Stratified Cohomological Quantum Codes via Colimits in Ch(R)

William Boone Samuels

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Stratified Cohomological Quantum Codes via Colimits in Ch(R)

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim is that every homological CSS quantum code—surface, color, twisted toric, and fracton—can be obtained as the degree-wise colimit of chain complexes indexed by a finite poset, with logical operators read from…

desk verdict Categorical machinery is sound, but the flagship twisted-toric example is internally inconsistent, so the paper's central claim is unsupported in its current form. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06958 v1 pith:H3U6OS3Q submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

William Boone Samuels This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords stratifiedcolimitcodesCSShomologicalquantumchaincomplexescolimitstorsionfractonmodelsLDPC

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 tries to establish that the logical content of topological and homological quantum error-correcting codes can be generated without any lattice or manifold, by gluing chain complexes—sequences of modules with boundary maps—along a finite partially ordered set. It proves that three minimal axioms (a finite poset of strata, finite local complexes, and transitive boundary-respecting gluing maps) guarantee that the resulting degree-wise colimit is a well-defined chain complex, and that over the two-element field $\mathbb{F}_2$ its homology classes label the $Z$-type logical operators while cohomology classes label the $X$-type operators of a CSS code. The commutation rule between logical operators is exactly the evaluation pairing between cohomology and homology classes. If correct, this gives a single algebraic recipe that reproduces surface codes, color codes, $\mathbb{RP}^2$ torsion codes, twisted toric families, and X-cube-style fracton models, with code parameters computed by matrix linear algebra.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the stratified colimit complex $C_\bullet(X)=\operatorname{colim}_{\sigma\in X}F(\sigma)$, formed degree-wise as the quotient of the direct sum $\bigoplus_\sigma C_k(\sigma)$ by the relations identifying a chain $x$ in a lower stratum with its image $\varphi^k_{\sigma\leq\tau}(x)$ in an upper stratum. The argument turns on two facts: the boundary maps descend to the quotient because each $\varphi$ commutes with boundaries (Axiom 2.3), and the transitivity of the chosen maps makes the identifications coherent, so $\partial^2=0$. The evaluation pairing $\langle[\alpha],[\beta]\rangle=\alpha(\beta)$ between $H^k(X)$ and $H_k(X)$ is the mechanism that converts homological data into the sign of the Pauli commutation relation, and the universal coefficient theorem converts torsion of $H_{k-1}(X)$ into qudit logical sectors.

What would settle it

Run the twisted square example with $(n,a,b)=(12,3,3)$ and compute $H_1$ over $\mathbb{F}_2$: Proposition 5.1 predicts dimension $6=2\cdot\gcd(12,3,3)$, and any other value refutes the paper's homology computation; separately, scan finite poset diagrams with bounded-size local complexes and check whether global boundary row weights stay bounded as the poset grows—super-constant weight would falsify the claimed LDPC inheritance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the degree-wise colimit $C_\bullet(X)=\operatorname{colim}_{\sigma\in X}F(\sigma)$ of a functor $F\colon X\to\mathbf{Ch}(R)$ from a finite poset into chain complexes over a commutative ring is itself a finite chain complex (Theorem 2.6), and that this single complex carries the full logical-operator data of a CSS stabilizer code when $R=\mathbb{F}_2$ (Theorem 4.5). Homology classes $[\beta]\in H_k(X)$ label $Z$-type logical operators, cohomology classes $[\alpha]\in H^k(X)$ label $X$-type logical operators, and the commutation relation is $X(\alpha)Z(\beta)=(-1)^{\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle}Z(\beta)X(\alpha)$, where the exponent is the evaluation pairing. Torsion in homology is read through the universal coefficient theorem as qudit charges. The paper's examples present the real projective plane as a one-qubit code with $H_1=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, twisted toric gluings with $H_1\cong\mathbb{F}_2^{2d}$ logical qubits, and the X-cube fracton model as a colimit whose $H_2\cong\mathbb{F}_2^{L^2}$ consists of membrane operators—all obtained from gluing data alone.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that the quotient module defining the colimit can be read as a physical system of qubits with local stabilizers—so each homology class is a distinct logical operator and the evaluation pairing gives the true commutation relations—while the paper does not explicitly build the stabilizer code or prove the LDPC sparsity it claims.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any code built from a finite stratified diagram has its logical operators fully classified by $H_k(X)$ and $H^k(X)$, so designing a code becomes a matter of choosing a finite poset and local complexes rather than a lattice.
Surface codes, color codes, $\mathbb{RP}^2$ torsion codes, twisted toric codes with $k\sim d$ logical qubits, and X-cube-style fracton models all appear as special cases, so techniques or results for one transfer to the others through the shared colimit construction.
Over a principal ideal domain, Smith normal form applied to the global boundary matrices computes homology, including torsion coefficients, so code parameters can be obtained by linear algebra; over a field, sparse Gaussian elimination does the same.
Code surgery is realized as a push-out in the same category, which places fault-tolerant code transformations inside the same algebraic language and points toward bicomplex domain walls as the next layer.

Reading between the lines

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

A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that code discovery becomes an algorithmic search over finite posets and sparse chain maps: enumerate diagrams, compute homology, and check distances, without geometric inspiration.
The appendix's warning that relaxing transitivity breaks $\partial^2=0$ suggests that moving to coherence up to chain homotopy—a 2-categorical colimit—could define a broader class of codes; the paper gestures at higher categories only for domain walls.
The fracton example indicates a general diagnostic: in any stratified diagram, restricted-mobility excitations should correspond exactly to missing gluing maps in specific directions, a statement that could be tested by adding back one map and watching the homology dimension drop.
If the claimed sparsity inheritance is made rigorous, composing sparse diagrams would give a constructive route to high-rate quantum LDPC codes; a natural next experiment is to generate random sparse poset diagrams and measure the growth of boundary-matrix row weight.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The general construction is real: the colimit of a poset-indexed diagram of chain complexes is a chain complex, the CSS dictionary via the evaluation pairing is cleanly stated, and the single-face RP2 example computes correctly. Those sections are worth reading. The citation list is broad and relevant, with no self-citation flags.

The problems are in the examples that carry the paper's main claims. Proposition 5.1, the twisted toric family, is internally inconsistent. The paper counts an n x n torus (n^2 faces, 2n^2 edges, n^2 vertices), so the Euler characteristic is 0. But the claimed homology (H0 = F2, H1 = F2^{2d}, H2 = 0) gives chi = 1 - 2d, which equals 0 only if d = 1/2. The proof's assertion that ∂1 is surjective would force H0 = 0, contradicting connectedness. The DFT block computation also doesn't match the paper's own incidence formula: for (12,3,3), the kernel of ∂2 is 18-dimensional, not 6. Appendix D then states gcd(6,2,1) = 4, which is simply wrong. These are not typos; the advertised result that twisting gives rate k ~ d rests on them.

Other examples are sloppier than the abstract implies. Proposition 5.2 defers its central counting to a "full matrix proof" that never appears. The LDPC and decoder claims are asserted without construction. Example D's displayed boundary matrices give H0 = 0, not F2, unless the edge conventions are unconventional—and they are not specified.

So the categorical formalism may be a useful unifying language, but the paper as submitted does not support its quantitative claims. A referee would have reasonable grounds to reject; the author should be given a chance to fix the arithmetic and either prove or retract the high-rate claims.

For peer review: yes, send it out—the errors will be caught quickly, and the categorical sections are sound enough to warrant a revision. But I would not cite it or assign it until the examples live up to the abstract.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "stratified colimit codes": given a finite poset X and a functor F:X→Ch(R) satisfying three axioms, it forms the degree-wise colimit chain complex C•(X) and interprets its homology and cohomology as Z- and X-type logical operators of a CSS code. The formal development proves that the colimit is a well-defined chain complex (Theorems 2.6 and 3.5), that the universal coefficient sequence relates homology and cohomology (Theorem 4.1), and that the evaluation pairing gives the commutation relations of logical operators (Theorem 4.5). The paper then presents examples: an RP2 torsion code, a twisted toric family claimed to have H1 dimension 2d with d=gcd(a,b,n), a fracton-type construction claimed to have H2=L^2, and an under-gluing example. The generic categorical results are largely standard and appear correct, but several of the advertised examples are internally inconsistent and do not support the abstract's claims.

Significance. If the examples were correct, the paper would provide a unifying algebraic framework for surface codes, color codes, torsion codes, twisted toric families, and fracton models. The formal colimit construction and the CSS dictionary are sound and are presented without fitted parameters or circular reasoning; the homology computations follow from the definitions. However, the paper's main advertised applications are undermined by concrete arithmetic and logical errors in Section 5 and Appendix D. In particular, the flagship claim of twisted toric families with rate k∼d rests on Proposition 5.1, whose rank computation is dimensionally inconsistent and whose inference about H2 is invalid. The RP2 example also contains impossible chain maps as written. The generic framework may still be salvageable, but the paper in its current form does not reliably establish the broad recovery claims in the abstract.

major comments (5)

[Section 5.B, Proposition 5.1] The proof of Proposition 5.1 is internally inconsistent and does not establish the stated H1 dimension. For an n×n grid, the face module has dimension n^2, not n as suggested by the notation "Z2^n"; with the displayed boundary formula, the sum over all faces is a nonzero cycle because each edge appears exactly twice, so H2 cannot be 0. The inference "∂1 is surjective, so H2=0 and H1≅ker∂2" is logically invalid: surjectivity of ∂1 concerns H0, not H2, and H1 is not ker∂2. The claimed rank 2(n−d) also contradicts the domain dimension: for (n,a,b)=(12,3,3), rank 18 would give ker dimension 126 if the face module is 144-dimensional, not the claimed 6. Thus the numerical example and the advertised twisted toric family with rate k∼d are unsupported.
[Appendix D] The rank calculation for the twisted square poset contains a direct arithmetic error: for (n,a,b)=(6,2,1), the text asserts d=4=gcd(6,2,1), but gcd(6,2,1)=1. Moreover, the claimed twelve 3×6 Fourier blocks are not reconciled with a 36×72 boundary matrix: four blocks losing rank by two would give ker dimension 8, which cannot be interpreted as 2d with d=gcd(6,2,1). This appendix does not verify Proposition 5.1 and instead highlights that the computation is unreliable.
[Section 5.A, Example A] The RP2 example is not well defined as written. The text sets C2(σ2)=Z, C1(σ2)=Z, C1(σ1)=Z, and C0(σ0)=Z, with all other Ck(σ) vanishing, but then prescribes chain maps φ0_{σ0≤σ1}=id and φ0_{σ0≤σ2}=id. These maps are impossible because C0(σ1)=C0(σ2)=0. With the stated data, the colimit would kill C0(σ0), not yield the claimed global C0(X)=Z. The example needs corrected local modules, such as C0(σ2)=Z and C0(σ1)=Z, to realize the intended RP2 chain complex.
[Remark 3.7 and abstract] The claim that the construction gives "LDPC parameters that inherit the sparsity of F" is asserted but not proven. The quotient by the relation submodule N_k can destroy any obvious local basis, and no stabilizer generators of bounded weight are explicitly constructed from the colimit data. If this is an advertised feature, a proof or a precise statement about when the induced boundary matrices remain sparse is needed.
[Section 5.C, Proposition 5.2] The fracton example is not rigorously established. Proposition 5.2 asserts H2(X)=F2^{L^2} based on a "direct counting argument" and refers to a "full matrix proof" that is not given; Appendix E's claim that ∂3 decomposes into L^2 columns of size L×L and rank L−1 is stated without derivation. Since recovery of X-cube style fracton models is one of the paper's advertised applications, this computation needs to be made explicit.

minor comments (4)

[Equation in Proposition 5.1 proof] The notation "Z2^n" for the face group is ambiguous and should be "Z2^{n^2}" if the grid has n^2 faces.
[Fourier transform in Proposition 5.1] For a two-dimensional square grid, the Fourier diagonalization should involve two frequency variables; the single-variable expression with blocks [1+ω^a 1+ω^b] is unclear and should be explained.
[Appendix C, Lemma A.1] The counterexample to transitivity uses chain maps φ0_{ρ≤τ} from C0(ρ) to C1(τ), which do not preserve degree and therefore do not satisfy Axiom 2.3 before transitivity is even considered; the example should be revised or clarified.
[Throughout] Several matrix and module dimensions are stated inconsistently (e.g., the face group dimension in Proposition 5.1 and the local C0 data in Example A); a careful pass to reconcile all dimensions would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core construction is a self-contained categorical definition, and the examples are instantiations rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

I traced the claimed derivation chain from Axioms 2.1–2.3 through Definition 2.5, Theorems 2.6 and 3.5, the Section 4 logical-operator dictionary, and the Section 5 examples. The global boundary map is defined on the colimit quotient, and Theorem 2.6 proves that it squares to zero using exactly the stated local nilpotence and chain-map compatibility; this is a direct consequence of the definitions, not a conclusion already contained in an unexplained input. The CSS interpretation is also definitional: cycles are assigned Pauli-Z strings and cocycles Pauli-X strings, and Theorem 4.5 computes the commutation relation from the single-qubit Pauli algebra and the evaluation pairing. That is the standard homological-CSS dictionary, not an independent prediction that has been secretly fitted. The alleged recoveries of surface, color, RP2, and fracton codes are worked examples in which the local strata and gluing maps are chosen so that the colimit reproduces the known complex; presenting a constructed example is not circular. There are no fitted parameters, no data-fitting prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation: the author cites standard algebra references and unrelated prior code literature. The arithmetic inconsistencies in Proposition 5.1 and Appendix D, such as gcd(6,2,1) being stated as 4, are serious correctness concerns, but they undermine the flagship rate-k~d example rather than constituting a circular derivation; correctness risk is outside the circularity score. Accordingly, I find no circular step and score 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; example-specific choices such as the twist vector (a,b), the deletion sets in the fracton example, and the ring R are design choices for particular codes, not fitted constants. The construction relies on standard homological algebra: finite posets, finite chain complexes, boundary-respecting chain maps, and standard facts about colimits, the universal coefficient theorem, and Smith normal form. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'stratified colimit code' is a mathematical class of examples.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Axiom 2.1: X is a finite poset of strata
Defines the indexing category for the construction; every example must supply this finite poset.
domain assumption Axiom 2.2: each stratum carries a finite chain complex of finitely generated R-modules
Local data of the construction; finite generation is needed for the computational tractability claims of Remark 2.9.
domain assumption Axiom 2.3: boundary-respecting transitive chain maps phi_{sigma <= tau}
The chain-map identity and transitivity are essential for the colimit differential to square to zero, as the paper demonstrates in Appendix C.
standard math Colimits in Ch(R) are computed degree-wise and every abelian category is cocomplete
Invoked in Section 3 (Standing hypothesis) and cited to Mitchell, Mac Lane, and Weibel.
standard math Universal Coefficient Theorem for cohomology of chain complexes over fields and PIDs
Used in Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.4; the proof is cited to Weibel, Section 3.6.
standard math Smith normal form over PIDs and Gaussian elimination over fields compute homology
Computational tractability claims in Remark 3.7 rest on these standard algorithms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stratified Cohomological Quantum Codes via Colimits in Ch(R)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H3U6OS3Q

@misc{pith2026250906958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stratified Cohomological Quantum Codes via Colimits in Ch(R)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H3U6OS3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06958}
}

abstract

We introduce \emph{stratified colimit codes}: stabiliser codes obtained by taking the degree-wise colimit $\mathcal C_\bullet(X):=\operatorname*{colim}_{\sigma\in X}F(\sigma)$ of a functor $F\colon X\to\mathbf{Ch}(R)$ from a finite poset into the category of chain complexes over a commutative ring~$R$. Axioms requiring only transitivity and boundary-compatibility of the morphisms in $F$ ensure that $\partial^2=0$, so the homology $H_\bullet$ and cohomology $H^\bullet$ furnish the usual CSS $Z$- and $X$-type logical sectors; torsion in $H_\bullet$ classifies qudit charges via the universal coefficient sequence. Varying $F$ recovers classical surface and color codes, $\mathbb{RP}^2$ torsion codes, twisted toric families with rate $k\sim d$, and X-cube style fracton models, all without referencing an ambient cell complex. Matrix Smith normal form (PID case) and sparse Gaussian elimination (field case) compute $H_\bullet$ directly, giving LDPC parameters that inherit the sparsity of $F$. Because the construction is ring agnostic and functorial, it extends naturally to code surgery (push-outs) and, at the next categorical level, to bicomplex domain walls. Stratified colimit codes therefore supply a concise algebraic chassis for designing, classifying, and decoding topological and fractal quantum codes without ever drawing a lattice.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

R., & Shor, P

Calderbank, A. R., & Shor, P. W. (1996). Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. Physical Review A, 54(2), 1098--1105

work page 1996
[2]

Steane, A. M. (1996). Error correcting codes in quantum theory. Physical Review Letters, 77(5), 793--797

work page 1996
[3]

Steane, A. M. (1996). Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 452(1954), 2551--2577

work page 1996
[4]

Kitaev, A. Y. (2003). Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of Physics, 303(1), 2--30

work page 2003
[5]

Dennis, E., Kitaev, A., Landahl, A., & Preskill, J. (2002). Topological quantum memory. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 43(9), 4452--4505

work page 2002
[6]

H., & Meyer, D

Freedman, M. H., & Meyer, D. A. (2001). Projective plane and planar quantum codes. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 1(3), 325--332

work page 2001
[7]

H., Meyer, D

Freedman, M. H., Meyer, D. A., & Luo, F. (2002). Z$_2$-systolic freedom and quantum codes. In Mathematics of Quantum Computation (pp. 287--320). Chapman & Hall/CRC

work page 2002
[8]

Bombin, H., & Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2007). Homological error correction: Classical and quantum codes. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(5), 052105

work page 2007

Show all 45 references

[9]

Bacon, D. (2006). Operator quantum error-correcting subsystems: The Bacon-Shor code. Physical Review A, 73(1), 012340

2006
[10]

Bombin, H., & Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2006). Topological quantum color codes. Physical Review Letters, 97(18), 180501

2006
[11]

Bombin, H. (2010). Topological order with a twist: Ising anyons and universal topological quantum computation. Physical Review Letters, 105(3), 030403

2010
[12]

Zou, X., & Lo, H.-K. (2025). Algebraic Topology Principles behind Topological Quantum Error Correction. arXiv:2505.06082

2025
[13]

Tillich, J.-P., & Zémor, G. (2014). Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimal distance $ O ( n )$ . IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 60(2), 1193--1202

2014
[14]

Bravyi, S., & Hastings, M. B. (2014). Homological product codes. arXiv:1311.0885

2014 arXiv
[15]

Hastings, M. B. (2016). Weight reduction for quantum codes. arXiv:1611.03790

2016 arXiv
[16]

Evra, S., Kaufman, T., & Zémor, G. (2020). Decodable quantum LDPC codes beyond the $ n $ distance barrier using high-dimensional expanders . arXiv:2004.07935

2020 arXiv
[17]

Panteleev, P., & Kalachev, G. (2022). Asymptotically good quantum and locally testable classical LDPC codes. In Proceedings of STOC 2022 (pp. 375--388)

2022
[18]

B., Haah, J., & O'Donnell, R

Hastings, M. B., Haah, J., & O'Donnell, R. (2021). Fiber bundle codes: Breaking the $N^ 1/2 $ polylogarithmic barrier for quantum LDPC codes . arXiv:2103.08612

2021 arXiv
[19]

Leverrier, A., & Zémor, G. (2022). Quantum Tanner codes. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 387(2), 807--844

2022
[20]

Cowtan, A., & Burton, S. (2024). CSS code surgery as a universal construction. Quantum, 8, 1344

2024
[21]

Novák, S. (2024). Homological Quantum Error Correction with Torsion. arXiv:2405.03559

2024 arXiv
[22]

Stuart, M. (2025). A category theoretic bridge from classical error correction to quantum error correction. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, SUNY New Paltz

2025
[23]

Hsin, P.-S., Kobayashi, R., & Zhu, G. (2024). Classifying logical gates in quantum codes via cohomology operations and symmetry. arXiv:2411.15848

2024 arXiv
[24]

Chamon, C. (2005). Quantum glassiness in two dimensions: Fractionalization of quantum degrees of freedom. Physical Review Letters, 94(4), 040402

2005
[25]

Haah, J. (2011). Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators. Physical Review A, 83(4), 042330

2011
[26]

Bravyi, S., & Haah, J. (2013). Quantum self-correction in the 3D cubic code model. Physical Review Letters, 111(20), 200501

2013
[27]

Yoshida, B. (2013). Exotic topological order in fractal spin liquids. Physical Review B, 88(12), 125122

2013
[28]

Vijay, S., Haah, J., & Fu, L. (2016). A new kind of topological quantum order: A dimensional hierarchy of quasiparticles. Physical Review B, 92, 235136

2016
[29]

M., & Hermele, M

Nandkishore, R. M., & Hermele, M. (2019). Fractons. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 10, 295--313

2019
[30]

Shor, P. W. (1995). Scheme for reducing decoherence in quantum computer memory. Physical Review A, 52(4), R2493--R2496

1995
[31]

Williamson, D. J. (2016). Fractal symmetries: Ungauging the cubic code. Physical Review B, 94(15), 155128

2016
[32]

Bombin, H., & Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2009). Quantum measurements and gates by code deformation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 42(9), 095302

2009
[33]

Liang, Z., Liu, K., Song, H., & Chen, Y.-A. (2025). Generalized toric codes on twisted tori for quantum error correction. arXiv:2503.03827

2025
[34]

Mitchell, B. (1965). Theory of Categories. Academic Press

1965
[35]

Mac Lane, S. (1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 5

1998
[36]

Weibel, C. A. (1994). An Introduction to Homological Algebra. Cambridge University Press

1994
[37]

F., & Macdonald, I

Atiyah, M. F., & Macdonald, I. G. (1969). Introduction to Commutative Algebra. Addison-Wesley

1969
[38]

Eisenbud, D. (1995). Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry. Springer-Verlag, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150

1995
[39]

Lang, S. (2002). Algebra (Revised 3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 211

2002
[40]

Cohen, H. (1993). A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory. Springer-Verlag, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 138

1993
[41]

Cox, D., Little, J., & O’Shea, D. (2007). Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag

2007
[42]

R., & Stillman, M

Grayson, D. R., & Stillman, M. E. Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/
[43]

Decker, W., Greuel, G.-M., Pfister, G., & Schönemann, H. (2020). Singular 4-2-0 — A Computer Algebra System for Polynomial Computations. https://www.singular.uni-kl.de

2020
[44]

SageMath, the Sage Mathematics Software System (Version 10.0)

The Sage Developers. SageMath, the Sage Mathematics Software System (Version 10.0). https://www.sagemath.org
[45]

Hatcher, A. (2002). Algebraic Topology. Cambridge University Press

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R., & Shor, P

Calderbank, A. R., & Shor, P. W. (1996). Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. Physical Review A, 54(2), 1098--1105

work page 1996

[2] [2]

Steane, A. M. (1996). Error correcting codes in quantum theory. Physical Review Letters, 77(5), 793--797

work page 1996

[3] [3]

Steane, A. M. (1996). Multiple-particle interference and quantum error correction. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 452(1954), 2551--2577

work page 1996

[4] [4]

Kitaev, A. Y. (2003). Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals of Physics, 303(1), 2--30

work page 2003

[5] [5]

Dennis, E., Kitaev, A., Landahl, A., & Preskill, J. (2002). Topological quantum memory. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 43(9), 4452--4505

work page 2002

[6] [6]

H., & Meyer, D

Freedman, M. H., & Meyer, D. A. (2001). Projective plane and planar quantum codes. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 1(3), 325--332

work page 2001

[7] [7]

H., Meyer, D

Freedman, M. H., Meyer, D. A., & Luo, F. (2002). Z\(_2\)-systolic freedom and quantum codes. In Mathematics of Quantum Computation (pp. 287--320). Chapman & Hall/CRC

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Bombin, H., & Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2007). Homological error correction: Classical and quantum codes. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(5), 052105

work page 2007