Homework

Question 1
P
Show that the extreme of the Shannon entropy H = − i pi logpi , subject to
the constraints
X X
E= pi Ei = constant and pi = 1,
i i

leads to the Boltzmann distribution, i.e., li ≈ −logpi ∝ Ei , a revelation of

the Landauer Principle; what will be derived and implied as scalar variables
are enhanced to operators?

Question 2
Calculate the Schmidt decomposition for the state √1 (|00i + |01i + |10i).
3

Question 3
Prove that any mixed state composed with an appropriate environment can
turn into a pure state. (Hint: the Schmidt decomposition)

Question 4
(a) Given a 4 × 4 matrix A, write down the coefficients P1 , P2 , P3 and P4
(respectively being an algebraic invariant) of its characteristic polynomial
det(λI − A) = λ4 − P1 λ3 + P2 λ2 − P3 λ + P4 in terms of the trace forms
TrA, TrA2 , TrA3 and TrA4 .
(b) Likewise, for an n × n matrix A, give the general form of the coefficient
Pi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, of the characteristic polynomial in terms of the invariants
TrA, TrA2 , . . . , TrAn .

1
(c) Put down the necessary and sufficient condition for an n × n hermitian
matrix A to be positive definite without knowing its eigenvalues (Hint: The
answer is hidden in those coefficients).

Question 5
(a) Affirm that an arbitrary three-level qutrit system can be expressed in
the spinor-like form
 
ρ00 ρ01 ρ02
1
ρ =  ρ10 ρ11 ρ12  = (I + ~a · ~λ),
3
ρ20 ρ21 ρ22

where the set of Gell-Mann matrices forms the basis ~λ of the polarization
(or coherence) vector; in particular, what is the range of the length of the
polarization vector?
(b) In addition to the unit trace Trρ = 1, calculate Trρ2 and Trρ3 in this
representation and then try to provide geometrical, algebraic or physical
interpretations for these two quantities.

Question 6
When an l-level system is considered, l ≥ 3, is it still true that the
“surface” of the corresponding “Bloch sphere” (i.e., the geometry in its
Hilbert space of the ensemble of all admissible density operators describing
this system) consists exclusively of pure states, and secondly what is the
radius length of this sphere, still a unit? Compare the 2 generator
representations of SU (4) mathemtically and physically, i.e., the spinor and
the λ-(or Gell-Mann matrices-like) forms; also, relate the representation of
SU (3) to those of SU (4).

Question 7
Prove the cohomology equivalence, i.e., an equivalence up to only
“cohomology resolution,” that SU (2) is topologically isomorphic to S 3 .
(Hint: Consider the quaternion formulations of the both structures.)

2
Question 8
Given a two-level bipartite system described by a density matrix in the
spinor form
3
1 A B A B A ~ B
X
A
ρ = {I ⊗ I + ~a · ~σ ⊗ I + I ⊗ b · ~σ + Ωmn σm ⊗ σnB },
4 m,n=1

here ~a = (a1 , a2 , a3 )T , ~b = (b1 , b2 , b3 )T ∈ R3 and Ω = (Ω)1≤m,n≤3 ∈ R3×3 ,

(a) show that a2 , b2 and Ω2 = T rΩΩt are respectively a (degree-2) local
invariant, i.e. a quantity invariant under all local transformations
SU (2) ⊗ SU (2);
(b) show that both ha|Ω|bi and det Ω are (degree-3) local invariants, and
further find a degree-4 local invariant;
(c) write down global conservation laws of degrees 2, 3 and 4 in terms of
local invariants;
(d) calculate the invariants of a three-level bipartite system described by a
density matrix in the λ-form
ρ = 91 {I3A ⊗ I3B + ~a · ~λj ⊗ I3B + I3A ⊗ ~b · ~λj + 8i,j=1 Ωij λi ⊗ λj } in terms of the
P

conservations Trρ2 = Trρ = 1 and compare this result with the

entanglement in terms of the von Neumann entropy of ρ, here
~a = (a1 , a2 , · · · , a8 )T , ~b = (b1 , b2 , · · · , b8 )T ∈ R8 , Ω = Ω16=i,j6=8 ∈ R8×8 , and
λ1≤j≤8 being Gell-Mann matrices.

Question 9
Given a two-level tripartite system described by the density matrix
 
ρ000,000 ρ000,001 . . . ρ000,111
 ρ001,000 ρ001,001 . . . ... 
ρ =  .. ,
 
 . 
ρ111,000 ... . . . ρ111,111

3
(a) prove that the matrix can be written into the spinor form
3
1 ABC A B C
X
ρ = {I + ~a · ~σ ⊗ I ⊗ I + · · · + Ωrs σrA ⊗ σsB ⊗ I C + · · ·
8 r,s=1
3
X
A
+ Ωmnl σm ⊗ σnB ⊗ σlC };
m,n,l=1

(b) find the condition for ρ to be a pure state;

(c) find the criteria for ρ, in the spinor form, to be disentangled;
(d) respectively write down the generators of the Lie algebras su(5), su(6)
and su(7) in terms of linear superpositions of the spinors in su(8).

Question 10
(a) Demonstrate the process of Grover’s algorithm for the case n = 4, i.e.,
N = 16, with an arbitrarily chosen state as the target; extend the Grover’s
algorithm by considering the cases of multiple data items or none data item
existing, respectively;
(b) What scenarios motivated Grover to come up with his search algorithm
and is it possible to create other Quantum Algorithms motivated by this
understanding?

Question 11
Whether is Entanglement involved or required in Grover’s algorithm?
Where and how Entanglement occurs if yes. Furthermore, is Entanglement
really essential to the speedup of a quantum algorithm?

Question 12
Illustrate the 16-point Fast Fourier Transform and relate it with the 4-qubit
Quantum Fourier Transform.

Question 13
Give FTs (Fourier Transforms) over groups S3 , S4 , D6 and D8 , and their
corresponding FFTs (Fast Fourier Transforms); are they relatable to
post-quantum cryptography?

4
Question 14
Try to propose algorithms to combat some specific NPC or NP-hard
problems.

Question 15
Prove that any unitary operator acting on a single qubit can be written in
the form U = a0 I + i~a · ~σ and find the relation among the entries
a0 , a1 , a2 , and a3 , here ~a = (a1 , a2 , a3 ) and a0 , a1 , a2 , a3 ∈ R; one or more
steps further, could you extend the formula to carry unitary operators
acting on more qubits? For example, try to provide a procedure to realize a
250 × 250 matrix or actually an appropriate representation required in
performing computations of 50 qubits.

Question 16
Suppose that Alice and Bob share a mixed entangled state (0 ≤ β ≤ 1)

1+β − 1−β +
ρCB
shared = |Ψ ihΨ− | + |Ψ ihΨ+ |,
2 2
where |Ψ± i = √1 (|01i ± |10i)
2
and |Φ± i = √1 (|00i ± |11i).
2
Now Alice wishes
 
A ρ00 ρ01
to teleport to Bob a one-qubit mixed state ρin = ,
ρ10 ρ11
and he will exercise the correction operations {I, σz , σx , σy } respectively as
receiving the measurement results of Alice {|Ψ− + − +
AC i, |ΨAC i, |ΦAC i, |ΦAC i} in
order.
(a) Calculate the output ρB out Bob will obtain as well as the Fidelity
resulted;
(b) Compute the entanglement varying of the nonlocal operation eia acting
on ρB = λ1 |Φ+ ihΦ+ | + λ2 |Ψ+ ihΨ+ | + λ3 |Ψ− ihΨ− | + λ4 |Φ− ihΦ− | and an
arbitrary density operator ρAB respectively, here
a = 2i (c1 σ1 ⊗ σ1 + c2 σ2 ⊗ σ2 + c3 σ3 ⊗ σ3 );
(c) Similarly, compute the fidelity varying of teleportation, correlated to
entanglement, with the quantum channel a Bell state replaced by ρB and
by an arbitrary density operator ρAB .

5
Question 17
Try to prove or add other conditions required to establish the postulated
theorem: A decoherence dynamics, guided by some superoperator, is
unitraily recoverable if and only if every mapping, or transition, rule
designated in the dynamics is inner-product preserving? And is the
”physics” of this dynamics unique against the nonuniqueness of the unitary
action to be recovered? Also, is it possible to relate the concept of
Positivity and Choi matrices associated with this superoperator to the
number and features of mapping rules?

Question 18
Prove the entanglement swapping
Bell State Meas.
|E(4)i ⊗ |E(3)i 7−→ |E(5)i ⊗ |E(2)i,

referring to PRA, vol.57, no.2, 822, 1998; meanwhile, try to construct

scenarios of mixed states that allow actions of entanglement swapping.

Question 19
(a) Prove that a 2SAT problem can be solved in a polynomial time using
the trick of the assignment graph; that is, estimate the complexity of the
problem which shall be a polynomial function of the number of variables n
and the number of clauses m.
(b) Try to design a quantum algorithm which enables a deterministic or
probabilistic solution, hopefully polynomially, for the k SAT problem as
k ≥ 3.
(c) Is there any room for Quantum No-Cloning to play a role in the
arguement whether N P = P ?

Question 20
Regarding a CSS quantum error correction code,
(a) complete the derivation missing in the class to assert the fact that the
code recovers its origial form via the (quantum) Fourier transform after the
corrections of bit and phase errors;
(b) prove the relation in a general case HXη H = Z−η , ∀ η ∈ Znq .

6
Question 21
Find the dual code C ⊥ of the code C generated by (121) in the finite field
Z33 .

Question 22
In contrast to the No-Cloning Theorem, give the proof of the No-Deletion
Theorem; since there exist schemes of Imperfect Cloning, try to design the
counterparts of Imperfect Deletion.

Question 23
(a) Analogous to the Imperfect, or Probabilistic, Cloning introduced in the
class, try to devise an Imperfect, or Probabilistic, eavesdropping to attack
the BB84 Protocol;
(b) What will be implied or acquired by applying the feasibility of
Imperfect Clone to Every assertion or scheme proved, or based on or
related to, No Cloning Theorem?

Question 24
Is it possible to apply the NonLocalities derived from Stabilization Group
Codes to ”webbing securities” over quantum networks?

Question 25
The argument of L Hardy over the conflict in nature between QM
NonLocality and Lorentz Invariance, referring to PRL 68, 2981 (1992), may
not be sufficiently convincing, but still worth further pondering. What’s
your thought?

Question 26
As to the two states |0000i + |1111i and (|00i + |11i)(|00i + |11i), which
one is more entangled? Why?

7
Question 27
Outline the proof for Schummacher theorem analogous to that for
Shannon’s 1st theorem, and describe in brief the quantum version of
Huffman code, referring to arXiv:quant-ph/9805080.

Question 28
(a) Calculate the number of maximal subgroups of the additive group Z2p .
(b) Calculate the number of r-th maximal subgroups of Z2p for 1 < r < p,
and give an algorithm to generate the complete set of these subgroups.
(c) Given a partition over the set Z2p generated by a subgroup of r
generators, prove the closure of coset labels under the bit-wise addition
Cα + Cβ = Cα+β , here α, β ∈ Z2p−r , an elementary relation in constructing
additive error correction codes.

Question 29
Employ the BCH formula to prove the reduction that every multipartite
gate can be decomposed into a product of bipartite and local gates.

Question 30
Factorize the following quantum gates into local and nonlocal (two-qubit)
actions (gates),
(a) Hadamard gate;
(b) CNOT gate;
(c) SWAP gate.

Question 31
Encode Hadamard, CNOT and SWAP gates in the stabilizer code [[5, 1, 3]].

Question 32
Construct an [[n, k]] code in which there exists at least a fault-tolerant
action.

8
Question 33
(a) Repeat briefly the proof of the Gisin theorem: Any nonproduct state
violates a Bell’s inequality.
(b) Prove that there exists a set of unit vectors {~q, ~r, ~s, ~t} in R3 for an
arbitrary two-level-bipartite entangled√ pure state ρ to establish the
Bell-CHSH inequality Tr{Bρ} ≤ 2 2 , where
B = Q ⊗ S + R ⊗ S + R ⊗ T − Q ⊗ T is the Bell-CHSH observable with the
four local operators Q = ~q · ~σ , R = ~r · ~σ , S = ~s · ~σ and T = ~t · ~σ .
(c) Give the parameter interval(s) where, for all choices of the 4 local
operators, the Bell-CHSH inequality fails to detect the entanglement of the
Werner state.

Question 34
(a) Extend the Azuma-Ban solution for the Werner state to considering the
case that the entanglement matrix Ω in the spinor form of the state has 3
different eigenvalues Ω1 , Ω2 and Ω3 .
(b) Write down an explicit decomposition for a separable Werner state (on
a 2 × 2 system); the choices of the requested decompostion are not unique,
however following the procedure in terms of the Wootters basis as suggested
in the appendix of the paper of Azuma and Ban is a good option.
(c) Generalize the decompositions in (b) to Bell mixtures, i.e., whose 3
eigenvalues of the entanglement matrix Ω being distinct;
(d) Does there exist an entangled state that can be written in an infinite
sum of separable states?

Question 35
Let an operator ρ ∈ HAB be mapped to ρ̃ ∈ HAB through an LOCC (Local
Operation and Classical Communication)

(A ⊗ B)ρ(A ⊗ B)†
ρ̃ = ,
Tr{(A ⊗ B)ρ(A ⊗ B)† }

where A and B are respectively an invertible matrix acting on Hilbert

spaces HA and HB .
(a) Affirm that so is ρ̃ if ρ is a density operator;
(b) affirm that ρ̃ is separable if and only if so is ρ;

9
(c) For a density operator ρ in a 2-qubit system and its spin-flip state
ρ̃ = σ2 ⊗ σ2 ρ∗ σ2 ⊗ σ2 with the complex conjugate ρ∗ as introduced by
Wootters, show that the matrix ρρ̃ exhibits the vanishing coherence, i.e.,
Tr{ρρ̃ · I ⊗ σi } = Tr{ρρ̃ · σi ⊗ I} = 0 for all 1 ≤ i ≤ 3.
(d) Is it feasible to propose schemes beyond LOCC?

Question 36
Referring to F. P Verstraete, Phys. Rev. A, 64, 012316, 2001, for a density
operator ρ = 4 3i,j=1 Rij σi ⊗ σj in a 2-qubit (2 ⊗ 2) system with σ0 = I2
1

and Rij ∈ R,
(a) show that, when the state ρ undergoes an LOCC as
(A⊗B)ρ(A⊗B)† P3
ρ0 = Tr{(A⊗B)ρ(A⊗B) †} = 4
1 0
i,j=0 Rij σi ⊗ σj , the 4 × 4 matrix R with
Rij = 21 Tr{ρ · σi ⊗ σj }, up to a normalization, transforms as
R0 = LA RLTB , (1)
0
where Rij = 21 Tr{ρ0 · σi ⊗ σj }, LA = LA M LTA = T (A ⊗ A∗ )T † /|detA| and
LB = LB M LTB = T (B ⊗ B ∗ )T † /|detB| are proper orthochronous
 Lorentz
1 0 0 1
 0 1 1 0 
transformations for M = diag{1, −1, −1, −1} and T =   0 i −i 0 ;


1 0 0 −1
(b) show that the matrix R can be decomposed as
R = L1 ΣLT2 (2)
with L1 and L2 are proper orthochronous Lorentz transformations, and Σ
either of the diagonal form 3 } with s0 ≥ s1 ≥ s2 ≥ |s3 |,
 Σ = diag{s0 , s1 , s2 , s
a 0 0 b
 0 d 0 0 
either of the form Σ =   with a, b, c, d ∈ R;
 0 0 −d 0 
c 0 0 a+c−b
(c) are these expositions extendable to 2 ⊗ 3 systems?

Question 37
A B
Given two hermiticity-preserving superoperators ΛA,→B : HM → HN and
B A
ΛB,→A : HN → HM sharing the same Choi matrix C{Λ:A,→B} = C{Λ:B,→A} ,
prove the trace identity of two parties

10
TrB {ρB · ΛA,→B (ρA )}
P= TrA {ρA · ΛB,→A (ρB )} for all ρA ∈ HM
A
and ρB ∈ HN
B
,
M
where C{Λ:A,→B} = i,k=1 |iiA hk| ⊗ ΛA,→B (|iiA hk|) and
C{Λ:B,→A} = N
P
j,l=1 ΛB,→A (|jiB hl|) ⊗ |jiB hl|.

Question 38
A B
Given a hermiticity-preserving superoperator ΛA,→B : HM → HN , prove the
trace identity of three parties
TrBC {|π BC ihπ BC |·ΛA,→B ⊗IC (|ϕAC ihϕAC |)} = TrAB {|ψ AB ihψ AB |·C{Λ:A,→B} },
where thePstateP|ψ AB i in the Hilbert space HM AB
N is written as
AB M N C C √ √ A B
|ψ i = r=1 s=1 he er i µr νs |ϕr , πs i with a Schmidt number
πs |ϕ
k ≤ min{kA , kB }, and thePtwo states |ϕAC i and |π BC i admit
PkBthe Schmidt
AC kA √ A √
decompositions |ϕ i = r=1 µr |ϕr , ϕ er i and |π i = s=1 νs |πsB , π
C BC
esC i
with Schmidt numbers kA ≤ min{k, M } and kB ≤ min{k, N } respectively.

Question 39
Need Kraus theorem revisions or extension?

Question 40
Is it physically sensible to have classicl entanglement in classical waves,
and, in your opinion, which implementation approach(es) to Quantum
Computing is(are) more likely to be realised in the near future?

TBA

11