Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Hamming Metrics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the quantum Hamming metric from the classical one by rewriting it in C*-algebra language and dropping commutativity.

desk verdict A transparent, useful reformulation of the quantum Hamming metric via quotient norms, with two fixable technical slips (strong-Leibniz definition and a factor-2 estimate in Theorem 10.3) that do not sink the main results. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23046 v1 pith:BJFMRJW6 submitted 2025-07-30 math.OA math-phmath.FAmath.MP

Marc A. Rieffel This is my paper
classification math.OAmath-phmath.FAmath.MP MSC 58B3481P4546L05
keywords quantumHammingmetricC*-metricLeibnizseminormKantorovich-WassersteindistancetensorproductofmatrixalgebrasquotientnormDiracoperatorstatespace
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

This paper sets out to show that the quantum Hamming metric is the natural result of expressing the classical Hamming metric in C*-algebra language and then dropping commutativity. The resulting seminorm on a tensor product of matrix algebras, $L_{qH}(a)=\max_i 2\|a\|_{A/\tilde{A}_i}$, is proved to be a strongly Leibniz C*-metric whose state-space diameter is exactly the word length $n$ when no tensor factor is trivial. On states it yields a Kantorovich-Wasserstein distance given by an infimum over decompositions of the difference of states into single-site components, matching the quantum Wasserstein-1 definition introduced in [7]. The same construction extends to arbitrary unital C*-algebras as a seminorm, though there it no longer induces the weak-* topology on the state space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Theorem 3.2: for a sum-metric on a product of metric spaces, $L_{d_S}(f)=\max_i L_i(f)$, where $L_i$ is the partial Lipschitz seminorm in the $i$-th variable. Its quantum analogue is Definition 9.2, $L_{qH}(a)=\max_i 2\|a\|_{A/\tilde{A}_i}$, in which each factor's contribution is measured by twice the quotient-norm distance to the subalgebra that ignores that factor. The proof of the diameter results uses a telescoping decomposition of $\mu-\nu$ into single-site difference functionals (Lemma 10.1), and the state-space distance formula comes from a duality theorem (Proposition 6.1) expressing the dual of a max-norm as an infimum over sums of dual norms on annihilators. The strongly Leibniz property and the Dirac-operator form come from the representation of such quotient seminorms as suprema of commutators with projections in the commutant (Theorem 12.1).

What would settle it

Compute $d_{qH}$ between $|00\rangle\langle 00|$ and $|11\rangle\langle 11|$ in $A=M_2(\mathbb{C})\otimes M_2(\mathbb{C})$ using Corollary 11.2 and compare with the value obtained from the definition of [7]; if the two numbers disagree, the claimed match fails. A broader test would search for any pair of states on $\otimes_i M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ for which the infimum over decompositions differs from the density-matrix formula of definition 7 of [7].

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quantum Hamming metric on $A=\otimes_{i=1}^n M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ is the seminorm $L_{qH}(a)=\max_i L_i(a)$, with $L_i(a)=2\|a\|_{A/\tilde{A}_i}$, where $\tilde{A}_i$ is the tensor product of all factors except $i$ and the norm is the quotient norm. This definition is reached by first proving that for a classical product of finite alphabets the Hamming Lipschitz seminorm of a real-valued function equals $\max_i 2\|f\|_{C(X)/C(\tilde{X}_i)}$ (Theorem 9.1), and then taking the same formula with $C(X_i)$ replaced by the matrix algebra $A_i$. The paper proves that $L_{qH}$ is a norm on $A/\mathbb{C}1$ equivalent to $L_0$, that the diameter of the induced metric on states is at most $n$ (Theorem 10.2) and exactly $n$ when no $A_i$ is one-dimensional (Theorem 10.3), and that the corresponding Kantorovich-Wasserstein metric is $d_{qH}(\mu,\nu)=\inf\{\sum_i \|\varphi_i\|_i : \varphi_i\in \tilde{A}_i^\perp,\ \varphi_i^*=\varphi_i,\ \mu-\nu=\sum_i \varphi_i\}$ (Corollary 11.2), which matches the definition introduced in [7]. In finite dimensions $L_{qH}$ is a strongly Leibniz C*-metric, and each $L_i$ can be represented as a supremum of commutators with projections in the commutant, yielding a Dirac-type operator form.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the convention that the cost of differing in one position is twice the quotient-norm distance to the subalgebra of observables that ignore that position; this convention is not forced by the commutative, complex-valued Hamming metric, where the classical Lipschitz seminorm can differ from twice the quotient seminorm (Example 8.1).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quantum Hamming distance between states has a finite, computable expression as an infimum over decompositions of $\mu-\nu$ into self-adjoint functionals each supported on a single tensor factor.
  • The diameter of the quantum Hamming state space is exactly the word length $n$ for any choice of non-trivial matrix factors, so the metric retains the classical interpretation as the number of changed positions.
  • Because $L_{qH}$ is strongly Leibniz, Lipschitz-type bounds for products of observables hold automatically, which is the property needed for concentration and continuity estimates.
  • Each $L_i$ admits a Dirac-type operator representation as a supremum of commutators with projections in the commutant, connecting the quantum Hamming metric to noncommutative-geometric descriptions.
  • For infinite-dimensional unital C*-algebras the same formula still defines a quantum Hamming seminorm, though the induced topology on states is no longer the weak-* topology; this extends the notion beyond finite-dimensional systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The factor 2 in $L_i(a)=2\|a\|_{A/\tilde{A}_i}$ is a genuine convention: on complex-valued functions the classical Lipschitz seminorm for the complete-graph metric can differ from twice the quotient seminorm (Example 8.1), so a different convention would produce a different quantum metric; the paper's justification is that this choice recovers the established definition of [7].
  • The infimum formula suggests a practical computational strategy for large systems: instead of solving a full transport problem on $n$ qudits, one optimizes over single-site decompositions of the state difference, which for $n=500$ qubits may be significantly cheaper than a direct transport plan.
  • The Dirac-operator description of $L_i$ as a supremum over commutators with projections in the commutant may give a direct link to quantum error-correcting codes, since such projections implement operations on a single site; exploring that link is a natural next step.
  • Because the construction is purely algebraic, it can be tested in toy models with $n=2$ or $n=3$ and small matrix sizes, where both sides of Corollary 11.2 can be evaluated explicitly; such checks would either confirm the match with the 2021 definition or expose a discrepancy in the claimed correspondence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a C*-algebraic route to quantum Hamming metrics. It first reformulates the classical Hamming metric on words in terms of the algebra of functions on the product of alphabets, expressing the Lipschitz constant as a maximum of directional seminorms. Dropping commutativity, it defines, for a tensor product A = ⊗_i A_i of matrix algebras, the quantum Hamming seminorm L_qH(a) = max_i 2||a||_{A/\tilde A_i}, and proves that this is a strongly Leibniz C*-metric with diameter exactly n when no A_i is one-dimensional (Theorems 10.2 and 10.3). It then derives the dual representation of the induced Kantorovich-Wasserstein metric on states as an infimum over decompositions of µ−ν into self-adjoint functionals annihilating the \tilde A_i's, matching the definition of De Palma et al. (Corollary 11.2). The paper also gives Dirac-operator representations of the quotient seminorms and discusses extensions to infinite-dimensional C*-algebras.

Significance. If the technical gaps identified below are repaired, the paper provides a clean and largely self-contained derivation of the quantum Hamming metric and its associated Wasserstein-1 distance, placing the 2021 definition of De Palma, Marvian, Trevisan and Lloyd in a broader C*-algebraic framework. The main theorems are proved in detail, and the paper is honest about the modeling choices and limitations it makes, including the discrepancy between C-valued and R-valued functions in the commutative prototype. The paper should be of interest to researchers in noncommutative metric geometry and quantum information theory. It relies appropriately on the author's earlier work on Leibniz seminorms and best approximation from C*-subalgebras.

major comments (3)
  1. [Definition 2.1 and §§10, 12] The definition of "strongly Leibniz" in Definition 2.1 appears to be mis-stated. The paper defines strong Leibniz by L(a^{-1}) ≤ ||a||^{-2} L(a), but the cited theorem [28, Thm 3.2] and the standard convention in the literature use L(a^{-1}) ≤ ||a^{-1}||^2 L(a). As written, the claim in §10 that each L_i is strongly Leibniz fails for A = M_2(C), B = C1: with a = diag(3,1), L_i(a) = 2 dist(a,C1) = 2, while L_i(a^{-1}) = 2/3, but ||a||^{-2} L_i(a) = 2/9. The same example contradicts the assertion in §12 that any Dirac-operator seminorm is strongly Leibniz in the paper's sense. The definition should be corrected to the standard inequality, or the claims adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Theorem 10.3, proof] The proof contains a concrete error. The sentence "Li(ci) ≤ 1 for each i since ||ci|| = 1" is false: by Definition 9.1, L_i(c_i) = 2||c_i||_{A/\tilde A_i}, and the distance from a_i ⊗ 1 to \tilde A_i is exactly ||a_i|| = 1, so L_i(c_i) = 2. Consequently the displayed bound L_qH(a) ≤ 1 is unjustified. The subsequent computation φ(a) = 2n then yields only d(µ,ν) ≥ n, not d(µ,ν) ≥ 2n. The theorem's statement may still be true, but the proof as written does not establish it; it needs a modified construction (for example, scaling the a_i's) or a different argument.
  3. [§8, Example 8.1; Theorem 9.1] The claimed derivation of the quantum Hamming metric from the commutative prototype is not uniquely forced. Example 8.1 shows that for C-valued functions the classical Hamming Lipschitz seminorm L_c differs from 2L_0 (e.g., cube roots of unity give L_c(f)=√3 but 2L_0(f)=2), and Theorem 9.1's equality L_H(f) = max_i L_i(f) is proved only for R-valued f. The paper acknowledges this in Remark 2.2 and §8, but the introduction's phrase "reverse the process" overstates the strength of the derivation. The definition of L_qH in Definition 9.2 is a modeling choice whose ultimate justification is that it reproduces the De Palma et al. definition. I recommend stating this explicitly as a convention in the introduction rather than presenting it as the unique noncommutative extension.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6] The text says "We now apply this proposition to the situation of Proposition 3.2", but the reference should be to Theorem 3.2, which is the result giving L_{d_S} = max L_i.
  2. [Abstract, key words] The key word "Wassertein" is a typo; it should read "Wasserstein".
  3. [§12] The sentence "It is easly seen that any seminorm that is obtained from a Dirac operator ... is strongly Leibniz" contains a typo: "easly" should be "easily".
  4. [Lemma 10.1 and surrounding text] The notation I_k for identity tensors is introduced informally; a sentence defining I_k for any subinterval K would improve readability, especially for the subalgebras B_k and C_k.
  5. [§10, Theorem 10.2] The proof of the inequality |φ_k(a)| ≤ L_k(a) uses the fact that φ_k annihilates \tilde A_k; this is correct, but the presentation could state explicitly that the quotient norm is exactly the infimum over d ∈ \tilde A_k, to make the step transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantum Hamming seminorm is explicitly constructed from the commutative Hamming metric, and the Wasserstein formula is derived from the dual-norm identity rather than assumed.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked. Section 3 proves L_{d_S} = max_i L_i for sum-metrics (Theorem 3.2); Section 8 shows L_c = 2L_0 on real-valued functions; Theorem 9.1 then obtains L_H = max_i 2 times the quotient norm in C(X)/C(X without the i-th coordinate), and Definition 9.2 is the noncommutative analogue obtained by replacing C(X_i) with matrix algebras. No parameter is fitted, and no prediction is renamed input. The Wasserstein formula of Corollary 11.2 follows by applying Proposition 6.1 to the definition L_qH = max_i L_i; the agreement with De Palma et al. is noted after the derivation, not used to define L_qH. Diameter bounds in Theorems 10.2 and 10.3 are proved from the explicit telescoping Lemma 10.1. The self-citations [26-29] supply a general C*-metric framework and Leibniz results for quotient norms; they are prior parameter-free theorems with stated assumptions, are not uniqueness claims, and the paper's Hamming-specific content does not reduce to them. The strong-Leibniz convention issue raised by the M_2(C) example is a mathematical correctness concern about Definition 2.1, not a circularity concern; likewise the admitted open question in Section 12 about finite-dimensional Dirac operators is a stated limitation, not a circular input. The non-uniqueness of the noncommutative extension is a modeling choice, acknowledged by Example 8.1, and underdetermination is not circularity. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities. The paper draws on standard C*-algebra and Banach-space facts, plus two domain assumptions: the minimal tensor product for infinite-dimensional algebras, and C-valued observables with the specific factor-2 quotient seminorm.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Minimal C*-tensor product is associative and respects inclusions of subalgebras and product states (Section 9: 'we will always use the minimal C*-tensor product').
    For infinite-dimensional algebras Ai, the quantum Hamming seminorm requires a tensor product; the minimal one is chosen, and the paper avoids quotient-by-ideal issues by never taking such quotients.
  • standard math Jordan decomposition for self-adjoint linear functionals on C*-algebras identifies {µ − ν : µ,ν ∈ S(A)} with the ball D2 of radius 2 (Notation 4.1 and surrounding text).
    Used in Section 4 to connect the radius of (A,L) with the inequality L0(a) ≤ rL(a).
  • domain assumption C-valued functions are the correct algebra of observables (Section 2, with references [20,25]).
    The entire reformulation uses C-valued functions; this choice leads to the discrepancy between Lc and 2L0 on complex functions (Example 8.1), which motivates the factor 2 in Definition 9.2.
  • standard math The first basic result of linear approximation theory, namely Hahn-Banach separation, supplies for any a and subspace B a norm-one functional vanishing on B with value equal to the quotient norm (Proposition 8.2 and Theorem 12.1).
    Used to represent quotient norms via commutators with projections.
  • standard math For finite metric spaces, Lip0(X,dS) is finite dimensional and its dual is M0_d(X), so no predual/dual distinction is needed (Section 6).
    Proposition 6.1 and Corollary 6.2 rely on finite dimensionality for the duality formula.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Hamming Metrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJFMRJW6

@misc{pith2026250723046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Hamming Metrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJFMRJW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23046}
}
read the original abstract

Given the set of words of a given length for a given alphabet, the Hamming metric between two such words is the number of positions where the two words differ. A quantum version of the corresponding Kantorovich-Wasserstein metric on states was introduced in 2021 by De Palma, Marvian, Trevisan and Lloyd. For the quantum version the alphabet is replaced by a full matrix algebra, and the set of words is replaced by the tensor product of a corresponding number of copies of that full matrix algebra. While De Palma et al. work primarily at the level of states, they do obtain the corresponding seminorm (the quantum Hamming metric) on the algebra of observables that plays the role of assigning Lipschitz constants to functions. A suitable such seminorm on a unital C*-algebra is the current common method for defining a quantum metric on a C*-algebra. In this paper we will reverse the process, by first expressing the Hamming metric in terms of the C*-algebra of functions on the set of words, and then dropping the requirement that the algebra be commutative so as to obtain the quantum Hamming metric. From that we obtain the corresponding Kantorovich-Wasserstein metric on states. Along the way we show that many of the steps can be put in more general forms of some interest, notably for infinite-dimensional C*-algebras.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum Wasserstein distances for quantum permutation groups

    math.OA 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    New quantum analogues of the Hamming Wasserstein distance are defined on traces of C(S_n^+) and proven to be metrics with subadditivity and exact classical recovery.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    On embedding uniform and topological spaces

    Richard F Arens and James Eells Jr. On embedding uniform and topological spaces. Pacific J. Math , 6:397–403, 1956

    work page 1956

  2. [2]

    Interpolation problems in nest algebras

    William Arveson. Interpolation problems in nest algebras. J. Functional Analysis , 20(3):208–233, 1975

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    Wasserstein distances on quantum structures: an overview

    Emily Beatty. Wasserstein distances on quantum structures: an overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09794, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    C*-Algebras and Finite-Dimensional Ap- proximations, volume 88

    Nathanial Patrick Brown and Narutaka Ozawa. C*-Algebras and Finite-Dimensional Ap- proximations, volume 88. American Mathematical Soc., 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Perturbations of operator algebras

    Erik Christensen. Perturbations of operator algebras. II. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 26(5):891– 904, 1977

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Classical shadows meet quantum optimal mass transport

    Giacomo De Palma, Tristan Klein, and Davide Pastorello. Classical shadows meet quantum optimal mass transport. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 65(9), 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The quantum Wasser- stein distance of order 1

    Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Dario Trevisan, and Seth Lloyd. The quantum Wasser- stein distance of order 1. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 67(10):6627–6643, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Quantum concentration inequalities

    Giacomo De Palma and Cambyse Rouz´ e. Quantum concentration inequalities. In Annales Henri Poincar´ e, volume 23, pages 3391–3429. Springer, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    The Wasserstein distance of order 1 for quantum spin systems on infinite lattices

    Giacomo De Palma and Dario Trevisan. The Wasserstein distance of order 1 for quantum spin systems on infinite lattices. In Annales Henri Poincar´ e, volume 24, pages 4237–4282. Springer, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Lipschitz-free spaces on finite metric spaces

    Stephen J Dilworth, Denka Kutzarova, and Mikhail I Ostrovskii. Lipschitz-free spaces on finite metric spaces. Canadian Journal of Mathematics , 72(3):774–804, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Sur un th´ eor` eme de Banach.Duke Math

    Jacques Dixmier. Sur un th´ eor` eme de Banach.Duke Math. J. , pages 1057–1071, 1948

    1948

  4. [12]

    A simple proof in Monge–Kantorovich duality theory

    David A Edwards. A simple proof in Monge–Kantorovich duality theory. Studia Mathe- matica, 200:67–77, 2010

    2010

  5. [13]

    On the Kantorovich–Rubinstein theorem

    David A Edwards. On the Kantorovich–Rubinstein theorem. Expositiones Mathematicae, 29(4):387–398, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Gracia-Bondia, Joseph C

    Jos´ e M. Gracia-Bondia, Joseph C. V´ arilly, and H´ ector Figueroa.Elements of noncommu- tative geometry. Birkh¨ auser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Quantum differential pri- vacy: An information theory perspective

    Christoph Hirche, Cambyse Rouz´ e, and Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca. Quantum differential pri- vacy: An information theory perspective. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 69(9):5771–5787, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Channel divergences and complexity in algebraic QFT

    Stefan Hollands and Alessio Ranallo. Channel divergences and complexity in algebraic QFT. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 404(2):927–962, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kadison and John R

    Richard V. Kadison and John R. Ringrose. Fundamentals of the theory of operator algebras. Vol. II , volume 16 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997. Advanced theory, Corrected reprint of the 1986 original

    1997

  10. [18]

    Learning quantum data with the quantum earth mover’s distance

    Bobak Toussi Kiani, Giacomo De Palma, Milad Marvian, Zi-Wen Liu, and Seth Lloyd. Learning quantum data with the quantum earth mover’s distance. Quantum Science and Technology, 7(4):045002, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    A von Neumann algebra approach to quantum metrics , volume 215 of Mem

    Greg Kuperberg and Nik Weaver. A von Neumann algebra approach to quantum metrics , volume 215 of Mem. Amer. Math. Soc . American Mathematical Society, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Testing the necessity of complex numbers in traditional quantum theory with quantum computers

    Jarrett L Lancaster and Nicholas M Palladino. Testing the necessity of complex numbers in traditional quantum theory with quantum computers. American Journal of Physics , 93(1):110–120, 2025. 28 MARC A. RIEFFEL

    2025

  13. [21]

    Kantorovich distance on a finite metric space

    Luigi Montrucchio and Giovanni Pistone. Kantorovich distance on a finite metric space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07547 , 2019

    1905 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Isometric structure of transportation cost spaces on finite metric spaces

    Sofiya Ostrovska and Mikhail I Ostrovskii. Isometric structure of transportation cost spaces on finite metric spaces. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, F ´ ısicas y Nat- urales. Serie A. Matem´ aticas, 116(4):153, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Pedersen

    Gert K. Pedersen. C∗-algebras and their automorphism groups . Academic Press Inc. [Har- court Brace Jovanovich Publishers], London, 1979

    1979

  16. [24]

    Quantum Wasserstein distance between unitary operations

    Xinyu Qiu, Lin Chen, and Li-Jun Zhao. Quantum Wasserstein distance between unitary operations. Physical Review A , 110(1):012412, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Quantum physics falls apart without imaginary numbers

    Marc-Olivier Renou, Antonio Acin, and Miguel Navascu´ es. Quantum physics falls apart without imaginary numbers. Scientific American, 328(4):62–67, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Marc A. Rieffel. Metrics on states from actions of compact groups. Doc. Math., 3:215–229,

  19. [27]

    Metrics on state spaces. Doc. Math., 4:559–600, 1999. arXiv:math.OA/9906151

    1999

  20. [28]

    Leibniz seminorms and best approximation from C∗-subalgebras. Sci. China Math., 54(11):2259–2274, 2011. arXiv:1008.3733

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Matrix algebras converge to the sphere

    Leibniz seminorms for “Matrix algebras converge to the sphere”. In Quanta of Maths, volume 11 of Clay Mathematics Proceedings, pages 543–578, Providence, R.I., 2011. Amer. Math. Soc. arXiv:0707.3229

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Learning quantum many-body systems from a few copies

    Cambyse Rouz´ e and Daniel Stilck Fran¸ ca. Learning quantum many-body systems from a few copies. Quantum, 8:1319, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Lecture notes on mathematical aspects of quantum information theory

    Dario Trevisan. Lecture notes on mathematical aspects of quantum information theory. 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Ital- iana, 18(1):347–360, 2025

    Quantum optimal transport: an invitation. Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Ital- iana, 18(1):347–360, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    PhD thesis, Ph

    Ram´ on Jos´ e Aliaga Varea.Geometry and structure of Lipschitz-free spaces and their bid- uals. PhD thesis, Ph. D. dissertation, Universitat Polit` ecnica De Val` encia, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Lipschitz algebras

    Nik Weaver. Lipschitz algebras. World Scientific, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    On the unique predual problem for Lipschitz spaces

    Nik Weaver. On the unique predual problem for Lipschitz spaces. In Mathematical Pro- ceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , volume 165, pages 467–473. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Improving the speed of variational quantum algorithms for quantum error correction

    Fabio Zoratti, Giacomo De Palma, Bobak Kiani, Quynh T Nguyen, Milad Marvian, Seth Lloyd, and Vittorio Giovannetti. Improving the speed of variational quantum algorithms for quantum error correction. Physical Review A , 108(2):022611, 2023. Department of Mathematics, University...

    2023

  29. [1998]

    arXiv:math.OA/9807084

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.