ √ .
5 1 2 5 1 2 5 1 3 5 1 2

2.51 The Hadamard gate H is unitary:

        
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
H=√ , H† = √ =H =⇒ H †H = H 2 = = = I.
2 1 −1 2 1 −1 2 1 −1 1 −1 0 1

10
2.52 We show that H 2 = I in the previous exercise.
2.53 First we obtain the eigenvalues of H:
!
√1 − λ √1
  
1 1 1
det(H − λI) = det 2
√1 1
2 = √ −λ − √ − λ − = λ2 − 1 = 0 =⇒ λ = ±1.
2
− √2 − λ 2 2 2

Now we obtain the eigenvectors:

      √ 
1 1 1 v1 v 11+ 2
H |v+ i = |v+ i =⇒ √ = 1 =⇒ |v+ i = p √ ,
2 1 −1 v2 v2 4+2 2 1
      √ 
1 1 1 v1 v 1 1− 2
H |v− i = − |v− i =⇒ √ =− 1 =⇒ |v− i = p √ .
2 1 −1 v2 v2 4−2 2 1

2.54 Suppose A and B are commuting Hermitian operators. P Then there is an P orthonormal basis |ii that
P simultaneously
diagonalizes both A and B, and we can write A = i ai |ii hi| and B = i bi |ii hi|. Then A + B = i (ai + bi ) |ii hi|,
and X X X
eA eB = eai ebj hi|ji |ii hj| = eai abi |ii hi| = eai +bi |ii hi| = eA+B .
i,j i i
P
2.55 Let H = i λi |ii hi| be a Hermitian operator, where |ii is an orthonormal basis, and define U (t1 , t2 ) as
 
iH(t2 − t1 )
U (t1 , t2 ) = exp − .
~

Using the spectral decomposition of H we have

   
X i(t2 − t1 )λj †
X i(t2 − t1 )λj
U (t1 , t2 ) = exp − |ji hj| , U (t1 , t2 ) = exp |ji hj| ,
j
~ j
~
   
X i(t2 − t1 )λj i(t2 − t1 )λj X
U † (t1 , t2 )U (t1 , t2 ) = exp − exp |ji hj| = |ji hj| = I.
j
~ ~ j

Thus U is indeed unitary.

P
2.56 Let U = i ui |ii hi| be unitary, where |ii forms an orthonormal basis, and define K = −i log(U ):
∗
X X
K = −i log(U ) = −i log(ui ) |ii hi| , K† = i log(ui ) |ii hi|
i i


Since U is unitary, its eigenvalues satisfy |ui | = 1. Then log reiθ = log(r) + i(2πkθ) = i(2πkθ), since r = 1. That is,
log(ui ) is pure imaginary:
∗
X X X
K† = i log(ui ) |ii hi| = i − log(ui ) |ii hi| = −i log(ui ) |ii hi| = K.
i i i

Thus K is Hermitian, and by exponentiating each side of K = −i log(U ) we find that U = eiK is unitary given K is
Hermitian.

2.57 Suppose we measure a quantum state |ψi with a set of measurement operators {Ll }, then we measure the resultant
state with another set {Mm }. The first measurement will produce a result l with probability p(l) and a resultant state
|ψ 0 i, and the second measurement will produce a result m with probability p(m) and a final state |ψ 00 i:

Ll |ψi Mm |ψ 0 i
p(l) = hψ|L†l Ll |ψi , |ψ 0 i = q , p(m) = hψ 0 |Mm
†
Mm |ψ 0 i , |ψ 00 i = q .
hψ|L†l Ll |ψi 0 † 0
hψ |Mm Mm |ψ i

These expressions simplify quite nicely when we compute in terms of |φi:

hψ|L†l Mm
†
Mm Ll |ψi Mm Ll |ψi Mm Ll |ψi
hψ 0 |Mm
†
Mm |ψ 0 i = , Mm |ψ 0 i = q =⇒ |ψ 00 i = q .
hψ|L†l Ll |ψi hψ|L†l Ll |ψi hψ|L†l Mm
†
Mm Ll |ψi

11
 Now suppose we make a single measurement with a set of measurement operators {Nlm }, where Nlm = Mm Ll . Then
this result produces a result (l, m) with probability p(l, m) with a final state |φi:
Mm Ll |ψi
p(l, m) = hψ|L†l Mm
†
Mm Ll |ψi = p(l)p(m), |φi = q = |ψ 00 i .
hφ|L†l Mm
†
Mm Ll |ψi

Since p(l, m) = p(l)p(m) and |φi = |ψ 00 i, we see that making two cascasding measurements Ll and Mm is physically
equivalent to making a single measurement Mm Ll .
2.58 Let |ψi be an eigenstate of some observable M with eigenvalue m. When we measure the state with we obtain the
result m with probability hψ|Pm |ψi = 1, since |ψi is already in the eigenspace of Pm . Thus hM i = m, and ∆(M ) = 0.
2.59 We know we can write X = |1i h0| + |0i h1|, so finding hXi for |0i is simple:

hXi = h0|1i h0|0i + h0|0i h1|0i = 0.

However, we know X 2 = I, and hX 2 i for |0i is nonzero:

hX 2 i = h0|I|0i = 1.
q
2
Thus the standard deviation ∆(X) = hX 2 i − hXi = 1.

2.60 In 2.35 I show that the eigenvalues of iθv̂ · ~σ are ±iθ, and so the eigenvalues of the observable v̂ · ~σ are ±1 with the
same eigenvectors. We also show that we can write v̂ · ~σ = |x+ i hx+ | + |x− i hx− |, where |x+ i and |x− i are provided
eigenvectors. We explicitly compute in the exercise that
1
P± = |x± i hx± | = (I ± v̂ · ~σ ).
2

2.61 The probability of obtaining the result +1 for a measurement of v̂ · ~σ on the state |0i is given by
1 1 + v3
p(1) = h0|P1 |0i = (h0|I|0i + h0|v̂ · ~σ |0i) = .
2 2
If we do obtain the result +1, then the state after the measurement is
 
P |0i 1 1 1 + v3
p1 =p (I + v̂ · ~σ ) |0i = p = |v+ i .
p(1) 2(1 + v3 ) 2(1 + v3 ) v1 + iv2

Thus after the measurement the state has collapsed to the eigenvector |v+ i.
†
2.62 Suppose that the POVM elements coincide with the measurement operators, that is, Em = Mm Mm = Mm . Since
† 2
Em = Mm and Em is Hermitian, then Mm = Mm , so we must satisfy Mm = Mm . This is the condition for Mm to be
a projection operator Pm , since projectors satisfy P 2 = P . Thus this measurement is projective.
†
2.63 Consider a measurement described by operators Mm , q
and let Em = Mm Mm be the POVM. By polar decomposition,
† √
there exist unitary operators Um such that Mm = Um Mm Mm = Um Em .
2.64 Given linearly independent states |ψ1 i , ..., |ψm i, Bob can construct a POVM {E1 , ..., Em+1 } such that by measuring
Ei we are certain that the state provided was |ψi i. For each state |ψi i, find a state |φi i that is orthogonal to the space
spanned by {|ψj i}j6=i , but not orthogonal to |ψi i. This is possible since all |ψi i are linearly independent, and we can
construct an orthonormal basis using the Gram-Schmidt process. Construct the operators
m
X X
Ei = |φi i hφi | , Em+1 = I − Ei =⇒ Ei = I, hψj |Ei |ψj i = 0, hψi |Ei |ψi i = | hψi |φi i |2 > 0.
i=1 i

Thus the Ei are complete and positive, and when Bob measures Ei , he knows it must have been the state |ψi i, since
hψj |Ei |ψj i = 0 unless i = j.
2.65 Denote these two states by |+i and |−i, and consider the basis B = {|+i , |1i} = {b1 , b2 }. Then we have
√
|+iB = b1 , |−i = b1 − 2b2 .

Clearly these two states differ by more than a relative phase shift in the basis B.
If we wanted to consider an orthonormal basis, then the two states themselves form a basis of eigenvectors of X,
BX = {|+i , |−i}. These two states are fundamentally different in this basis.

12
2.66 The average value of X1 Z2 for a two qubit system can be found from the inner product:
1 1
hX1 Z2 i = (h00| + h11|) X1 Z2 (|00i + |11i) = (h00|X1 Z2 |00i + h00|X1 Z2 |11i + h11|X1 Z2 |00i + h11|X1 Z2 |11i) .
2 2
Since X |0i = |1i and X |1i = |0i, two of these terms disappear:
1
hX1 Z2 i = (h00|X1 Z2 |11i + h11|X1 Z2 |00i) .
2
However, we also know Z |0i = |0i and Z |1i = − |1i, so both of these terms are zero as well. Thus hX1 Z2 i = 0.
2.67 Suppose V is a Hilbert space with W a subspace, and let U : W 7→ V be a unitary operator on W . We can extend
U : V 7→ V to be unitary on the entire space. Let |ii for 1 ≤ i ≤ k be an orthonormal basis for W , and k < i ≤ d be
an orthonormal basis for W⊥ (the rest of V ). We can write a spectral decomposition for U on W with eigenvalues ui ,
where |ui | = 1, and extend it as the identity operator on W⊥ :
k
X d
X k
X d
X
†
U= ui |ii hi| + |ii hi| =⇒ U = u∗i |ii hi| + |ii hi| .
i=1 i=k+1 i=1 i=k+1

We can check that this U is unitary, noting that the disjoint sums will disappear by orthonormality of the basis vectors:
k
X d
X X
† 2
U U= |ui | |ii hi| + |ii hi| = |ii hi| = I.
i=1 i=k+1 i

Thus this extension of U is unitary on V .

√
2.68 The two qubit state |ψi = (|00i + |11i)/ 2 cannot be written as a tensor product of single qubit states. Let |ai =
a1 |0i + a2 |1i, and |bi = b1 |0i + b2 |1i. Then

|abi = a1 b1 |00i + a1 b2 |10i + a2 b1 |10i + a2 b2 |11i .

If we want to set this equal to the entangled state |ψi, we require

1
a1 b1 = a2 b2 = √ , a1 b2 = a2 b1 = 0.
2
If a1 = 0, then a1 b1 = 0, and this is a contradiction. If b2 = 0, then a2 b2 = 0, and we obtain another contradiction.
Thus it’s impossible to write |ψi = |ai |bi for two single qubit states.
2.69 To verify that the Bell states form an orthonormal basis, we write out the tensor products of each state, where |Xi
denotes the state X |ψi:
|00i + |11i 1 |00i − |11i 1
|Ii = √ = √ (1, 0, 0, 1), |Zi = √ = √ (1, 0, 0, −1),
2 2 2 2
|10i + |01i 1 |01i − |10i 1
|Xi = √ = √ (0, 1, 1, 0), |iY i = √ = √ (0, 1, −1, 0).
2 2 2 2
By inspection we can see all four states are orthonormal. We can also write any arbitrary vector in terms of the Bell
states:
1
(a, b, c, d) = √ ((a + d) |Ii + (a − d) |Zi + (b + c) |Xi + (b − c) |iY i) .
2
Thus the Bell states form an orthonormal basis.
2.70 Let E be some positive operator acting on Alice’s qubit. Consider the expectation value of E ⊗ I in any of the Bell
states. Note that the cross terms will cancel out due to the identity operator on Bob’s qubit, so states that differ by a
relative phase will have the same result, and we only need to check |Ii and |Xi:
1 1
hI|E ⊗ I|Ii = (h0|E|0i h0|I|0i + h1|E|1i h1|I|1i) = (h0|E|0i + h1|E|1i) ,
2 2
1 1
hX|E ⊗ I|Xi = (h1|E|1i h0|I|0i + h0|E|0i h1|E|1i) = (h0|E|0i + h1|E|1i) .
2 2
Since we obtain the same result for both |Ii and |Xi, then we obtain the same result for all four Bell states. Note that
we did not use the fact that E is a positive operator. Thus if a third party intercepts Alice’s qubit and performs a
measurement, they will gain no information since every state will produce the same result.

13
 pi |ii hi| be a density operator. Consider the trace of ρ2 :
P
2.71 Let ρ = i
X X
X 2 X
ρ2 = pi pj hi|ji |ii hj| = p2i |ii hi| =⇒ tr ρ2 = pi tr(|ii hi|) = p2i .
i,j i i i

We know i pi = 1. Clearly
then i p2i < 1 unless ρ is a pure state. That is, ρ = |ii hi| for some state |ii with pi = 1,
P P
so p2i = 1 as well. Thus tr ρ2 ≤ 1 with equality when ρ is a pure state.
2.72 (1) The density matrix of a single qubit must be positive (and thus Hermitian) and have trace 1. The most general
Hermitian matrix can be written in terms of real variables a, b, c, and d:
   
a b − ci a1 + a2 b − ci
ρ= = = a1 I + bX + cY + a2 Z.
b + ci d b + ci a1 − a2

Here we use the fact that any two numbers a and d can be expressed as the sum and difference of numbers a1 and a2 .
The restriction tr(ρ) = 1 gives us (a1 + a2 ) + (a1 − a2 ) = 2a1 = 1, so a1 = 1/2.
To ensure that ρ is positive, consider the trace and determinant of ρ, and allow ρ0 to be the diagonal form of ρ such
that its diagonal entries are the eigenvalues of ρ. The trace is the sum of eigenvalues of ρ since the trace is cyclic:

tr(ρ0 ) = tr U † ρU = tr U U † ρ = tr(ρ).

The determinant is the product of the eigenvalues of ρ, since the determinant of unitary operators has magnitude 1:
∗
det(ρ0 ) = det U † ρU = det U † det(ρ) det(U ) = det(U ) det(ρ) det(U ) = | det(U )|2 det(ρ) = det(ρ).

Since tr(ρ) is positive, at least one of its eigenvalues is positive. If we enforce that det(ρ) is also positive, then this
ensures that both eigenvalues are positive, and thus ρ is a positive operator:
1
det(ρ) = (a1 + a2 )(a1 − a2 ) − (b + ci)(b − ci) = a21 − a22 − b2 − c2 ≥ 0 =⇒ a22 + b2 + c2 ≤ .
4
p
Let ~r = 2(b, c, a2 ) be a real valued vector with magnitude ||~r|| = 2 b2 + c21 + a22 ≤ 1. This vector satisfies the condition
on det(ρ), so we may write
I + ~r · ~σ
ρ= .
2
(2) If ρ = I/2, it’s clear that ~r = 0.


(3) To determine when ρ is a pure state, consider tr ρ2 :

ρ200 = (a1 + a2 )2 + (b − ci)(b + ci), ρ211 = (a1 − a2 )2 + (b − ci)(b + ci).

1 1p
tr ρ2 = ρ200 + ρ211 = 2(a21 + a22 + b2 + c2 ) = +


||~r||.
2 2


We can see that tr ρ2 = 1 when ||~r|| = 1, indicating that ρ is a pure state.
(4) The most general pure state can be written
θ θ
|ψi = cos |0i + eiφ sin |1i .
2 2
The density matrix of a pure state is simply
θ θ θ θ θ θ
ρ = |ψi hψ| = cos2 |0i h0| + e−iφ cos sin |0i h1| + eiφ cos sin |1i h0| + sin2 |1i h1| ,
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 + cos θ e−iφ sin θ
   
1
ρ= (1 + cos θ) |0i h0| + e−iφ sin θ |0i h1| + eiφ sin θ |1i h0| + (1 − cos θ) |1i h1| = .
2 2 eiφ sin θ 1 − cos θ
 
1 1 + cos θ cos φ sin θ − i sin φ sin θ 1
ρ= = (I + cos φ sin θX + sin φ sin θY + cos θZ) .
2 cos φ sin θ + i sin φ sin θ 1 − cos θ 2
Our Bloch vector ~r = (cos φ sin θ, sin φ sin θ, cos θ) has magnitude 1, corresponding to a pure state. Thus
I + ~r · ~σ
ρ=
2
coincides with our general pure state.

14
 P
2.73 Let ρ be a density matrix, and |ψi be a state in the support of ρ. There exists a spectral decomposition ρ = i pi |ii hi|
where pi > 0 and the |ii are orthonormal eigenstates of ρ with nonzero eigenvalue. Thus |ii forms a basis for the
support of ρ. Consider |ψi: X X
|ψi = hi|ψi |ii = ci |ii .
i i

By definition, the rank of ρ is the dimension of its support. Since |ii forms a basis for the support of ρ and |ψi is in
the support, drop any one |ii from the basis set and replace it with |ψi. Then {pi , |ii} ∪ {pψ , |ψi} forms a minimal
ensemble for ρ.
Since ρ may not be invertible (the space ρ acts on may be higher dimensional than the space formed by the |ii, and
then ρ has eigenvectors with zero eigenvalue), we can define ρ−1 to be the inverse of ρ restricted to its support. Then
X X X
ρ= pi |ii hi| =⇒ I = ρρ−1 = pi |ii hi| ρ−1 =⇒ 1= pi hj|ii hi|ρ−1 |ji = pj hj|ρ−1 |ji .
i i i

Thus the probability that the ensemble is in the state ψi is

1
pi = .
hψi |ρ−1 |ψi i

We allow for ρρ−1 = I in the computation, although it is only the identity operator on the support of ρ. Since we’ve
only been working in the support and not the entire space ρ may act on, this shouldn’t lead to any problems.
2.74 Let the composite system AB be in the state |ai |bi, where |ai is a pure state of A and |bi is a pure state of B. The
density operator of this state is ρ = |ai |bi ha| hb|, and tracing over B we obtain ρA = |ai ha| hb|bi = |ai ha|. Since |ai was
a pure state of system A, then ρA is a pure state as well.
2.75 In the example it’s shown that for the Bell state |β00 i we have ρ1 = I/2. Let’s find ρ2 :

1 |0i h0| + |1i h1| I

ρ2 (β00 ) = tr1 (|00i h00| + |11i h00| + |00i h11| + |11i h11|) = = .
2 2 2
For |β10 i we will obtain the same results, as the only difference in the density operator is in the cross-terms which trace
to zero. Likewise, we will obtain the same result for |β01 i and |β11 i:

1 |1i h1| + |0i h0| I

ρ1 (β01 ) = tr2 (|10i h10| + |10i h01| + |01i h10| + |01i h01|) = = ,
2 2 2
1 |1i h1| + |0i h0| I
ρ2 (β11 ) = tr1 (|10i h10| + |10i h01| + |01i h10| + |01i h01|) = = .
2 2 2
Thus for every Bell state the reduced density operator is I/2.
2.76 In the proof of the Schmidt decomposition we assumed that the state spaces A and B have the same dimension. Suppose
that were not the case, with dim(A) = j, dim(B) = k, and j > k. Then an arbitrary |ψi can be written
X
|ψi = ajk |ji |ki ,
jk

where a is a j × k matrix of complex numbers and |ji , |ki form orthonormal bases for A and B respectively. We can
apply the general singular value decomposition such that a = udv, where u is a j × j unitary matrix, d is a j × k
non-negative diagonal matrix, and v is a k × k unitary matrix. In the general case there will be min(j, k) diagonal
entries in d. Everything following the singular value decomposition holds from this point on:
X X
|ψi = uji dii vik |ji |ki =⇒ |ψi = λi |iA i |iB i .
ijk i

2.77 Consider a quantum system of three components ABC. To show that a pure state |ψi of ABC can’t be decomposed
into tensor products of the individual components, we need to consider entanglements of two of the states:
 
|00i + |11i
|ψi = |0i |β00 i = |0i √ .
2
The entangled state |β00 i of BC requires the sum of states, yet the fixed state |0i of A forbids it. Thus this state cannot
be decomposed.

15
2.78 If |ψi is a state of AB with Schmidt number 1, then |ψi = λ |ai |bi by definition, and thus it’s a tensor product of
the states λ |ai and |bi. Conversely, if |ψi = |ai |bi then its Schmidt decomposition is this product and it has Schmidt
number 1.
Suppose the density operators ρA = |ai ha| and ρB = |bi hb| are pure states. Then ρ = ρA ⊗ ρB = |ai |bi ha| hb|, which
corresponds to the product state |ψi = |ai |bi, and thus |ψi is a product state. Conversely, suppose |ψi = |ai |bi. Then
ρ = |ai |bi ha| hb|, and thus ρA = |ai ha| and ρB = |bi hb| are pure states.
2.79 As stated above, the state |β00 i is already in its Schmidt decomposition:

|00i + |11i 1 1
√ = √ |0i |0i + √ |1i |1i .
2 2 2
The sum of four kets can be seen as the tensor product |+i |+i:
 ⊗2
|00i + |01i + |10i + |11i |0i + |1i
= √ .
2 2
The sum of three kets isn’t trivial, so we can do an explicit decomposition:
 
|00i + |01i + |10i X 1 1 1
|ψi = √ = ajk |ji |ki , ajk =√ .
3 3 1 0
jk

At this point we can perform a singular value decomposition - we will use approximations, since the numbers aren’t
very clean:    
0.85 0.53 0.93 0 0.85 0.53
a = udv ≈ .
0.53 −0.85 0 0.36 −0.53 0.85
From d we immediately have our Schmidt coefficients, and we find the orthonormal bases |i1 i and |i2 i from u and v:
       
X 1 0 0.85 0.53
|i1 i = uji |ji = u1i + u2i = , ,
0 1 0.53 −0.85
j
       
X 1 0 0.85 −0.53
|i2 i = vij |ji = vi1 + vi2 = , .
0 1 0.53 0.85
j

Note that (a, b) = a |0i + b |1i. Thus we find the (approximate) Schmidt decomposition of |ψi:
       
0.85 0.85 0.53 −0.53
|ψi = 0.93 ⊗ + 0.36 ⊗ .
0.53 0.53 −0.85 0.85
P P
2.80 Let |ψi = i λi |iA i |iB i and |φi = j λj |jA i |jB i be pure states in AB, where the |iA i , |jA i form orthonormal bases
for A, and |iB i , |jB i form orthonormal bases for B. We know that unitary transformations preserve orthonormality,
so there exist unitary transformations U on A that maps |jA i 7→ |iA i and V on B that maps |jB i 7→ |iB i. These
transformations affect |φi in the following way:
X X
(U ⊗ V ) |φi = λj U |jA i V |jB i = λi |iA i |iB i = |ψi .
j i

P √ P √
2.81 Let |AR1 i = i pi |iA i |iR1 i and |AR2 i = i pi |iA i |iR2 i be purifications of the state ρA to the system AR. Much
like the last exercise, we know that the orthonormal bases |iR1 i and |iR2 i are related by some unitary transformation
UR on R, so X√ X√
(IA ⊗ UR ) |AR2 i = pi IA |iA i UR |iR2 i = pi |iA i |iR1 i = |AR1 i .
i i
P
2.82 (1) Let {pi , |ψi i} generate the density operator ρ = i pi |ψi i hψi | for a system A. If we introduce a system R with
orthonormal basis |ii we create a purification of ρ to AR:
X√
|ARi = pi |ψi i |ii ,
i
X√ X
trR (|ARi hAR|) = pi pj |ψi i hψj | hj|ii = pi |ψi i hψi | = ρ.
ij i

16
 Thus |ARi is a purification of ρ.
P
(2) Suppose we measure the system R in the basis |ii; that is, with measurement operator M = i iPi , where Pi = |ii hi|
are projection operators onto the orthonormal states |ii introduced earlier. This is equivalent to measuring the system
AR with measurement operator IA ⊗ M . The probability of obtaining outcome k is
X√
p(k) = hAR|IA ⊗ Pk |ARi = pi pj hψj |ψi i hj|ki hk|ii = pk .
ij

The state of AR after the measurement is given by

Pk |ARi X
r
pi
|ARf i = p = |ψi i |ki hk|ii = |ψk i |ki .
p(k) i
pk

That is, the probability p(i) of measuring R to be in the state |ii is pi , and A is in the state |ψi i afterwards.
(3) Since there is unitary freedom in purifications, any purification |AR0 i of ρ to AR can be obtained through some
transformation |AR0 i = (IA ⊗ UR ) |ARi for unitary UR on R, where |ARi is as described above. Measuring in the basis
UR |ii will always give the above results:

p0 (k) = hAR0 |IA ⊗ Pk0 |AR0 i = hAR|IA ⊗ (UR† )(UR |ii hi| UR† )(UR )|ARi = hAR|IA ⊗ Pk |ARi = p(k),

Pk0 |AR0 i X pi
r
|ARf0 i = p = |ψi i UR |ki hk|UR† UR |ii = |ψk i UR |ki .
p0 (k) i
p k

2 Problems
2.1 Let f (·) : C 7→ C, and consider f (θn̂ · ~σ ), where n̂ is a normalized vector. If we examine our work in Exercise 2.35, we
see we can write
f (θn̂ · ~σ ) = f (θ) |x+ i hx+ | + f (−θ) |x− i hx− | ,
1 1
|x+ i hx+ | =(I + n̂ · ~σ ), |x− i hx− | = (I − n̂ · ~σ ).
2 2
Collecting the coefficients of the operators we arrive at the result

f (θ) + f (−θ) f (θ) − f (−θ)

f (θn̂ · σ) = I+ n̂ · ~σ .
2 2

2.2 (1) Let |ψi be a pure state of the composite system AB. Then the Schmidt decomposition for |ψi is
X
|ψi = λi |iA i |iB i ,
i

where |iA i and |iB i are orthonormal bases for systems A and B respectively. Consider ρ and ρA :
X X
ρ = |ψi hψ| = λi λj |iA i hjA | |iB i hjB | =⇒ ρA = trB (ρ) = λ2i |iA i hiA | .
ij i

Note that ρA is a positive (and Hermitian) operator, and thus its rank is equal to the dimension of its support. The
eigenvectors of ρA are the |iA i with eigenvalue λ2i , so the support of ρA consists of the vectors |iA i with nonzero
eigenvalue, ie. λ2i 6= 0. Then the rank of ρA is the number of nonzero λ2i (and thus nonzero λi ), which is precisely the
Schmidt number of |ψi.
P
(2) Let |ψi = j |aj i |bj i, where |aj i and |bj i are un-normalized states of A and B respectively. The Schmidt decom-
position of |ψi is X
|ψi = λi |iA i |iB i ,
i

where |iA i and |iB i are orthonormal

P bases for systems A and B respectively. We prove that the number of terms N in
the decomposition |ψi = j |aj i |bj i is greater than or equal to the Schmidt number of |ψi by induction on N .
For the base case, let N = 1. Then |ψi = |a1 i |b1 i, and the Schmidt decomposition is |ψi = λ1 |â1 i |b̂1 i, where λi is the
product of the magnitudes of |ai i and |bi i. Note that we must create an orthonormal basis from the |a1 i and |b1 i using
the Gram-Schmidt process, but in the Schmidt decomposition all coefficients λj = 0 for j 6= 1. Thus N ≥ Sch(ψ).

17
 Suppose k ≥ Sch(ψ) for N = k. For N = k + 1, we have
k
X k+1
X k
X
|ψi = |aj i |bj i + |ak+1 i |bk+1 i = |aj i |bj i , |ψi = λj |âj i |b̂j i + |ak+1 i |bk+1 i
j j j

for our original decomposition and Schmidt decomposition respectively. There are two cases: either |ak+1 i |bk+1 i is in
the span of the |âj i |b̂j i, or not.
If it’s in the span, then we can’t include this term in the sum as a separate product state in the Schmidt decomposition,
since all the summed states need to be orthonormal. However, we can simply alter the Schmidt coefficients λj → λ0j to
account for this added term. Then the Schmidt decomposition becomes
k
X
|ψi = λ0j |âj i |b̂j i ,
j

giving Sch(ψ) = k ≤ k + 1 = N .
If the new state is not in the span, then we can include it in the summed terms, and the Schmidt decomposition becomes
k+1
X
|ψi = λj |âj i |b̂j i ,
j

giving Sch(ψ) = k + 1 ≤ k + 1 = N . Thus we’ve proven that N ≥ Sch(ψ).

(3) Let |ψi = a |φi + b |γi. The Schmidt decompositions of the two states are
X X
|φi = φi |φAi i |φBi i , |γi = γi |γAi i |γBi i ,
i i

where |xA i and |xB i form orthonormal bases for the systems A and B respectively. Then
X 
|ψi = aφi |φAi i |φBi i + bγi |γAi i |γBi i .
i

Let Sch(φ) = s and Sch(γ) = s − t where 0 ≤ t < s. Then |ψi is a linear combination of s orthonormal states |φAi i |φBi i
and s − t different orthonormal states |γAi i |γBi i.
Define |iA i |iB i to be an orthonormal basis spanning both {|φAi i |φBi i} and {|γAi i |γBi i}. We can sort the states
|φAi i |φBi i such that the states not spanned by |γAi i |γBi i are at the beginning of the set {|iA i |iB i}; the rest of the set
will be states derived from making the |γAi i |γBi i orthogonal to these excluded states.
Since the dimensions of the two sets differ by t there will be at least t of these excluded states, but there will likely be
more depending on the space each set spans. Let there be t0 ≥ t of these states. Then we can rewrite |ψi in terms of
this new orthonormal basis by recalculating the φi → φ0i and γi → γi0 :
0 0
t
X X−t
s+t
|ψi = aφi |φAi i |φBi i + (aφ0i + bγi0 ) |iA i |iB i
i=1 i=t0 +1

This almost looks like the Schmidt decomposition of |ψi. The first summation includes a ∈ C, but any negative or
imaginary part can be absorbed into |iA i |iB i (given we also correct the other sum for this difference). The second
sum is complicated, but we can Schmidt decompose it without running into issues since all the product states here are
orthonormal by construction. If the Schmidt decomposition of the second sum is nonzero, we can simply add the new
terms to the first sum, and the new states will extend the orthonormal basis to a higher dimension.
This provides us with a lower bound of Sch(ψ) ≥ t0 ≥ t = Sch(φ) − Sch(γ). Reversing the Schmidt numbers of |φi and
|γi we obtain the reversed difference, meaning

Sch(ψ) ≥ |Sch(φ) − Sch(γ)| .

2.3 Let X = x̂ · ~σ for X = Q, R, S, T , where x̂ are real unit vectors. Then

2 2
A2 = (Q ⊗ S + R ⊗ S + R ⊗ T − Q ⊗ T ) = (Q ⊗ (S − T ) + R ⊗ (S + T )) ,

A2 = Q2 ⊗ (S − T )2 + R2 ⊗ (S + T )2 + QR ⊗ (S − T )(S + T ) + RQ ⊗ (S + T )(S − T ).

18
Note that X 2 = I, since the anticommutator of two different Pauli matrices is zero:

(x̂ · ~σ )2 = (x2x + x2y + x2z )I + xx xy {X, Y } + xx xz {X, Z} + xy xz {Y, Z} = I.

Thus this expression A2 reduces to

A2 = I ⊗ 4I + QR ⊗ (ST − T S) + RQ ⊗ (−ST + T S) = 4I + (QR − RQ) ⊗ (ST − T S),

A2 = 4I + [Q, R] ⊗ [S, T ].
To obtain an inequality for hAi apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:

| hAi |2 ≤ hA2 i = h4I + [Q, R] ⊗ [S, T ]i = 4 + h[Q, R]i h[S, T ]i .

p
We can then apply the inequality | h[X, Y ]i | ≤ 2 hX 2 i hY 2 i = 2:
√
| hAi |2 ≤ 4 + (2)(2) = 8 =⇒ hAi ≤ 2 2.

19