Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 79 references

The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Programs I: Foundations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that C*-algebras of observables, not qubits, should be the primitive syntax of quantum programming, with states as linear functionals and Hilbert space recovered via the GNS construction.

desk verdict A well-written C*-algebraic reframing of quantum programming whose GNS/Bloch/error-correction material is solid, but whose measurement derivation rests on explicit postulates that fail in general, so treat the measurement chapter as program notes, not a foundation. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04527 v1 pith:NQRSWVNE submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph hep-th

David Wakeham This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-th
keywords C*-algebrasquantumprogrammingGNSconstructionBlochsphereBornruleKnill-Laflammeconditionsstabilizercodeserrorcorrection
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 argues that the conventional 'states and gates' model of quantum computing is analogous to programming with truth tables: semantically transparent but syntactically poor. It replaces it with a 'props and ops' model in which the C*-algebra of observables supplies the syntax, states are linear functionals that supply the semantics, and a diagrammatic calculus ties the two together. On this foundation, the paper re-derives the Bloch sphere as the set of consistent correlations in the Pauli algebra, derives Gleason-style Born and Lüders measurement rules from an indifference postulate, and proves an operator-algebraic version of the Knill-Laflamme conditions under which stabilizer codes emerge naturally. If the framework works, quantum programs can be specified at the level of operator algebras, making qudits, harmonic oscillators, and open systems as natural as qubits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the correlation form G_pi(B, A) = pi(B*A) on a C*-algebra A, together with the quotient-and-completion (GNS) construction it induces. The form packages all multiplicative patterns in a state; its kernel K_pi is a left ideal, and quotienting by it turns the algebra into a Hilbert space in which operators act by left multiplication. Sharp operators are those whose deviation from their mean lies in the kernel, making expectations factor through them; this sharpness does the work of eigenstates. The same correlation structure later supplies the Kraus-form representation of channels and the algebra-agnostic statement of the Knill-Laflamme conditions.

What would settle it

Perform a non-selective (unobserved) measurement on a quantum system whose initial state is fully characterized by tomography, then tomograph the post-measurement state; the indifference postulate predicts the mixture pi'(A) = pi(Pi_0 A Pi_0) + pi(Pi_1 A Pi_1). A statistically significant deviation from this mixture while the projector algebra is unchanged would falsify the derivation. Likewise, prepare a two-qubit entangled state and measure one qubit; the PPM rule predicts the post-measurement state factorizes as the product of the two reduced densities, so a violation of this factorization

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the C*-algebra of observables is a complete syntactic substrate for quantum programming: every valid program is an element of the algebra, and every state is a positive unital linear functional on it. Correlations among operators in a state are captured by a positive semidefinite sesquilinear form; its null space is a left ideal, and quotienting by it and completing — the GNS construction — recovers Hilbert space and a representation of the algebra. Constant patterns of correlation define 'sharp' operators, and the set of unit vectors in the GNS Hilbert space is the unitary orbit of the identity, which for the Pauli algebra is exactly the Bloch sphere. Measu

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of measurement rests on the postulates that an unobserved measurement's outcome probabilities are fixed by the state and projectors alone (q_b = pi(Pi_b), the indifference postulate), and that measuring a subsystem factorizes the global density into a product of reduced densities; if either fails, the paper's derivation of the Born and Lüders rules is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A quantum programming language based on C*-algebras can treat qubits, qudits, harmonic oscillators, and open systems uniformly, since they all appear as presentations of an algebra.
  • The Bloch sphere emerges as the set of consistent correlations in the Pauli algebra, with the half-angle of rotations traced to the double cover of the unitary orbit — a derivation that does not presuppose Hilbert space.
  • Born and Lüders measurement rules follow from the indifference postulate within the algebraic framework, so measurement updates are expressed as sums of conjugations by projectors.
  • The Knill-Laflamme conditions for quantum error correction take an algebraic form independent of a chosen representation, and stabilizer codes arise as quotients of the projective centralizer by the stabilizer group.
  • The five-qubit code satisfies the algebraic KL conditions in this framework, illustrating that stabilizer error correction is a special case of the general algebra-agnostic construction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the framework is right, existing quantum programming languages could be redesigned around algebra presentations, moving error correction from a bolt-on library to a core type-level feature.
  • The indifference postulate is a noncontextuality assumption; a natural extension is to ask which state-update rules are possible when indifference is relaxed, potentially connecting to noncontextuality inequalities.
  • The algebra-agnostic stabilizer construction suggests that stabilizer simulation and error-correcting codes could be defined for any finite-dimensional C*-algebra with a suitable group of unitary generators, not just Pauli strings.
  • The same correlation-form viewpoint may give a clean algebraic account of classical shadows and randomized measurements, since the shadow protocol is already written in the paper in terms of Born-Lüders updates and random unitaries.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a C*-algebraic 'props and ops' foundation for quantum programming, replacing the standard states-and-gates picture with an algebra/syntax and functional/semantics duality. It develops the GNS construction, re-derives the Bloch sphere from the Pauli algebra, introduces a diagrammatic calculus, and applies the framework to tensor products, measurement, quantum error correction, stabilizer codes, and the five-qubit code. The stated goal is a self-contained foundation in which C*-algebras and their dual Hilbert spaces are the universal substrate for quantum programming, with Born and Lüders rules emerging from within the framework.

Significance. If the foundational claims held, the paper would offer a genuinely representation-agnostic language for quantum programs, unifying measurement and error correction in a single algebraic/diagrammatic formalism. The mathematical core is largely standard and, in its main lines, correctly cited and presented: GNS, Størmer's characterization of pure states, Stinespring dilation, the Knill-Laflamme conditions, and the five-qubit code are all recognizable and mostly accurately expounded. The paper fits no parameters, cites independent theorems rather than fitting data, and its stabilizer-code section is concrete enough to be checkable. However, two load-bearing steps in the measurement story are explicit extra assumptions rather than derivations, and one of them is false as a statement about standard quantum theory. A further tensor-product claim is also incorrect. The conceptual novelty therefore is not currently established at the level claimed in the abstract and introduction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§12, Eq. (88)] The PPM rule asserts that measuring factor ℓ sends ϖπ to ϖ^(ℓ)π ⊗ ϖ^(ℓ)π, justified only by the monogamy footnote (n. 29). This is not a theorem and is false as a statement about standard quantum mechanics. For |ψ⟩ = √p|00⟩ + √(1−p)|11⟩ with p ≠ 1/2, nonselective Lüders measurement of qubit 1 gives ρ′ = p|00⟩⟨00| + (1−p)|11⟩⟨11⟩, not (p|0⟩⟨0|+(1−p)|1⟩⟨1|)⊗2. Monogamy bounds entangled correlations; it does not remove the classical correlations between the measured and untouched systems that survive projective measurement. Since §13's Born/Lüders update uses (88), the claimed self-contained derivation is not supported in the stated generality. The text itself says 'we get by with a rule'; this should be demoted to an explicit axiom with a stated domain, and the foundational claims revised accordingly.
  2. [§13, Eq. (105)] The 'indifference' assumption sets qb = π(Π(b)), which is exactly the Born rule. The text is transparent that this is an assumption, but the introduction and abstract describe the result as a Gleason-style derivation and a self-contained foundation. Noncontextuality is doing all the work; in this simplified form the step is not a derivation from the earlier axioms. The paper should either present PPM and indifference as two new axioms and describe the measurement section as an axiomatic reconstruction, or remove the stronger 'self-contained foundation' and 'Gleason-style derivation' claims.
  3. [§11, Eq. (78)] The claimed isomorphism S(A(1) ⊗ A(2)) ≅ S(A(1)) ⊗ S(A(2)) is false when read literally. For M2(C) ⊗ M2(C), the left-hand side includes entangled density matrices, while the right-hand side, if interpreted as a convex tensor product of the factor state spaces, parametrizes only separable states, a strict subset. The paper itself constructs the Bell state (83) as entangled, which contradicts (78). This affects the tensor-product and entanglement definitions that underpin §12 and should be corrected, e.g. by replacing the equality with a statement about the convex hull of product states or about the vector-space duality.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§12, Eq. (88)] The partial-trace notation is inconsistent: tr(ℓ)ϖπ is used where the reduced density ϖ^(ℓ)π is meant, and the relation between the two superscript/subscript conventions in (84)–(88) should be clarified.
  2. [§13] The spectral-theorem argument via the universal representation produces projections in the enveloping von Neumann algebra, not necessarily in the original C*-algebra. The paper should state this restriction explicitly, or restrict the spectral decomposition claim to algebras where the projections belong to A.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Moreoever' (§12), 'commmute' (§12), 'correponding' (§1), 'accomodate' (§1), 'esimating' (§18). The document would also benefit from a glossary for the many new diagrammatic conventions.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Born/Lüders 'derivation' reduces to assumed rules: Eq. (105) posits q_b = π(Π_b) (the Born rule) and Eq. (88) posits the disentangling Lüders update; GNS/Bloch/KL sections are independent.

  1. self definitional [§13, Eq. (105)]
    "The extra piece of information, ironically, is that we need nothing else. We assume that Nature is indifferent between the outcomes, in the sense that qb should only be built out of the ingredient π and Πb at hand. The unique solution is the normalization constant qb = π(Π(b)) = pb."

    The paper presents §13 as a 'Gleason-style derivation' of Born's rule, but the indifference premise has no independent formulation; its stipulated content is that q_b is a function of π and Π_b, and the paper then asserts that the unique such function is q_b = π(Π_b), which is exactly the Born rule for projectors. No theorem or calculation forces the 'unique solution'; the conclusion is the premise under a new name. Hence the derivation is circular by construction.

  2. renaming known result [§12, Eq. (88) and §13, Eq. (106)]
    "we get by with a rule for post-selected partial measurement (PPM), consisting of two steps. First, for a global state π, measuring location ℓ ∈ L factorizes the density into the local reduced density and its complement: ϖπ 7→ tr(ℓ)ϖπ ⊗ tr(ℓ)ϖπ."

    The PPM rule is not a consequence of the framework; it is a postulate that already describes the final effect of a projective/Lüders measurement (disentangling the measured factor into a product of reduced densities). The subsequent equations (89), (103) and (106) merely unpack this assumed update, so the claimed 'derivation' of the Lüders rule is the rule itself restated in new notation. The footnote citing monogamy of entanglement does not supply a derivation, so the step is definitional/renaming rather than a derivation.

full rationale

The paper's algebraic-statical content is self-contained and independently checkable: the GNS construction, the Bloch-sphere derivation in §8, the density-matrix formalism in §§9–10, and the operator-algebraic KL conditions in §§15–17 all reproduce standard results using external theorems (Størmer, Kadison–Singer, Brown–Ozawa, Knill–Laflamme) and contain no fitted parameters or self-citation chains. The circularity is localized to the measurement story in §§12–13. There, the Born rule is not derived: the 'indifference' postulate (Eq. 105) is stated as the requirement that q_b be built from π and Π_b, and the paper then asserts the unique solution is q_b = π(Π_b), which is the Born rule itself. Likewise, the post-selected partial measurement rule (Eq. 88) assumes the disentangling/Lüders update that the paper later claims to derive. These two steps make the headline claim of 're-deriving the Born and Lüders rules' partially circular: the conclusions are equivalent to the assumptions. That the PPM rule is also false for non-maximally entangled states is a separate correctness problem, not needed for the circularity finding. Overall: no self-citation issue, no data fitting; the circularity is definitional and confined to the intervention section, so the paper retains substantial independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper contributes no fitted parameters and relies on standard mathematical background. The main load-bearing additions are two postulates in the measurement section (PPM and indifference) plus new notation and a promised language. The GNS, Bloch sphere, and stabilizer-code sections are standard and independently grounded.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Measurement of A yields a random element of the spectrum S(A)
    Adopted in §4 (Eq. 10) as the starting point for defining states as expectation functionals; it is a postulate, not derived.
  • domain assumption Cluster decomposition principle: expectations factorize over separated locations
    Introduced in §11 (Eq. 71) to justify joint sharpness and tensor factor structure; cited to Wichmann-Crichton and Weinberg.
  • ad hoc to paper Indifference between measurement outcomes (noncontextuality)
    §13 (Eq. 105) assumes Nature's probabilities qb are uniquely determined by π and Π_b, yielding qb = π(Π(b)) and hence the Born rule. This postulate carries the weight of the derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-selected partial measurement factorization (PPM)
    §12 (Eq. 88) asserts that measuring a subsystem replaces the state by a product of reduced densities; the footnote justification (monogamy of entanglement) does not justify rank>1 projective measurements.
  • standard math Størmer's theorem and rigidity of definite sets
    Used in §10 and Appendix B to characterize pure states via maximal definite sets; cited to Størmer (1967).
  • standard math GNS construction, Kadison-Singer, Krein-Milman, spectral theorem, Stone-von Neumann
    Standard theorems invoked throughout as background; cited to texts and original papers.
invented entities (3)
  • Abstract wiring diagrams (awds)
    purpose: Diagrammatic calculus intended as the combinators of the quantum programming language
    No formal semantics, implementation, or comparison to existing diagrammatic formalisms is provided; the diagrams are described textually.
  • Props and ops (propositions and operators) model
    purpose: Foundation for quantum programming replacing states/gates with C*-algebra syntax and state semantics
    A conceptual framework; no implementation or independent test since it reproduces known results by construction.
  • Yaw language
    purpose: High-level quantum programming language based on awds
    Mentioned as future work in §18; no code, compiler, or examples are shipped in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Programs I: Foundations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQRSWVNE

@misc{pith2026250904527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Programs I: Foundations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQRSWVNE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04527}
}
read the original abstract

Qubits are a great way to build a quantum computer, but a limited way to program one. We replace the usual "states and gates" formalism with a "props and ops" (propositions and operators) model in which (a) the C*-algebra of observables supplies the syntax; (b) states, viewed as linear functionals, give the semantics; and (c) a novel diagrammatic calculus unifies the two. The first part develops the basic objects of the framework, encoding consistent patterns of operator correlation, recovering Hilbert space via the GNS construction, and re-deriving the Bloch sphere as the set of all consistent correlations of operators in the Pauli algebra. We then turn to intervention, showing how measurement modifies state, proving an operator-algebraic version of the Knill-Laflamme conditions, and expressing stabilizer codes with the same diagrammatic machinery. This provides a concise, representation-agnostic account of quantum error correction. The result is a self-contained foundation in which C*-algebras, and their dual Hilbert spaces, offer a rich and universal substrate for quantum programming; forthcoming papers will build a high-level language and quantum software applications on top of this substrate.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits

    A aronson, S., and Gottesman, D. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Physical Review A 70, 5 (Nov. 2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    A rtin, M. Algebra. Birkhäuser, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    A xler, S. J. Linear Algebra Done Right. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    A Radon-Nikodym theorem for completely positive maps

    B elavkin, V .,and Staszewski, P . A Radon-Nikodym theorem for completely positive maps. Reports on Mathematical Physics 24, 1 (1986), 49–55

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    B ell, J. S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1 (Nov 1964), 195–200

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    B ennett, C. H. Logical reversibility of computation. IBM J. Res. Develop. 17, 6 (1973), 525–532

    work page 1973

  7. [7]

    H., DiVincenzo, D

    B ennett, C. H., DiVincenzo, D. P ., Smolin, J. A., and Woot- ters, W. K. Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error cor- rection. Phys. Rev. A 54 (Nov 1996), 3824–3851

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    B irkhoff, G., and Neumann, J. V . The logic of quantum me- chanics. Annals of Mathematics 37, 4 (1936), 823–843

    work page 1936

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Nuclear induction

    B loch, F. Nuclear induction. Phys. Rev. 70 (October 1946), 460–474

    1946

  2. [10]

    The Mathematical Analysis of Logic: Being an Essay Towards a Calculus of Deductive Reasoning

    B oole, G. The Mathematical Analysis of Logic: Being an Essay Towards a Calculus of Deductive Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 1847

  3. [11]

    On the quantum mechanics of collision processes

    B orn, M. On the quantum mechanics of collision processes. Zeitschrift für Physik 37 (1926), 863–867

    1926

  4. [12]

    Factor- ing an integer with three oscillators and a qubit, 2024

    B renner, L., Caha, L., Coiteux-Roy, X., and Koenig, R. Factor- ing an integer with three oscillators and a qubit, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    C*-algebras and Finite-dimensional Approximations

    B rown, N., and Ozawa, N. C*-algebras and Finite-dimensional Approximations. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    A., Terno, D

    C arteret, H. A., Terno, D. R., and ˙Zyczkowski, K. Dynamics beyond completely positive maps: Some properties and applica- tions. Phys. Rev. A 77 (Apr 2008). siqp i : foundations 70

    2008

  7. [15]

    G., Fjörtoft, R., and von Neumann, J

    C harney, J. G., Fjörtoft, R., and von Neumann, J. Numerical integration of the barotropic vorticity equation. Tellus 2 (1950), 237–254

    1950

  8. [16]

    Completely positive linear maps on complex matri- ces

    C hoi, M.-D. Completely positive linear maps on complex matri- ces. Linear Algebra Appl. 10, 3 (1975), 285–290

    1975

  9. [17]

    C offman, V ., Kundu, J., and Wootters, W. K. Distributed entanglement. Physical Review A 61, 5 (Apr. 2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    C urry, H. B. Combinatory Logic. North-Holland Pub. Co., Ams- terdam„ 1958

    1958

  11. [19]

    Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered com- plete? Physical Review 47, 10 (1935), 777–780

    E instein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered com- plete? Physical Review 47, 10 (1935), 777–780

    1935

  12. [20]

    F eynman, R. P . Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 6/7 (1982), 467–488

    1982

  13. [21]

    F., and Toffoli, T

    F redkin, E. F., and Toffoli, T. Conservative logic. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 3/4 (1982), 219–253

    1982

  14. [22]

    P .,and Wise, D

    F riedman, D. P .,and Wise, D. S. CONS Should Not Evaluate its Arguments. In Proceedings of the Third International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (1976), pp. 257–284

    1976

  15. [23]

    On the imbedding of normed rings into the ring of operators in Hilbert space

    G elfand, I., and Naimark, M. On the imbedding of normed rings into the ring of operators in Hilbert space. Sbornik Mathe- matics 54, 2 (1943), 197–217

    1943

  16. [24]

    G leason, A. M. Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 6, 6 (1957), 885–893

    1957

  17. [25]

    G rünbaum, B., and Shephard, G. C. Patch-determined tilings. The Mathematical Gazette 61, 415 (1977), 31–38

    1977

  18. [26]

    H amming, R. W. Error detecting and error correcting codes. The Bell System Technical Journal 29, 2 (1950), 147–160

    1950

  19. [27]

    H enderson, P .,and Morris, J. H. A lazy evaluator. In Proceed- ings of the 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles on Programming Languages (New York, NY, USA, 1976), POPL ’76, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 95–103

    1976

  20. [28]

    Über die grundlagen der quantenmechanik

    H ilbert, D., von Neumann, J., and Nordheim, L. Über die grundlagen der quantenmechanik. Mathematische Annalen 98 (1928), 1–30. siqp i : foundations 71

    1928

  21. [29]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables

    H oeffding, W. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 301 (1963), 13–30

    1963

  22. [30]

    Über die abbildungen der dreidimensionalen sphäre auf die kugelfläche

    H opf, H. Über die abbildungen der dreidimensionalen sphäre auf die kugelfläche. Mathematische Annalen 104 (1931), 637–665

    1931

  23. [31]

    H oward, W. A. The formulae-as-types notion of construction. In To H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism, H. Curry, H. B., S. J. Roger, and P . Jonathan, Eds. Academic Press, 1980

    1980

  24. [32]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements

    H uang, H.-Y., Kueng, R., and Preskill, J. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements. Nature Physics 16, 10 (June 2020), 1050–1057

    2020

  25. [33]

    Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators

    J amiołkowski, A. Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators. Reports on Mathemati- cal Physics 3, 4 (1972), 275–278

    1972

  26. [34]

    Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras I: Elementary Theory

    K adison, R., and Ringrose, J. Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras I: Elementary Theory. Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras. American Mathematical Society, 1983

    1983

  27. [35]

    Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras II: Advanced Theory

    K adison, R., and Ringrose, J. Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras II: Advanced Theory. Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras. American Mathematical Society, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    V .,and Singer, I

    K adison, R. V .,and Singer, I. M. Extensions of pure states. Amer. J. Math. 81, 2 (April 1959), 383–400

    1959

  29. [37]

    Benchmarking quantum computers: The five-qubit error correct- ing code

    K nill, E., Laflamme, R., Martinez, R., and Negrevergne, C. Benchmarking quantum computers: The five-qubit error correct- ing code. Physical Review Letters 86, 25 (June 2001), 5811–5814

    2001

  30. [38]

    Theory of quantum error correction for general noise

    K nill, E., Laflamme, R., and Viola, L. Theory of quantum error correction for general noise. Physical Review Letters 84, 11 (Mar. 2000), 2525–2528

    2000

  31. [39]

    K olmogorov, A. N. Foundations of the Theory of Probability, second english edition ed. Chelsea Publishing Company, 1950

    1950

  32. [40]

    States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory

    K raus, K., Böhm, A., Dollard, J., and Wootters, W. States, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions of Quantum Theory . Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer, 1983

    1983

  33. [41]

    On extreme points of regular convex sets

    K rein, M., and Milman, D. On extreme points of regular convex sets. Studia Mathematica 9, 1 (1940), 133–138. siqp i : foundations 72

    1940

  34. [42]

    Unified and gener- alized approach to quantum error correction

    K ribs, D., Laflamme, R., and Poulin, D. Unified and gener- alized approach to quantum error correction. Physical Review Letters 94, 18 (May 2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    W., Laflamme, R., Poulin, D., and Lesosky, M

    K ribs, D. W., Laflamme, R., Poulin, D., and Lesosky, M. Oper- ator quantum error correction. Quantum Info. Comput. 6, 4 (July 2006), 382–399

    2006

  36. [44]

    P .,and Zurek, W

    L aflamme, R., Miquel, C., Paz, J. P .,and Zurek, W. H. Perfect quantum error correcting code. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (Jul 1996), 198–201

    1996

  37. [45]

    Irreversibility and heat generation in the comput- ing process

    L andauer, R. Irreversibility and heat generation in the comput- ing process. IBM Journal of Research and Development 5, 3 (1961), 183–191

    1961

  38. [46]

    L oring, T. A. C*-algebra relations. Mathematica Scandinavica 107, 1 (2010), 43–72

    2010

  39. [47]

    Concerning the state-change due to the measure- ment process

    L üders, G. Concerning the state-change due to the measure- ment process. Annalen der Physik 518, 9 (1951), 663–670

    1951

  40. [48]

    Computable and noncomputable

    M anin, Y. Computable and noncomputable. Sovet. Radio, 1980

    1980

  41. [49]

    J., and von Neumann, J

    M urray, F. J., and von Neumann, J. On rings of operators. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 42 (1936)

    1936

  42. [50]

    J., and von Neumann, J

    M urray, F. J., and von Neumann, J. On rings of operators (II). Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 41, 2 (1937), 208–248

    1937

  43. [51]

    A., and Chuang, I

    N ielsen, M. A., and Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  44. [52]

    J., and Verstraete, F

    O sborne, T. J., and Verstraete, F. General monogamy inequal- ity for bipartite qubit entanglement. Physical Review Letters 96, 22 (June 2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    P ark, J. L. The concept of transition in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics (1970), 23–33

    1970

  46. [54]

    Reduced dynamics need not be completely posi- tive

    P echukas, P . Reduced dynamics need not be completely posi- tive. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (Aug 1994), 1060–1062

    1994

  47. [55]

    Linear logic for generalized quantum mechanics

    P ratt, V . Linear logic for generalized quantum mechanics. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Physics and Computation (1992)

    1992

  48. [56]

    Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed

    R udin, W. Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed. McGraw- Hill Book Company, Auckland, 1976. siqp i : foundations 73

    1976

  49. [57]

    Fourier Analysis on Groups

    R udin, W. Fourier Analysis on Groups. Wiley Classics Library. Wiley,1991

    1991

  50. [58]

    Why John von Neumann did not like the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics (and what he liked instead)

    R édei, M. Why John von Neumann did not like the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics (and what he liked instead). Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 27, 4 (1996), 493–510

    1996

  51. [59]

    On the solution of linear equations with infinitely many unknowns

    S chmidt, E. On the solution of linear equations with infinitely many unknowns. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 25, 1 (1908), 53–77

    1908

  52. [60]

    Die gegenwärtige situation in der quanten- mechanik

    S chrödinger, E. Die gegenwärtige situation in der quanten- mechanik. Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935), 807–812

    1935

  53. [61]

    S egal, I. E. Irreducible representations of operator algebras. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 53, 2 (1947), 73 – 88

    1947

  54. [62]

    Who’s afraid of not completely positive maps? Phys

    S haji, A., and Sudarshan, G. Who’s afraid of not completely positive maps? Phys. Lett. A 341 (2005), 48–54

    2005

  55. [63]

    S hannon, C. E. A symbolic analysis of relay and switching circuits . MIT masters thesis, 1938

    1938

  56. [64]

    S hannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27 (1948), 379–423

    1948

  57. [65]

    E., and Weaver, W

    S hannon, C. E., and Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, 1949

    1949

  58. [66]

    Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis

    S immons, G. Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1963

    1963

  59. [67]

    The experimental proof of direc- tional quantization in the magnetic field

    S tern, O., and Gerlach, W. The experimental proof of direc- tional quantization in the magnetic field. Zeitschrift für Physik 9, 1 (1922), 349–352

    1922

  60. [68]

    S tinespring, W. F. Positive functions on C*-algebras. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 6, 2 (1955), 211–216

    1955

  61. [69]

    A characterization of pure states of C*-algebras

    S tørmer, E. A characterization of pure states of C*-algebras. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 19 (10 1968)

    1968

  62. [70]

    Amplification, arbitrage, and the tensor power trick

    T ao, T. Amplification, arbitrage, and the tensor power trick. Blog post, September 2007. What’s New

    2007

  63. [71]

    Zur algebra der funktionaloperatoren und theorie der normalen operatoren

    von Neumann, J. Zur algebra der funktionaloperatoren und theorie der normalen operatoren. Mathematische Annalen 102 (1929), 370–427. siqp i : foundations 74

    1929

  64. [72]

    Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechan- ics

    von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechan- ics. Princeton University Press, 1932

    1932

  65. [73]

    The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Founda- tions

    W einberg, S. The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1: Founda- tions. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  66. [74]

    Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik

    W eyl, H. Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik. Hirzel, 1928

    1928

  67. [75]

    Die vollständigkeit der primitiven darstellungen einer geschlossenen kontinuierlichen gruppe

    W eyl, H., and Peter, P . Die vollständigkeit der primitiven darstellungen einer geschlossenen kontinuierlichen gruppe. Mathematische Annalen 97 (1927), 737–755

    1927

  68. [76]

    H., and Crichton, J

    W ichmann, E. H., and Crichton, J. H. Cluster decomposition properties of the S-matrix. Phys. Rev. 132 (Dec 1963), 2788–2799

    1963

  69. [77]

    K., and Zurek, W

    W ootters, W. K., and Zurek, W. H. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature 299, 5886 (1982), 802–803

    1982

  70. [78]

    Efficient decoding for the Hayden- Preskill protocol, 2017

    Y oshida, B., and Kitaev, A. Efficient decoding for the Hayden- Preskill protocol, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    M., and Kirby, B

    Z hu, Z., Lukens, J. M., and Kirby, B. T. On the connection between least squares, regularization, and classical shadows. Quantum 8 (Aug. 2024), 1455. colophon This document is typeset using the Tufte-LATEX document class, with Palatino as the body font, IBM Plex Mono for tele...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.