pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.20787 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-23 · 🪐 quant-ph · math-ph· math.MP· math.RT

Quantum Universality in Composite Systems: A Trichotomy of Clifford Resources

Alejandro Borda , Julian Rincon , C\'esar Galindo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph math-phmath.MPmath.RT
keywords single-qudit universalityClifford groupprime factorizationquantum gatesT gateCNOT gatehigh-dimensional quantum computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

Single-qudit universality in Clifford-based gate sets follows a trichotomy determined by the prime factorization of the local dimension d.

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

The paper establishes that single-qudit universality achieved by augmenting the Clifford group with one additional gate follows a trichotomy determined by the prime factorization of the dimension d. For prime d, any non-Clifford gate suffices to make the set universal. For prime-power d, certain diagonal phase gates or simple permutation gates achieve this. When d factors into coprime prime powers, generalized CNOT gates between the factors are sufficient, and no explicit diagonal magic gate is required. The work therefore partitions the non-Clifford resources needed for high-dimensional quantum computation into CNOT-type permutation mechanisms and T-type phase mechanisms.

Core claim

Single-qudit universality in Clifford-based gate sets follows a trichotomy determined by the prime factorization of the local dimension d. For prime d, any gate outside the Clifford group is universal. For prime-power dimensions d=p^m with m≥2, suitable diagonal phase gates generalizing the T gate or simple permutations suffice. When d decomposes into pairwise coprime prime powers, generalized CNOT-type gates between factors suffice for universality without an explicit diagonal magic gate. This splits non-Clifford resources into CNOT-type or T-type mechanisms.

What carries the argument

The trichotomy of universality conditions for Clifford-based single-qudit gate sets classified by the prime factorization of the dimension d

If this is right

  • For prime dimensions, the Clifford group plus any non-Clifford gate is universal.
  • For prime-power dimensions, diagonal phase gates or simple permutation gates achieve universality.
  • For composite dimensions with coprime factors, generalized CNOT-type gates suffice without diagonal magic gates.
  • Non-Clifford resources split into permutation-based CNOT-type and phase-based T-type mechanisms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This trichotomy may allow choosing the simplest non-Clifford gate depending on whether the dimension factors into primes or not.
  • It opens the possibility of constructing universal sets in composite dimensions using only entangling gates between subsystems without phase corrections.
  • Similar classifications could apply to the resources needed for fault-tolerant quantum computation in high dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

That universality is understood in the approximate sense with respect to the operator norm, with the Clifford group defined as the normalizer of the generalized Pauli group.

What would settle it

A specific non-Clifford gate in a prime dimension d that, when added to the Clifford group, generates a set that is not dense in the unitary group would disprove the claim for prime dimensions.

read the original abstract

We show that single-qudit universality in Clifford-based gate sets follows a trichotomy determined by the prime factorization of the local dimension $d$. For prime $d$, any gate outside the Clifford group is universal. For prime-power dimensions $d=p^m$ with $m\ge 2$, not every non-Clifford gate is universal, but it can be achieved by suitable members of a family of diagonal phase gates, generalizing the qubit $T$ gate, as well as by permutations as simple as swapping $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ while leaving all other basis states unchanged. When $d$ decomposes into pairwise coprime prime powers, generalized CNOT-type gates between the corresponding factors already suffice for universality. In this composite case, universality can be obtained without introducing an explicit diagonal magic gate. Our results split non-Clifford resources for high-dimensional systems into two broad mechanisms: CNOT-type (permutations) or $T$-type (diagonal phases) gates.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that single-qudit universality in Clifford-based gate sets follows a trichotomy determined by the prime factorization of the local dimension d: for prime d any non-Clifford gate is universal; for prime-power d = p^m (m ≥ 2) universality is achieved by suitable diagonal phase gates generalizing the T gate or by simple permutation gates such as swapping |0⟩ and |1⟩; and for composite d with pairwise coprime prime-power factors, generalized CNOT-type gates between the virtual factors already suffice, without requiring explicit diagonal magic gates.

Significance. If the trichotomy holds, the result cleanly partitions non-Clifford resources into permutation-type (CNOT) versus phase-type (T-like) mechanisms for high-dimensional systems, offering concrete guidance for constructing universal gate sets in qudit architectures. The classification is mathematically economical and avoids ad-hoc parameters, but its impact hinges on rigorous verification of density in the composite case.

major comments (2)
  1. [Composite case] Composite-case section: the assertion that inter-factor generalized CNOT gates suffice for approximate universality rests on the claim that the Clifford normalizer action plus these permutations generates a dense subgroup of SU(d). The manuscript must supply an explicit verification—e.g., a Lie-algebra dimension count of the generated algebra or a check that the CRT decomposition produces no proper invariant subspaces—because the abstract presents this step only at the level of “already suffice.” Without it the trichotomy is incomplete for composite d.
  2. [Preliminaries / Definitions] Definition of the Clifford group and universality (early sections): the paper takes the Clifford group as the normalizer of the generalized Pauli group and universality in the approximate operator-norm sense. These choices must be stated with explicit equations so that the trichotomy statements for prime and prime-power cases can be checked against the same definitions; any deviation would propagate to the composite claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase “generalized CNOT-type gates” should be accompanied by a brief parenthetical example or reference to the precise permutation matrix used.
  2. [Throughout] Notation: ensure consistent use of d versus p^m throughout; a short table summarizing the three cases would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications and verifications.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Composite case] Composite-case section: the assertion that inter-factor generalized CNOT gates suffice for approximate universality rests on the claim that the Clifford normalizer action plus these permutations generates a dense subgroup of SU(d). The manuscript must supply an explicit verification—e.g., a Lie-algebra dimension count of the generated algebra or a check that the CRT decomposition produces no proper invariant subspaces—because the abstract presents this step only at the level of “already suffice.” Without it the trichotomy is incomplete for composite d.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification is required to rigorously establish the composite case. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the composite-case section that performs a Lie-algebra dimension count: the Lie algebra generated by the Clifford generators together with the logarithms of the inter-factor generalized CNOT gates is shown to be the full su(d) because the CRT decomposition yields no proper invariant subspaces. This confirms that the generated group is dense in SU(d) and completes the trichotomy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Preliminaries / Definitions] Definition of the Clifford group and universality (early sections): the paper takes the Clifford group as the normalizer of the generalized Pauli group and universality in the approximate operator-norm sense. These choices must be stated with explicit equations so that the trichotomy statements for prime and prime-power cases can be checked against the same definitions; any deviation would propagate to the composite claim.

    Authors: We have revised the preliminaries section to include the requested explicit equations. The Clifford group is now defined by Cl_d := {U ∈ U(d) | U P U† ∈ P_d for all P ∈ P_d}, where P_d denotes the generalized Pauli group, and approximate universality is defined as the closure of the generated group being dense in SU(d) with respect to the operator norm. These definitions are stated at the outset and applied uniformly to all three cases of the trichotomy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Trichotomy follows from direct group-theoretic analysis with no load-bearing self-citations or definitional reductions

full rationale

The derivation classifies single-qudit universality via the prime factorization of d using the structure of the Clifford normalizer of the generalized Pauli group. For prime d the claim is that any non-Clifford element generates a dense subgroup; for prime powers a family of diagonal phases or simple permutations suffice; for coprime factors the generalized CNOT-type permutations between virtual subsystems suffice. These statements are presented as consequences of the group action and the Chinese-Remainder-Theorem decomposition rather than as outputs of any fitted parameter or self-referential equation. No equation in the provided text reduces a claimed universality result to a quantity defined in terms of itself, and the central trichotomy does not rest on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified within the paper. The result therefore retains independent mathematical content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The classification rests on standard facts from the representation theory of finite groups and the definition of the Clifford group as the normalizer of the Pauli group; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The Clifford group is the normalizer of the generalized Pauli group on a single qudit of dimension d.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the base gate set whose normalizer properties determine universality.
  • standard math Universality is defined via dense generation in the special unitary group SU(d) under the operator norm.
    Standard definition used to state when a gate set becomes universal.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5479 in / 1256 out tokens · 20634 ms · 2026-05-16T20:11:09.208805+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The group⟨A⟩is infinite, and

    work page

  2. [2]

    Clif- ford group

    The adjoint representation of⟨A⟩onsu(d)(equiv- alently onsl(d,C)) is irreducible. Proof.LetK= ⟨A⟩be the topological closure of the generated group in SU(d). (⇒) SupposeK= SU(d). Since SU(d) has positive di- mension,⟨A⟩must be infinite. Furthermore, sincesu(d) is a simple Lie algebra (ford≥2), the adjoint action of SU(d) is irreducible. Since⟨A⟩is dense in...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Underχ, adding 1 modulod corresponds to adding (1,1) in the product ring

    The shift operator (X): The actionX|x⟩=|x+ 1⟩ relies on addition. Underχ, adding 1 modulod corresponds to adding (1,1) in the product ring. Thus,X d ∼= Xd1 ⊗X d2

    work page

  4. [4]

    Hadamard (H): The Fourier transform kernelω xy factorizes because the inner product inZ d decom- poses into the sum of local inner products (modulo integer scaling), yieldingH d ∼= Hd1 ⊗H d2

    work page

  5. [5]

    Cliffordness

    Phase Gate (P): The gate applies a phaseω Q(x), whereQ(x) =x(x+ρ d)/2 is a quadratic polyno- mial. Sinceχis a ring homomorphism, it preserves polynomial evaluation: computingQ(x) modulo dis equivalent to computing pairs (Q(x 1) mod d1, Q(x2) modd 2). Consequently, the diagonal op- erator factorizes asP d ∼= Pd1 ⊗P d2. Since the generators map bijectively ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We will show that Cp is a maximal finite subgroup of SU(p)/U(1)

    Sufficiency.Letp >5 be prime. We will show that Cp is a maximal finite subgroup of SU(p)/U(1). Recall the exact sequence 1− →H(d)− → C d − →SL(2,Z/dZ)− →1, whereH(p) is the Heisenberg group (an extraspecialp- group of orderp 3 and exponentp). The groupH(p) acts irreducibly onC p and is a normal subgroup ofC p. Suppose, by contradiction, that there exists ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    We distinguish two cases based on the prime factorization ofd

    Necessity (dcomposite).We prove by contradic- tion: ifdis composite,C d isnotmaximal. We distinguish two cases based on the prime factorization ofd. Case A: Prime Powers (d=p m withm≥2).We explicitly construct a strictly larger finite group by iden- tifying a system of imprimitivity. Recall that the Pauli operatorsX, Zgenerate the Heisenberg group. Consid...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Forp≥3, this order is strictly smaller than that of the sym- metric group|S p2 |= (p 2)!

    Failure by Permutation (p≥3): The image Im(Φ) corresponds to the affine symplectic group ASL(2,Z p), which has orderp 3(p2 −1). Forp≥3, this order is strictly smaller than that of the sym- metric group|S p2 |= (p 2)!. Thus, there exists a permutationπ∈S Λ \Im(Φ). We can strictly ex- tendC d by adding a finite-order unitaryU π that permutes the subspaces a...

    work page

  9. [9]

    However, maxi- mality fails in the kernel of Φ (the subgroup fixing the blocks)

    Failure by Phase Independence (p= 2): In this case,K= 4 and the permutation groups coin- cide (|ASL(2,2)|=|S 4|= 24). However, maxi- mality fails in the kernel of Φ (the subgroup fixing the blocks). Restricted to the action on the set of blocks, the diagonal elements of the Clifford group induce relative phases of the formϕ(u) =ω Q(u) for u∈Λ, whereQis ne...

    work page

  10. [10]

    The groupG s acts irreducibly on the Lie algebra sl(d,C)if and only ifs∤d

    work page

  11. [11]

    The groupG s is single-qudit universal (dense in SU(d)) ifs∤dandssatisfies the bound: s > π(d−1) (2 arcsin(1/4)). Proof.1. Proof of Irreducibility.We verify that Ts satisfies Definition 31 to apply Theorem 32. The phase function isζ(k) =e 2πik/s, and the associated 1- coboundaryδ ζ(u, k) =ζ(u+k)/ζ(u)ζ(k) has the form: δζ(u, k) = ( 1 ifu+k < d, λs ifu+k≥d,...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Summing the geometric series for the two intervals yields: √ d ˆfu(n) = 1−ω −n(d−u) 1−ω −n +λ s ω−n(d−u) −ω −nd 1−ω −n = 1−ω nu +λ s(ωnu −1) 1−ω −n (sinceω −nd = 1) = (1−ω nu)(1−λ s) 1−ω −n . We examine the factors in the numerator to determine if the spectrum vanishes: •The term (1−ω nu) is non-zero becausenis a unit (coprime tod) anduis a proper divisor...

    work page

  13. [13]

    To prove infinite- ness, we apply Theorem 17

    Proof of Universality.According to Theo- rem 4, universality requires both irreducibility (estab- lished in Item 1) and infiniteness. To prove infinite- ness, we apply Theorem 17. The eigenvalues ofT s are {1, e2πi/s, . . . , e2πi(d−1)/s}. The spectral span is exactly: ℓ(Ts) = d−1 s . From Corollary 21, the group is guaranteed to be infinite if the projec...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Explicitly, the adjoint action yields the diagonal operatorD π given by: PπZP † π =D π,where (D π)yy =ω π−1(y)

    Induced Diagonal Operators Conjugation by a permutation matrix transforms the Pauli-Zoperator into a diagonal operator that encodes the permutation structure. Explicitly, the adjoint action yields the diagonal operatorD π given by: PπZP † π =D π,where (D π)yy =ω π−1(y). SinceD π andZare related by unitary conjugation, they share the same spectrum: the com...

    work page

  15. [15]

    Proposition 35.Letτ= (j k)be the transposition swapping indicesjandkwithj < k

    Transpositions and the Infiniteness Criterion We analyze the simplest non-affine permutations: transpositions. Proposition 35.Letτ= (j k)be the transposition swapping indicesjandkwithj < k. The difference operator is: hτ = diag(1, . . . ,1, ωk−j ,1, . . . ,1, ω −(k−j) ,1, . . . ,1), where the entriesω k−j andω −(k−j) occur at positionsj andk, respectively...

    work page

  16. [16]

    Letd=p m withm≥2, and letτ= (0 1)

    Irreducibility Analysis for Transpositions We now verify that the difference operatorh τ induced by the adjacent transposition satisfies the orbit-mixing condition of Definition 31. Letd=p m withm≥2, and letτ= (0 1). The phase functionζ:Z d →U(1) of the difference operator hτ is given byζ(0) =ω,ζ(1) =ω −1, andζ(y) = 1 fory≥2. For any proper divisoru=p k w...

    work page

  17. [17]

    d=%o: Infinite=%o\n

    Universality Theorem for Transpositions Combining the results on infiniteness and irreducibil- ity, we obtain: Theorem 39.Letd=p m withm≥2. The groupG= ⟨Cd, Pτ ⟩, whereτ= (0 1)is the adjacent transposition, is dense inSU(d). Proof.By Theorem 4, it suffices to verify irreducibility of the adjoint representation and infinitenessG. Irreducibility:The differe...

    work page

  18. [18]

    •The group generated byHand the SWAP operator S, ifk=l, whereS(u⊗v) =v⊗u

    The normalizer ofHin the global groupSU(kl)is: •Hitself, ifk̸=l. •The group generated byHand the SWAP operator S, ifk=l, whereS(u⊗v) =v⊗u. Proof.Leth=p 1 ⊕p 2 be the Lie algebra ofH. We de- termine the normalizer in the algebrag=sl(kl,C). Let X∈gbe an element such that [X,h]⊆h. Decomposing X=X h +X m according to Eq. (6), the condition implies [Xm,h]⊆h. H...

    work page

  19. [19]

    As a particular case we obtain: Corollary 44.Letk, l≥2

    The groupGis infinite. As a particular case we obtain: Corollary 44.Letk, l≥2. SupposeS k ⊂SU(k)and Sl ⊂SU(l)are sets of gates that are single-qudit universal (i.e., ⟨Sk⟩= SU(k)and ⟨Sl⟩= SU(l)). LetV∈SU(kl) be an additional gate. The setS= (S k ⊗ {I})∪({I} ⊗ Sl)∪ {V}is universal for quantum computation on the composite system (i.e., ⟨S⟩= SU(kl)) if and only if:

    work page

  20. [20]

    Ifk̸=l,V /∈SU(k)⊗SU(l)

    work page

  21. [21]

    Ifk=l,V /∈SU(k)⊗SU(k)andV /∈(SU(k)⊗ SU(k))·S. This result generalizes a theorem by Brylinski and Brylinski [19], which established that adjoininganyen- tangling gate to the local unitary group SU(d)⊗SU(d) yields a universal set for two-qudit quantum computa- tion. B. Intra-qudit Gates and Induced Magic To implement the tensor mixing strategy, we employ th...

    work page

  22. [22]

    Consider a subsystemkof dimensiond k

    Establishment of Local Irreducibility.First, we ensure that the local action on every factor is irre- ducible. Consider a subsystemkof dimensiond k. •Ifd k =pis prime, by Theorem 24, the local Clifford groupC dk acts irreducibly onsl(d k,C). •Ifd k =p m is a prime power (m≥2), using Lemma 46, we obtain a local gateT dj. Since gcd(dk, dj) = 1, the orders=d...

    work page

  23. [23]

    Since global irreducibility is guaranteed, it suffices to demon- strate that the group contains a dense subgroup onat least onelocal subsystem

    Verification of Infiniteness.To prove univer- sality, it remains only to show thatGis infinite. Since global irreducibility is guaranteed, it suffices to demon- strate that the group contains a dense subgroup onat least onelocal subsystem. We identify such a subsys- tem by distinguishing two exhaustive cases based on the nature of the factorization ofd: •...

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    The Heisenberg Representation of Quantum Computers

    D. Gottesman, inProceedings of the XXII International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (1998) pp. 32–43, arXiv:quant-ph/9807006 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Aaronson and D

    S. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, Physical Review A70, 052328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Gheorghiu, Physics Letters A378, 505 (2014)

    V. Gheorghiu, Physics Letters A378, 505 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    de Beaudrap, Quantum Information and Computation 13, 73 (2013)

    N. de Beaudrap, Quantum Information and Computation 13, 73 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    A. Y. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, and M. N. Vyalyi,Classical and Quantum Computation, Graduate Studies in Math- ematics (American Mathematical Society, 2002)

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Nature402, 390 (1999)

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    Gottesman, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals10, 1749 (1999)

    D. Gottesman, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals10, 1749 (1999)

    work page 1999

  31. [31]

    G. Nebe, E. M. Rains, and N. J. A. Sloane, Designs, Codes and Cryptography24, 99 (2001)

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    Bravyi and A

    S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Physical Review A71, 022316 (2005)

    work page 2005

  33. [33]

    Fault-Tolerant Postselected Quantum Computation: Schemes

    E. Knill, Fault-tolerant postselected quantum computa- tion: Schemes (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0402171 [quant- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  34. [34]

    Howard and J

    M. Howard and J. Vala, Physical Review A86, 022316 (2012)

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    E. T. Campbell, H. Anwar, and D. E. Browne, Physical Review X2, 041021 (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, Nature Physics18, 1053 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    P. J. Low, B. White, and C. Senko, npj Quantum Infor- mation11, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Chicco, G

    S. Chicco, G. Allodi, A. Chiesa, E. Garlatti, C. D. Buch, P. Santini, R. De Renzi, S. Piligkos, and S. Car- 20 retta, Journal of the American Chemical Society146, 1053–1061 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Luo and X.-J

    M.-X. Luo and X.-J. Wang, Scientific Reports4, 6202 (2014)

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    A. Y. Vlasov, Journal of Mathematical Physics43, 2959 (2002)

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    A. Y. Vlasov, inProceedings of SPIE, First International Symposium on Quantum Informatics, Vol. 5128 (2003) pp. 29–36

    work page 2003

  42. [42]

    Brylinski and R

    J.-L. Brylinski and R. Brylinski, inMathematics of quan- tum computation(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2002) pp. 117–134

    work page 2002

  43. [43]

    Tolar, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1071, 012022 (2018)

    J. Tolar, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1071, 012022 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    S. Y. Looi and R. B. Griffiths, Physical Review A84, 052306 (2011)

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    A. S. Detinko, D. L. Flannery, and B. Eick, Journal of Symbolic Computation55, 57 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    J. D. Dixon,The Structure of Linear Groups, Van Nos- trand Reinhold Mathematical Studies, Vol. 37 (Van Nos- trand Reinhold, London, 1971)

    work page 1971

  47. [47]

    A. H. Clifford, Annals of Mathematics38, 533 (1937)

    work page 1937

  48. [48]

    Serre,Linear Representations of Finite Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol

    J.-P. Serre,Linear Representations of Finite Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 42 (Springer- Verlag, New York, 1977)

    work page 1977

  49. [49]

    M. A. Graydon, J. Skanes-Norman, and J. J. Wall- man, Clifford groups are not always 2-designs (2021), arXiv:2108.04200 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    J. H. Lindsey, II, Mathematische Annalen189, 47 (1970)

    work page 1970

  51. [51]

    H. F. Blichfeldt,Finite Collineation Groups(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1917)

    work page 1917

  52. [52]

    Brauer, Mathematische Annalen169, 73 (1967)

    R. Brauer, Mathematische Annalen169, 73 (1967)

    work page 1967

  53. [53]

    Bosma, J

    W. Bosma, J. Cannon, and C. Playoust, Journal of Sym- bolic Computation24, 235 (1997)

    work page 1997

  54. [54]

    Beverland, E

    M. Beverland, E. Campbell, M. Howard, and V. Kli- uchnikov, Quantum Science and Technology5, 035009 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Veitch, S

    V. Veitch, S. A. H. Mousavian, D. Gottesman, and J. Emerson, New Journal of Physics16, 013009 (2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. T. Campbell, Physical Review Letters 118, 090501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  57. [57]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Browne, P. Calpin, E. Campbell, D. Gosset, and M. Howard, Quantum3, 181 (2019)

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    G. H. Low, T. J. Yoder, and I. L. Chuang, Physical Re- view X6, 041067 (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Morvan, V

    A. Morvan, V. V. Ramasesh, M. S. Blok, J. M. Kreike- baum, K. O’Brien, L. Chen, B. K. Mitchell, R. K. Naik, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, Physical Review Letters 126, 210504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Y. Wang, Z. Hu, B. C. Sanders, and S. Kais, Frontiers in Physics8, 589504 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    Heralded High-Dimensional Photon-Photon Quantum Gate

    Z.-F. Liu, Z.-C. Ren, P. Wan, W.-Z. Zhu, Z.-M. Cheng, J. Wang, Y.-P. Shi, H.-B. Xi, M. Huber, N. Friis, X. Gao, X.-L. Wang, and H.-T. Wang, Heralded high-dimensional photon-photon quantum gate (2024), arXiv:2407.16356 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Litinski, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    D. Litinski, Quantum3, 205 (2019)

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Gidney and M

    C. Gidney and M. Eker˚ a, Quantum5, 433 (2021)

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Magic state cultivation: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates

    C. Gidney, N. Shutty, and C. Jones, Magic state cultiva- tion: growing T states as cheap as CNOT gates (2024), arXiv:2409.17595 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024