Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 53 references

Operator Spaces, Linear Logic and the Heisenberg-Schr\"odinger Duality of Quantum Theory

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a model of classical linear logic, based on a Chu construction over operator spaces, whose negation operation is exactly the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality of quantum theory.

desk verdict New operator-space model of CLL with the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality built in, but Theorem V.2 rests on an unproved internal-cogenerator condition that is true and easily patched. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06069 v1 pith:II2LBKTO submitted 2025-05-09 cs.LO quant-ph

Bert Lindenhovius , Vladimir Zamdzhiev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LOquant-ph MSC 46L0718C3503B7018D1581P68
keywords operatorspacescompletecontractionslinearlogicChuconstructionHeisenberg-Schrödingerdualityquantumchannelscompletelyprojectivetensorproductlocallypresentablecategories
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to show that linear logic—the logic of resources and dualities—can organise the two standard pictures of quantum theory. It proves that the category $\mathbf{OS}$ whose objects are operator spaces and whose morphisms are complete contractions is locally countably presentable and carries the structure of a model of intuitionistic linear logic. It then applies the Chu construction $\mathcal{Q} = \mathrm{Chu}(\mathbf{OS}, \mathbb{C})$ to obtain a model of classical linear logic. In that model, a Hilbert space $H$ is represented by the triple $(T(H), B(H), \mathrm{tr})$, pairing trace-class operators (Schrödinger-picture states) with bounded operators (Heisenberg-picture observables). A morphism in $\mathcal{Q}$ between such triples is precisely a pair $(f, f^t)$ where $f^t$ is the transpose of $f$, so CPTP channels and NCPU maps are the two faces of one logical duality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Chu construction applied to the category of operator spaces, with the one-dimensional operator space $\mathbb{C}$ as dualising object. Operator spaces are the noncommutative version of Banach spaces: each comes with compatible norms on all matrices over it, and the morphisms are complete contractions, which behave well under tensor products with auxiliary systems. The completely projective tensor product $\hat{\otimes}$ and the internal hom $\mathrm{CB}(-,-)$ give $\mathbf{OS}$ its monoidal closed structure. The Chu category $\mathcal{Q} = \mathrm{Chu}(\mathbf{OS}, \mathbb{C})$ packages a space $X$ with a dual space $Y$ and a pairing $d: X \hat{\otimes} Y \to \mathbb{C}$; for $X = T(H)$, $Y = B(H)$, $d = \mathrm{tr}$, the pairing is the trace. Morphisms in $\mathcal{Q}$ are pairs $(f,g)$ making the pairing square commute, which forces $g = f^t$; this is the exact sense in which the logical duality is the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality. The completely projective tensor corresponds to Schrödinger-picture composition $T(H_1) \hat{\otimes} T(H_2) \cong T(H_1 \otimes H_2)$, while the spatial tensor product of von Neumann algebras, recovered in $\mathcal{Q}$, corresponds to Heisenberg-picture composition.

What would settle it

Find two distinct complete contractions $f,g: X \to Y$ in $\mathbf{OS}$ such that every complete contraction $h: Y \to \mathbb{C}$ satisfies $h \circ f = h \circ g$. Such a pair would show that $\mathbb{C}$ is not a cogenerator, and it would remove the ground for the appeal to Barr's theorem in Theorem V.2, collapsing the claim that $\mathcal{Q}$ is a model of classical linear logic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality is not an analogy but an instance of the negation of linear logic. The category $\mathbf{OS}$ is locally countably presentable, symmetric monoidal closed under the completely projective tensor product, and has a Lafont exponential, hence is a model of intuitionistic linear logic. The paper's main object, the Chu category $\mathcal{Q} = \mathrm{Chu}(\mathbf{OS}, \mathbb{C})$, is complete, cocomplete, $*$-autonomous, and has a Lafont exponential, so it is a model of full classical linear logic. For Hilbert spaces, the object $(T(H), B(H), \mathrm{tr})$ carries the trace pairing; the defining square of a morphism in $\mathcal{Q}$ is equivalent to the transpose identity $\mathrm{tr}(f(x), b) = \mathrm{tr}(x, g(b))$, which is exactly the Heisenberg-Schrödinger correspondence. Consequently the duality $(-)^\perp$ in $\mathcal{Q}$ acts as the transpose operation, and quantum channels in the Schrödinger picture correspond to their Heisenberg-picture duals.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the classical linear logic model invokes a theorem that requires the one-dimensional operator space $\mathbb{C}$ to be an internal cogenerator of $\mathbf{OS}$—roughly, an object that lets maps into it separate all other objects—and the paper states this requirement without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the negation of classical linear logic can be read physically: negating a formula swaps the Schrödinger and Heisenberg descriptions of a quantum system.
  • For every Hilbert pair, the CPTP channels between trace-class spaces sit inside $\mathcal{Q}$ as morphisms paired with their transposes, so channel duality and composition are captured by logical duality.
  • Schrödinger-picture composition is the completely projective tensor product, and Heisenberg-picture composition is the spatial tensor product of von Neumann algebras; both are represented in one monoidal structure.
  • The category $\mathbf{OS}$ also accommodates pure-state primitives and the quantum switch as complete contractions, and shows that the switch uses the completely projective tensor essentially: it does not factor through the Haagerup tensor product.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Chu model is sound, the missing explicit description of the Lafont exponential on operator spaces is the main obstacle to extending the paper's polarity tables with an exponential row; finding such a description would let the one-way implications 'Schrödinger picture implies positive polarity' be sharpened to an equivalence.
  • The non-factorisation of the quantum switch through the Haagerup tensor product could be developed into a general criterion for 'essential use of superposition' in higher-order quantum maps, linking the linear-logic reading to BV-logic.
  • Because the embedding of CPTP/NCPU maps is faithful but not full, a natural next step is to restrict $\mathcal{Q}$ by orthogonality or gluing methods so that its morphisms are exactly physical channels; success would yield a fully abstract categorical semantics for quantum lambda calculi.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops categorical semantics for linear logic in the category OS of operator spaces with complete contractions. The authors argue that OS is locally countably presentable (with the proof deferred to a companion paper), is symmetric monoidal closed under the completely projective tensor product, and carries a Lafont exponential, hence is a model of Intuitionistic Linear Logic. They then form the Chu construction Q = Chu(OS,C) and claim, via Barr's theorem, that Q is a complete, cocomplete, *-autonomous category with a Lafont exponential, hence a model of Classical Linear Logic. On objects of the form (T(H),B(H),tr), morphisms in Q are identified with transpose maps, so the duality of Q is claimed to specialize to the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality between CPTP maps and NCPU maps. The paper also uses OS to model pure and mixed state primitives, shows that the quantum switch is a complete contraction for the completely projective tensor but not for the Haagerup tensor, and relates the spatial tensor product of von Neumann algebras to the multiplicative disjunction.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper provides a substantive new connection between operator space theory and linear logic semantics, with a concrete polarized reading of the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality that works in infinite dimensions. The identification of Q-morphisms with transpose maps is clean, the recovery of the spatial tensor product from the completely projective one via the Chu construction is an interesting result, and the quantum-switch computation separates the completely projective and Haagerup tensors in a way that is directly relevant to higher-order quantum maps. The main reservations are that the local-presentability theorem is imported from an unpublished companion paper and that the central CLL-model theorem depends on an unproved internal-cogenerator assertion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V, Theorem V.2] The theorem that Q = Chu(OS,C) is a complete, cocomplete, *-autonomous category with a Lafont exponential is proved in a single sentence: "This follows immediately from [35], because OS is locally presentable, symmetric monoidal closed and the tensor unit C is an internal cogenerator." The internal-cogenerator condition is asserted without definition, proof, or reference, and it is load-bearing: Barr's theorem is applicable only if this condition holds. If C is not an internal cogenerator, Q need not be *-autonomous and the CLL model would not be established. This is probably repairable by showing that the canonical completely isometric embedding X → X** makes C an internal cogenerator, but the manuscript currently does not supply that verification.
  2. [§III, Theorems III.26–III.27] The paper's first main theorem, that OS is locally countably presentable, is not proved in this manuscript; Theorem III.26 states that the proof "requires considerable technical effort" and is included in the companion paper [24], an unpublished arXiv preprint. This theorem is also a premise for Theorem III.34 (the Lafont exponential) and for the application of Barr's theorem in Theorem V.2. The manuscript is therefore not self-contained on a load-bearing point. Please include the proof, or clearly state the result as an assumption from a published or accepted source.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§III, Proposition III.20] The coequaliser is described as Y / Im(f−g), but for Banach-type categories the quotient must be taken by the closure of Im(f−g); please specify closure explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [§VI and Abstract] Section VI correctly notes that CPTP and NCPU are only faithfully (not fully) embedded into OS and Q. Since the abstract says the model's duality is "compatible" with the Heisenberg-Schrödinger duality, the limitation should be stated more prominently so that readers do not infer a full categorical equivalence.
  3. [§IV.C and Appendix A-B] The notation for the Hilbert-space tensor product varies between C^2_2 ⊗ H and C^2 ⊗ H; unify the notation for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the model is built from independent Chu/Barr theorems and standard operator-space dualities.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. The local presentability of OS is deferred to the authors' companion paper [24]; this is a self-citation, but [24] is a separate, parameter-free proof whose stated assumptions do not include the conclusions of the present paper, so it is not a reduction of the target result to its own inputs. Theorem III.27 combines cocompleteness (also from [24]) and a strong generator of countably-presentable objects; no equation is defined in terms of the theorem it is used to prove. Theorem V.2 applies Barr's theorem [35] to OS, and the only local unproved premise is the assertion that the tensor unit C is an internal cogenerator. That is a verification gap, not a circular step: the condition is not derived from the CLL model being constructed, and if it failed the theorem would be unsupported rather than vacuously true. The Heisenberg-Schrödinger identification in Section V is also not circular: after choosing d = tr, the Chu morphism condition (16) is shown to be equivalent to the independently defined transpose equation (3). This is a mathematical equivalence between separately defined notions, not a renaming of the conclusion as an input. There are no fitted parameters, no forced predictions, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The paper is not fully self-contained, but the gaps are provenance/completeness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no empirical free parameters or invented entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the deferred local-presentability proof, the unproved internal cogenerator condition, and standard operator space duality results.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption OS is locally countably presentable and the countably-presentable objects in OS are exactly the separable operator spaces (Theorems III.26 and III.27).
    Proofs are deferred to companion paper [24]; the current paper relies on them without proof to establish the ILL and CLL models.
  • domain assumption The tensor unit C is an internal cogenerator of OS.
    Stated without proof in the proof of Theorem V.2; required to apply Barr's theorem [35] and construct the CLL model Q.
  • standard math Standard operator space theory: Ruan's representation theorem, the duality T(H)* is completely isometric to B(H), and the predual of a spatial tensor product satisfies (M ⊗ N)_* is completely isometric to M_* ⊗^ N_*.
    Background results cited to [13] and [14]; they are load-bearing for the physical interpretation of the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Operator Spaces, Linear Logic and the Heisenberg-Schr\"odinger Duality of Quantum Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/II2LBKTO

@misc{pith2026250506069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Operator Spaces, Linear Logic and the Heisenberg-Schr\"odinger Duality of Quantum Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/II2LBKTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06069}
}
read the original abstract

We show that the category OS of operator spaces, with complete contractions as morphisms, is locally countably presentable and a model of Intuitionistic Linear Logic in the sense of Lafont. We then describe a model of Classical Linear Logic, based on OS, whose duality is compatible with the Heisenberg-Schr\"odinger duality of quantum theory. We also show that OS provides a good setting for studying pure state and mixed state quantum information, the interaction between the two, and even higher-order quantum maps such as the quantum switch.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Accessible categories and models of linear logic,

    ——, “Accessible categories and models of linear logic,”Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 219–232, 1991. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0022404991900203

    work page 1991

  2. [24]

    The category of operator spaces and complete contractions,

    B. Lindenhovius and V . Zamdzhiev, “The category of operator spaces and complete contractions,”CoRR, vol. abs/2412.20999, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.20999

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.20999 2024

  3. [41]

    The category of finite dimensional operator spaces,

    T. Li, “The category of finite dimensional operator spaces,” 2024, internship report (unpublished), defended in August 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    Pedersen,Analysis Now

    G. Pedersen,Analysis Now. Springer, 1989

    work page 1989

  5. [2]

    Connes,Noncommutative Geometry

    A. Connes,Noncommutative Geometry. Academic Press, 1994

    1994

  6. [3]

    Operator algebras: Theory of C*-algebras and von neumann algebras,

    B. Blackadar, “Operator algebras: Theory of C*-algebras and von neumann algebras,” 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [4]

    Kadison and J

    R. Kadison and J. Ringrose,Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebra, Volume I: Elementary Theory. American Mathematical Society, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [5]

    American Mathematical Society, 1997

    ——,Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebra, Volume II: Advanced Theory. American Mathematical Society, 1997

    work page 1997

Show all 53 references
  1. [6]

    Takesaki,Theory of Operator Algebras

    M. Takesaki,Theory of Operator Algebras. Vol. I, II and III. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2002

    2002

  2. [7]

    Linear logic,

    J.-Y . Girard, “Linear logic,”Theoretical computer science, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–101, 1987

    1987

  3. [8]

    Étude de la polarisation en logique,

    O. Laurent, “Étude de la polarisation en logique,” Theses, Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille II, Mar. 2002. [Online]. Available: https://theses.hal.science/tel-00007884

    2002

  4. [9]

    Polarized Linear Logic with Fixpoints,

    T. Ehrhard, F. Jafarrahmani, and A. Saurin, “Polarized Linear Logic with Fixpoints,” IRIF (UMR_8243) - Institut de Recherche en Informatique Fondamentale, Technical Report, Apr. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://hal.science/hal-03655737

    2022

  5. [10]

    Categorical semantics of linear logic,

    P.-A. Mellies, “Categorical semantics of linear logic,”Panoramas et synthèses-Société mathématique de France, no. 27, 2009

    2009

  6. [11]

    Linear logic,*-autonomous categories and cofree coalgebras,

    R. Seely, “Linear logic,*-autonomous categories and cofree coalgebras,” Categories in Computer Science and Logic, vol. 92, pp. 371–382, 1989

    1989

  7. [12]

    Barr,*-Autonomous categories

    M. Barr,*-Autonomous categories. Springer, 2006, vol. 752

    2006

  8. [13]

    E. G. Effros and Z.-J. Ruan,Theory of Operator Spaces. American Mathematical Society, 2022, vol. 386

    2022

  9. [14]

    D. P. Blecher and C. Le Merdy,Operator Algebras and Their Modules: An operator space approach. Oxford University Press, 10 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526599. 001.0001

    2004

  10. [15]

    Pisier,Introduction to operator space theory

    G. Pisier,Introduction to operator space theory. Cambridge University Press, 2003

    2003

  11. [16]

    Adamek and J

    J. Adamek and J. Rosick `y,Locally presentable and accessible cate- gories. Cambridge University Press, 1994, vol. 189

    1994

  12. [17]

    Quantum computations without definite causal structure,

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Valiron, “Quantum computations without definite causal structure,”Physical Review A, vol. 88, no. 2, p. 022318, 2013

    2013

  13. [18]

    A system of interaction and structure,

    A. Guglielmi, “A system of interaction and structure,”ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1–es, jan 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1182613.1182614

    2007

  14. [19]

    Constructing *-autonomous categories,

    P.-H. Chu, “Constructing *-autonomous categories,” in*-Autonomous Categories, ser. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, M. Barr, Ed. Springer, 1979, vol. 752, pp. 103–138, appendix to: Michael Barr, *-Autonomous Categories

    1979

  15. [20]

    Gabriel and F

    P. Gabriel and F. Ulmer,Lokal präsentierbare kategorien, ser. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 2006, vol. 221. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0059396

    2006 doi

  16. [21]

    Borceux,Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and Structures

    F. Borceux,Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 2, Categories and Structures. Cambridge University Press, 1994, vol. 2

    1994

  17. [22]

    On finitary functors and their presentations,

    J. Adámek, S. Milius, L. S. Moss, and H. Urbat, “On finitary functors and their presentations,”J. Comput. Syst. Sci., vol. 81, no. 5, pp. 813–833, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2014. 12.002

    2015 doi

  18. [23]

    Approximate injectivity and smallness in metric-enriched categories,

    J. Adámek and J. Rosický, “Approximate injectivity and smallness in metric-enriched categories,”Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 226, no. 6, p. 106974, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022404921003157

    2022

  19. [25]

    Borceux,Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 1, Basic Cate- gory Theory

    F. Borceux,Handbook of Categorical Algebra: Volume 1, Basic Cate- gory Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1994, vol. 1

    1994

  20. [26]

    Natural examples of sequences of adjoint functors,

    Y . Choi, “Natural examples of sequences of adjoint functors,” MathOverflow, uRL:https://mathoverflow.net/q/89817 (version: 2012- 02-29). [Online]. Available: https://mathoverflow.net/q/89817

    2012

  21. [27]

    Operator spaces and residually finite-dimensional c*- algebras,

    V . Pestov, “Operator spaces and residually finite-dimensional c*- algebras,”Journal of Functional Analysis, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 308–317, 1994. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0022123684710901

    1994

  22. [28]

    Combinatorial and accessible weak model categories,

    S. Henry, “Combinatorial and accessible weak model categories,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.02360

    2020 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Do completely bounded maps on an operator space have a completely contractive banach algebra structure?

    Y . Choi, “Do completely bounded maps on an operator space have a completely contractive banach algebra structure?” MathOverflow, uRL:https://mathoverflow.net/q/455809 (version: 2023-10-03). [Online]. Available: https://mathoverflow.net/q/455809

    2023

  24. [30]

    Logiques, catégories et machines,

    Y . Lafont, “Logiques, catégories et machines,” Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versité Paris 7, 1988

    1988

  25. [31]

    On categories of monoids, comonoids, and bimonoids,

    H.-E. Porst, “On categories of monoids, comonoids, and bimonoids,” Quaestiones Mathematicae, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 127–139, 2008

    2008

  26. [32]

    A mixed linear and non-linear logic: Proofs, terms and models (extended abstract),

    P. N. Benton, “A mixed linear and non-linear logic: Proofs, terms and models (extended abstract),” inComputer Science Logic, 8th International Workshop, CSL ’94, Kazimierz, Poland, September 25-30, 1994, Selected Papers, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, L. Pacholski and...

    1994 doi

  27. [33]

    Axioms for the category of hilbert spaces and linear contractions,

    C. Heunen, A. Kornell, and N. van der Schaaf, “Axioms for the category of hilbert spaces and linear contractions,”Bull. London Math. Soc, vol. 56, pp. 1532–1549, 2024

    2024

  28. [34]

    *-autonomous categories and linear logic,

    M. Barr, “*-autonomous categories and linear logic,”Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 159–178, 1991

    1991

  29. [36]

    Coherent banach spaces: a continuous denotational semantics,

    J. Girard, “Coherent banach spaces: a continuous denotational semantics,” inLinear Logic Tokyo Meeting 1996, Keio University, Mita Campus, Tokyo, Japan, March 29 - April 2, 1996, ser. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, J. Girard, M. Okada, and A. Scedrov, Eds., ...

    1996 doi

  30. [37]

    Glueing and orthogonality for models of linear logic,

    M. Hyland and A. Schalk, “Glueing and orthogonality for models of linear logic,”Theor. Comput. Sci., vol. 294, no. 1/2, pp. 183–231, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3975(01)00241-9

    2003 doi

  31. [38]

    A categorical semantics for causal struc- ture,

    A. Kissinger and S. Uijlen, “A categorical semantics for causal struc- ture,” in32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS 2017, Reykjavik, Iceland, June 20-23, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 2017, pp. 1–12

    2017

  32. [39]

    Higher-order causal theories are models of bv-logic,

    W. Simmons and A. Kissinger, “Higher-order causal theories are models of bv-logic,” in47th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, MFCS 2022, August 22-26, 2022, Vienna, Austria, ser. LIPIcs, S. Szeider, R. Ganian, and A. Silva, Eds., vol. 241....

    2022 doi

  33. [40]

    Towards a semantics for higher-order quantum computa- tion,

    P. Selinger, “Towards a semantics for higher-order quantum computa- tion,” inProceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages, TUCS General Publication, vol. 33, 2004, pp. 127–143

    2004

  34. [42]

    Deep inference and probabilistic coherence spaces,

    R. Blute, P. Panangaden, and S. Slavnov, “Deep inference and probabilistic coherence spaces,”Appl. Categorical Struct., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 209–228, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10485-010-9241-0

    2012

  35. [43]

    A system of interaction and structure III: the complexity of BV and pomset logic,

    L. T. D. Nguyên and L. Straßburger, “A system of interaction and structure III: the complexity of BV and pomset logic,”Log. Methods Comput. Sci., vol. 19, no. 4, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.46298/lmcs-19(4:25)2023

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Operator space tensor products and hopf convolution algebras,

    E. G. Effros and Z.-J. Ruan, “Operator space tensor products and hopf convolution algebras,”Journal of Operator Theory, pp. 131–156, 2003

    2003

  37. [45]

    A complete logic for causal consistency,

    W. Simmons and A. Kissinger, “A complete logic for causal consistency,”CoRR, vol. abs/2403.09297, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.09297

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Game semantics for quantum programming,

    P. Clairambault, M. de Visme, and G. Winskel, “Game semantics for quantum programming,”PACMPL, vol. 3, no. POPL, pp. 32:1–32:29, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Full abstraction for the quantum lambda-calculus,

    P. Clairambault and M. de Visme, “Full abstraction for the quantum lambda-calculus,”Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 4, no. POPL, pp. 63:1–63:28, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3371131

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Quantum game semantics. (sémantique des jeux quantique),

    M. de Visme, “Quantum game semantics. (sémantique des jeux quantique),” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lyon, France, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03045844

    2020

  41. [49]

    Enriched presheaf model of quantum FPC,

    T. Tsukada and K. Asada, “Enriched presheaf model of quantum FPC,” Proc. ACM Program. Lang., vol. 8, no. POPL, pp. 362–392, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3632855

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Applying quantitative semantics to higher-order quantum computing,

    M. Pagani, P. Selinger, and B. Valiron, “Applying quantitative semantics to higher-order quantum computing,” inThe 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL ’14, San Diego, CA, USA, January 20-21, 2014, S. Jagannathan and P. Sewell, ...

    2014

  43. [51]

    Størmer,Positive Linear Maps of Operator Algebras

    E. Størmer,Positive Linear Maps of Operator Algebras. Springer, 2013

    2013

  44. [52]

    Heinosaari and M

    T. Heinosaari and M. Ziman,The Mathematical Language of Quantum Theory: From Uncertainty to Entanglement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, online publication date: January 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976515

    2011 doi

  45. [53]

    Weidmann,Linear Operators in Hilbert Spaces

    J. Weidmann,Linear Operators in Hilbert Spaces. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1980. APPENDIXA OMITTEDPROOFS FROMSECTIONIII In this section we provide more detailed proofs of some propositions from §III. A. The Heisenberg-Schrödinger Duality Proposition III.14.LetH 1 andH 2 be...

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.