In number theory, a partition of a positive integer n is a way of writing n as a sum of positive integers. The number of partitions of n is given by the partition function p(n). Inspired by quantum information processing, we extend the concept of partitions in number theory as follows: for an integer n, we treat each partition as a basis state of a quantum system representing that number n, so that the Hilbert‐space that corresponds to that integer n is of dimension p(n); the “classical integer” n can thus be generalized into a (pure) quantum state | |ψ(n) > which is a superposition of the partitions of n, in the same way that a quantum bit (qubit) is a generalization of a classical bit. More generally, ρ(n) is a density matrix in that same Hilbert‐space (a probability distribution over pure states). Inspired by the notion of quantum numbers in quantum theory (such as in Bohr’s model of the atom), we then try to go beyond the partitions, by defining (via recursion) the notion of “sub‐partitions” in number theory. Combining the two notions mentioned above, sub‐partitions and quantum integers, we finally provide an alternative definition of the quantum integers [the pure‐state |ψ′(n)> and the mixed‐state ρ′(n), ] this time using the sub‐partitions as the basis states instead of the partitions, for describing the quantum number that corresponds to the integer n.
In number theory, a partition of a positive integer n is a way of writing n as a sum of positive integers. The number of partitions of n is given by the partition function p(n). Inspired by quantum information processing, we extend the concept of partitions in number theory as follows: for an integer n, we treat each partition as a basis state of a quantum system representing that number n, so that the Hilbert‐space that corresponds to that integer n is of dimension p(n); the “classical integer” n can thus be generalized into a (pure) quantum state | |ψ(n) > which is a superposition of the partitions of n, in the same way that a quantum bit (qubit) is a generalization of a classical bit. More generally, ρ(n) is a density matrix in that same Hilbert‐space (a probability distribution over pure states). Inspired by the notion of quantum numbers in quantum theory (such as in Bohr’s model of the atom), we then try to go beyond the partitions, by defining (via recursion) the notion of “sub‐partitions” in number theory. Combining the two notions mentioned above, sub‐partitions and quantum integers, we finally provide an alternative definition of the quantum integers [the pure‐state |ψ′(n)> and the mixed‐state ρ′(n), ] this time using the sub‐partitions as the basis states instead of the partitions, for describing the quantum number that corresponds to the integer n.
We employ an algebraic procedure based on quantum mechanics to propose a `quantum number theory' (QNT) as a possible extension of the `classical number theory'. We built our QNT by defining pure quantum number operators (q-numbers) of a Hilbert space that generate classical numbers (c-numbers) belonging to discrete Euclidean spaces. To start with this formalism, we define a 2-component natural q-number N, such that N2≡N12+N22, satisfying a Heisenberg-Dirac algebra, which allows to generate a set of natural c-numbers n∈N. A probabilistic interpretation of QNT is then inferred from this representation. Furthermore, we define a 3-component integer q-number Z, such that Z2≡Z12+Z22+Z32 and obeys a Lie algebra structure. The eigenvalues of each Z component generate a set of classical integers m∈Z∪21Z∗, Z∗=Z∖{0}, albeit all components do not generate Z3 simultaneously. We interpret the eigenvectors of the q-numbers as `q-number state vectors' (QNSV), which form multidimensional orthonormal basis sets useful to describe state-vector superpositions defined here as qunits. To interconnect QNSV of different dimensions, associated to the same c-number, we propose a quantum mapping operation to relate distinct Hilbert subspaces, and its structure can generate a subset W⊆Q∗, the field of non-zero rationals. In the present description, QNT is related to quantum computing theory and allows dealing with nontrivial computations in high dimensions.
The new logic of partitions is dual to the usual Boolean logic of subsets (usually presented only in the special case of the logic of propositions) in the sense that partitions and subsets are category-theoretic duals. The new information measure of logical entropy is the normalized quantitative version of partitions. The new approach to interpreting quantum mechanics (QM) is showing that the mathematics (not the physics) of QM is the linearized Hilbert space version of the mathematics of partitions. Or, putting it the other way around, the math of partitions is a skeletal version of the math of QM. The key concepts throughout this progression from logic, to logical information, to quantum theory are distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. The distinctions of a partition are the ordered pairs of elements from the underlying set that are in different blocks of the partition and logical entropy is defined (initially) as the normalized number of distinctions. The cognate notions of definiteness and distinguishability run throughout the math of QM, e.g., in the key non-classical notion of superposition (=ontic indefiniteness) and in the Feynman rules for adding amplitudes (indistinguishable alternatives) versus adding probabilities (distinguishable alternatives).
Decompositional theories describe the ways in which a global physical system can be split into subsystems, facilitating the study of how different possible partitions of a same system interplay, e.g. in terms of inclusions or signalling. In quantum theory, subsystems are usually framed as sub-C* algebras of the algebra of operators on the global system. However, most decompositional approaches have so far restricted their scope to the case of systems corresponding to factor algebras. We argue that this is a mistake: one should cater for the possibility for non-factor subsystems, arising for instance from symmetry considerations. Building on simple examples, we motivate and present a definition of partitions into an arbitrary number of parts, each of which is a possibly non-factor sub-C* algebra. We discuss its physical interpretation and study its properties, in particular with regards to the structure of algebras' centres. We prove that partitions, defined at the C*-algebraic level, can be represented in terms of a splitting of Hilbert spaces, using the framework of routed quantum circuits. For some partitions, however, such a representation necessarily retains a residual pseudo-nonlocality. We provide an example of this behaviour, given by the partition of a fermionic system into local modes.
In this section we introduce the framework of quantum mechanics as it pertains to the types of systems we will consider for quantum computing. Here we also introduce the notion of a quantum bit or ‘qubit’, which is a fundamental concept for quantum computing. At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was believed by most that the laws of Newton and Maxwell were the correct laws of physics. By the 1930s, however, it had become apparent that these classical theories faced serious problems in trying to account for the observed results of certain experiments. As a result, a new mathematical framework for physics called quantum mechanics was formulated, and new theories of physics called quantum physics were developed in this framework. Quantum physics includes the physical theories of quantum electrodynamics and quantum field theory, but we do not need to know these physical theories in order to learn about quantum information. Quantum information is the result of reformulating information theory in this quantum framework. We saw in Section 1.6 an example of a two-state quantum system: a photon that is constrained to follow one of two distinguishable paths. We identified the two distinguishable paths with the 2-dimensional basis vectors and then noted that a general ‘path state’ of the photon can be described by a complex vector with |α0|2 +|α1|2 = 1. This simple example captures the essence of the first postulate, which tells us how physical states are represented in quantum mechanics. Depending on the degree of freedom (i.e. the type of state) of the system being considered, H may be infinite-dimensional. For example, if the state refers to the position of a particle that is free to occupy any point in some region of space, the associated Hilbert space is usually taken to be a continuous (and thus infinite-dimensional) space. It is worth noting that in practice, with finite resources, we cannot distinguish a continuous state space from one with a discrete state space having a sufficiently small minimum spacing between adjacent locations. For describing realistic models of quantum computation, we will typically only be interested in degrees of freedom for which the state is described by a vector in a finite-dimensional (complex) Hilbert space.
The concepts of classical information theory can be extended to quantum information theory. Since in general measurement yields a result with probability, we may suggest using these probabilities in classical information theory. However the probabilities do not contain phase information, which cannot be neglected. Thus the definitions are given in terms of the density operator. These probabilities depend on the basis used for measurement. A density operator ρ over a n-dimensional Hilbert space H is a positive operator with unit trace. The trace tr(A) is defined as tr(A):=j=1∑n⟨βj∣A∣βj⟩ where β j for j = 1,..., n is any orthonormal basis in HThus tr(P)=1. The eigenvalues of a density operator are greater than zero. By the spectral theorem every density operator can be represented as a mixture of pure states ρ=j=1∑nPj∣⟨aj⟨aj∣ where α j for j = 1,..., n are the orthonormal eigenvectors of ρ (which form a basis in H and pj∈R,pj0,j=1∑npj=1
Introduction Quantum probability is a generalization of both classical probability theory and quantum mechanics that allows to describe the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics. This generalization is formulated in two steps. First, the theory is reformulated in terms of algebras of functions on probability spaces. Therefore, the notion of a probability space (Ω, ℱ , P ) is replaced by the pair ( L ∞ (Ω), E (.) = ∫ Ω . d P ) consisting of the commutative von Neumann algebra of bounded random variables and the expectation functional. Then, the commutativity condition is dropped. In this way we arrive at the notion of a (von Neumann) algebraic probability space ( N ,Φ) consisting of a von Neumann algebra N and a normal (faithful tracial) state Φ. As we have seen this includes classical probability spaces in the form ( L ∞ (Ω), E ), it also includes quantum mechanical systems modeled by a Hilbert space H and a pure state ψ ∊ H (or a mixed state ρ ∊ S ( H )), if we take N = B ( H ) and Ф the state defined by Ф( X ) = 〈 ψ, X ψ 〉 (or Ф ( X ) = tr(ρ X )) for X ∊ B ( H ). Note that in this course we shall relax the conditions on N and Φ and work with involutive algebras and positive normalized functionals, that is, *-algebraic probability spaces. A striking feature of quantum probability (also called noncommutative probability) is the existence of several notions of independence. This is the starting point of this course, which intends to give an introduction to the theory of quantum stochastic processes with independent increments. However, before we come to these processes, we will give a general introduction to quantum probability. In Section 1.2, we recall the basic definitions of quantum probability and discuss some fundamental differences between classical probability and quantum probability. In Section 1.3 we address the question ‘Why do we need Quantum Probability?’ We discuss the EPR experiment and the Kochen–Specker Theorem, which show that we cannot model quantum physics with classical probability spaces because the values of observable quantities do not exist unless we specify which measurement we will carry out and which quantities we will determine. In this sense quantum physics requires a more radical description of chance.