Notes on completely positive maps and continuous-time Markovian CP evolution. A geometry-flavored perspective

Paul E. Lammert

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Notes on completely positive maps and continuous-time Markovian CP evolution. A geometry-flavored perspective

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read These notes establish CP maps and their generators as cones of positive operators through a basis-free Jamiołkowski transform, extended to separable Hilbert spaces by the ground matrix element topology.

desk verdict The finite-dimensional half is a clean, honest re-derivation of known results; the new GMET tool is promising, but its ball-compactness proof has a real gap that the infinite-dimensional existence results lean on. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11766 v6 pith:UP2B4S2U submitted 2025-07-15 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Paul E. Lammert This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 46L0781S2247B65

keywords completelypositivemapsJamiołkowskiisomorphismKrausdecompositionLindbladgeneratorsgroundmatrixelementtopologyseparableHilbertspacesopenquantumsystems

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

These notes develop a self-contained, geometry-first account of completely positive (CP) maps and continuous-time Markovian CP evolution, treating finite-dimensional and separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces on one footing. The central move is to treat the Jamiołkowski transform as a basis-free isometry that identifies CP maps with positive operators, so that existence of Kraus decompositions, extremality of $\theta$-maps, and the structure of generators become facts about cones in Hilbert space. In infinite dimensions, where that isometry no longer applies to the relevant spaces, the paper introduces the ground matrix element topology (GMET), under which closed balls of the relevant superoperator spaces are compact and metrizable; finite-dimensional results are then lifted to separable spaces as limits. The payoff is an algorithmic Kraus decomposition in finite dimensions, a strong-operator-topology-convergent Kraus decomposition in the separable case, and a parametrization of every generator of Markovian CP evolution as $L(\Psi,K)=\Psi+K\Box+\Box K^\dagger$ with $\Psi$ completely positive and $K$ bounded.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing objects are the Jamiołkowski transform $J$ and the ground matrix element topology (GMET). $J$ is a basis-free, self-inverse Hilbert-space isomorphism obtained by swapping tensor factors through $B_2(H,K)\cong K\otimes H^*$; it sends the superoperator $\theta(A)=A\Box A^\dagger$ to the one-dimensional positive operator $\pi(A)$, so the whole cone $\mathcal{CP}(H,K)$ is carried onto $\mathrm{Pos}(B(H,K))$, Kraus decompositions become extremal decompositions of positive operators, and tangent cones at the identity match up. GMET is the topology on $B(B_1(H),B_1(K))$ generated by the ground matrix elements $\langle k'k|\Lambda\cdot h'h\rangle$; its key property is that closed balls in $B(H,K)$, $B_1(H)$, and $B(B_1(H),B_1(K))$ are compact and metrizable, and it is the coarsest topology making the lifted finite-dimensional projections continuous. The paper uses GMET compactness to take limits of explicitly constructed finite-dimensional approximants, which is what carries the finite-dimensional theory to separable spaces.

What would settle it

In a separable Hilbert space, run the iterative reduction of the paper on a concrete CP map with known Kraus rank and test whether the infinite partial sums converge in the strong-operator topology to the map; a failure would refute the claim that every CP map has an SOT-convergent Kraus decomposition. Alternatively, exhibit a bounded net in $B(B_1(H),B_1(K))$ with no GMET accumulation point; that would directly break the compactness lemma on which the extension stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the Jamiołkowski transform $J$ is a canonical isometry $\mathcal{CP}(H,K)\cong \mathrm{Pos}(B(H,K))$ in finite dimensions, and that this finite-dimensional theory extends to separable Hilbert spaces by the ground matrix element topology (GMET). In the separable setting every completely positive map has a Kraus decomposition whose partial sums converge in the strong-operator topology, and every element of the tangent cone $\mathrm{cp}_+(H)$ to $\mathcal{CP}(H)$ at the identity has a Lindblad parametrization $L(\Psi,K)=\Psi+K\Box+\Box K^\dagger$ with $\Psi\in\mathcal{CP}(H)$ and $K\in B(H)$. The extension is nonconstructive: it obtains Lindblad parametrizers and SOT-convergent Kraus series as accumulation points supplied by GMET compactness of closed balls in $B(B_1(H),B_1(K))$, rather than by an explicit construction, and the paper says so.

Load-bearing premise

The separable infinite-dimensional extension rests on the compactness of closed balls in $B(B_1(H),B_1(K))$ in the ground matrix element topology; if that compactness fails, the accumulation-point arguments that produce Kraus decompositions and Lindblad parametrizers would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In finite dimensions, any CP map $\Lambda$ can be written as $\sum_i \theta(A_i)$ with the $A_i$ mutually orthogonal; the iterative reduction algorithm produces this decomposition without explicitly building $J\Lambda$.
In separable Hilbert spaces, the same reduction algorithm, applied to lifted finite-dimensional projections, yields an infinite Kraus series that converges in SOT to $\Lambda$; at every finite stage the partial decomposition is exactly reproduced by later stages.
Every Lindblad-form generator $L(\Psi,K)$ with $\Psi\in\mathcal{CP}(H)$ and $K\in B(H)$ lies in the tangent cone $\mathrm{cp}_+(H)$, and conversely every element of $\mathrm{cp}_+(H)$ has such a form; in finite dimensions the converse is constructive, in the separable case it is an existence result.
There are bounded linear Lindblad parametrizers $\Delta$ that choose a pair $(\Psi,K)$ for each generator; all parametrizers agree on the tangent space $\mathrm{cp}(H)$, where $\mathrm{cp}(H)\cong B(H)/i\mathbb{R}1_H$ via $K\mapsto K\Box+\Box K^\dagger$.
The tangent cone decomposes as $\mathrm{cp}_+(H)=\mathrm{cp}(H)+\mathcal{CP}(H)$, and its intersection with $\mathcal{CP}(H)$ is only the positive multiples of the identity superoperator; these statements hold in both finite and separable settings.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the nonconstructive separable step should be removable: GMET is metrizable on bounded sets, so the accumulation points used for Kraus series and Lindblad parametrizers could in principle be built by explicit diagonal subsequences.
Editorial extension: the paper's norm-compactness of order intervals in $B_1(H)$ suggests a parallel limit theory for extremal decompositions of positive trace-class operators, not just CP maps, with potential applications to state tomography.
Editorial extension: because the paper's integral-equation treatment of generators requires only local integrability, the same cone-geometric picture should extend to time-dependent and weakly differentiable generators, giving a route from Markovian master equations to non-Markovian perturbations without changing the tangent-cone description.
Editorial extension: the uniform bound on the minimal finite-dimensional Lindblad parametrizer could be tested numerically on truncated dissipative models; a violation would indicate a hidden dimension-dependence that the GMET compactness argument would need to confront.

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

Short version: the finite-dimensional half is a genuinely good re-derivation of the standard theory — basis-free Jamiołkowski transform, Kraus decomposition as extremal decomposition, Lindblad generators as the tangent cone to CP(H) — and the author is upfront that the theorems are known. The interesting part is GMET, a WOT-like topology on B(B1(H),B1(K)), and a nonconstructive route from it to Lindblad parametrizers in separable Hilbert spaces. That route has a real hole: the compactness proof in §8C.3.3.

Credit where due: the derivations are parameter-free and benchmark against the known finite-dimensional results. The reduction algorithm in §4C/§10F is a real algorithm, not an existence black box, and the author explicitly flags the nonconstructive step in the infinite-dimensional extension and the circularity concern in §12D.2.6; those self-notes check out.

The hole, and I think the stress-test note is right about its location: §8C.3.3 asserts that balls in B(B1(H),B1(K)) are GMET-closed subsets of the four-factor BML unit ball, 'just as for B1(H)'. It is not just as. For B1(H) in §8C.2 the trace norm is shown to be lower semicontinuous on the whole ambient BML space, so the limit point is forced back into B1(H). For four-linear ground forms, lower semicontinuity of ||·||_{1,1} on the subspace only shows the ball is closed in the relative topology; nothing forces a pointwise limit of ground elements to define an operator into B1(K). Finite-rank duality gives an operator into B(K); trace-class-valuedness needs a separate argument the paper doesn't give. §12D.2.5 and §13B.2 are genuinely downstream of this, so the parametrizer existence in the separable case is not fully established as written. I would correct the stress-test on one point: §10F.3 does not lean on this compactness — the order-interval argument in §9D carries the SOT convergence of the Kraus series — so that part of the note overshoots. The gap looks fixable, but it is load-bearing.

Minor things: the proof in §10F.3.2 is compressed almost to shorthand; display (12.9) has a sign slip (the G term should be an anticommutator); Choi is named in the text but absent from the bibliography.

Who gets value: people who want a geometry-first path through Kraus and Lindblad without C*-algebra prerequisites, and anyone curious whether GMET can do useful work in infinite dimensions. I would not build on GMET until the compactness gap is closed. The paper deserves a serious referee; the finite-dimensional exposition alone justifies a read, and review should push for a substantive revision of §8C and its dependents.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a self-contained exposition of the theory of completely positive (CP) maps and continuous-time Markovian CP evolution, aimed at both finite-dimensional and separable infinite-dimensional settings. The finite-dimensional theory is built on a basis-free Jamiołkowski transform J, yielding the isometry CP(H,K) ≅ Pos(B(H,K)), from which Kraus decompositions and extremality results are derived. For the separable setting, the paper introduces the ground matrix element topology (GMET), proves compactness of closed balls in the relevant operator spaces, and uses it to obtain nonconstructive extensions: SOT-convergent Kraus decompositions (§10F), Lindblad parametrizations of the tangent cone cp+(H) (§12D), the existence of Lindblad parametrizers (§13B), and structural results on the tangent cone (§14). The paper also develops a theory of evolution families with locally integrable generators and connects them to the Lindblad form.

Significance. If the central technical claims are fully justified, the paper provides a valuable, geometrically flavored route to foundational results in open quantum systems, avoiding C*-algebraic machinery and giving explicit finite-dimensional algorithms (e.g., the iterative Kraus reduction of §4C). The presentation is unusually careful about distinguishing constructive and nonconstructive steps, and the use of GMET as a weak-operator-style topology for superoperators on trace-class spaces is a useful pedagogical idea. The paper is not primarily original in its results—Kraus decompositions and Lindblad generators are classical—but it offers a self-contained and systematic development that could serve as a reference for non-experts. The main value depends on closing the gap in the GMET compactness proof, since the infinite-dimensional existence results rest on it.

major comments (2)

[§8C.3.3, Eq. (8.4)] The proof that ball(B(B1(H),B1(K))) is GMET-compact is incomplete. The argument embeds the ball into the unit ball of the four-factor BML space, proves that the BML unit ball is compact, and then claims that lower semicontinuity of ∥·∥_{1,1} makes the image closed. However, formula (8.4) only defines ∥·∥_{1,1} on the subspace of BML that actually comes from operators in B(B1(H),B1(K)); it does not define a lower semicontinuous function on the full ambient BML space. A bounded four-linear ground form defines, a priori, a bounded operator from B1(H) to B(K), not necessarily to B1(K). To justify the claimed closedness one must prove that the pointwise limit of ground elements of a net in ball(B(B1(H),B1(K))) yields an operator Λ ∈ B(B1(H),B(K)) and then show, using lower semicontinuity of the trace norm on B(K) in the WOT, that Λρ ∈ B1(K) for each ρ. This missing converse is load-bearing: the accumulation-point arguments in §10E, §10F, §12D, and §13B all rely on GMET compactness of this ball. The gap is likely fixable by supplying the additional argument described above, but as written the proof does not establish the theorem.
[§12G, Eq. (12.9)] The display (12.9) contains a sign error. With K = -G - iH, the identity is K□ + □K† = -{G,·} - i[H,·] (the anticommutator must appear), not -[G,·] + -[iH,·] as written. The displayed formula is also internally inconsistent with the subsequent trace-preserving condition (12.9) L† 1 = Σ_i A_i† A_i - 2G, which is correct only for the anticommutator form. Please correct Eq. (12.9) and the surrounding text accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[§10F.3.2] The proof of SOT convergence of the Kraus series is sketched rather than fully detailed. In particular, the claim that the intersection ∩_n T_n is a singleton, and the precise relationship between ∩_n T_n and the intersection ∩I of order intervals, deserve a more explicit argument; the current text moves from compactness of the intervals to uniqueness of the least upper bound too quickly.
[§10E.1.1] The proof that non-extremality is inherited by projections is hard to follow. The displayed relation c_P bPΓ + c'_P bPΓ' = 0 is not justified as written; presumably it is meant to express that the projected maps are proportional when bPΛ is extreme, but the logical role of the constants c_P and c'_P needs clarification.
[Introduction] Several informal asides are out of place in a journal submission, including 'Revisions are to be expected' and 'I, myself, do not really understand Lindblad's paper'. These should be removed or reformulated in a neutral register.
[Throughout] The manuscript would benefit from numbered theorems and lemmas for its central claims (e.g., §8C.3.3, §12C, §13B), as several key results are currently asserted only in prose, which makes verification more difficult than necessary.
[Various sections] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'ncondidtions' (§8E.1), 'T race' (§5C header), 'conpact' (§9D.0.1), and 'solutin' (§11.0.1). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Jamiolkowski correspondence is derived from an independently defined swap isometry, the separable extension uses approximation plus GMET compactness, and the two forward references the paper itself flags (S10E.2, S12D.2.6) are acyclic because the finite-dimensional results they cite are proven without any separable machinery.

full rationale

Derivation-chain walk. (1) Finite-dimensional core: J is defined constructively (S2C.1) by swapping factors of the Hilbert tensor product under the Hilbert-Schmidt identification B2(H,K) ~ K*H*; CP is not used in its definition. The central correspondence CP(H,K) = Pos(B(H,K)) is then proved, not assumed (S3C), via the purification lemma and J(Λ*Γ)=JΛ*JΓ, establishing rank-N-positivity * N-monotonicity; this is a genuine derivation. Kraus decomposition (S4) is obtained by transferring extremal decomposition of positive operators through J. (2) Separable extension: the author explicitly says the finite-dimensional theory is the foundation (S10A: 'We will build on the finite-dimensional theory to obtain an algorithm'), and the infinite-dimensional results (SOT-Kraus series S10F, Lindblad parametrizers S13B, extreme map characterization S10E) are obtained by GMET compactness (S8C) plus closure/limit arguments, not by definition. (3) The two potentially circular-looking steps are forward references the author himself flags: S10E.2 ('S10F.1 below (no danger of circularity)') and S12D.2.6 ('Readers worried about a potential circularity in citing a later result should note that the finite-dimensional development is independent of the separable'). Both are acyclic in fact: S10F.1 uses only the independently proved finite-dimensional reduction (S4C) and GMET-closedness of the CP-order graph (S10C.3); S12D's boundedness input is S13A.2's uniform bound on the minimal parametrizer Dmin, whose proof (S13A.1-2) uses only the explicit basis decomposition of HP(H) and unitary-group averaging borrowed from Lindblad [15] - no separable machinery. (4) There are no self-citations anywhere in the bibliography; cited external works ([8], [9], [15]) provide inspiration or known benchmarks, not load-bearing premises. (5) The skeptic's compactness concern (S8C.3.3: the converse from BML limits to trace-class-valued superoperators is not supplied) is a possible completeness/correctness gap in a supporting functional-analytic lemma, not circularity: the compactness assertion is an input to the separable existence proofs, not their conclusion. If the lemma is flawed the separable theorems lose their proof, but that would be a soundness failure, not a circular reduction. Verdict: the derivation chain is self-contained and forward-chaining.

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

No fitted parameters appear anywhere; this is a purely mathematical exposition. The only new mathematical object, the GMET topology, is a construction rather than an invented physical entity. All axioms are standard mathematics or explicitly stated domain assumptions.

assumptions (6)

standard math Tychonoff's theorem: arbitrary products of compact spaces are compact
Used in §8B.2 to compactify the closed unit ball of BML spaces; underlies all GMET compactness.
standard math Banach-Alaoglu theorem: closed unit ball of the dual of a normed space is weak-* compact
Used in §13B.1 as a model for the variation Prop. 13B.1 used in the existence of parametrizers.
standard math Existence of a normalized invariant (Haar) measure on the unitary group
Used in §13A.2.1 to average over unitaries and apply Schur's lemma when bounding the minimal parametrizer.
standard math Riesz representation theorem identifies a Hilbert space with its dual
Used in §2B.5 and §8C.1.1 to connect operators to bounded bilinear functions.
domain assumption The Hilbert spaces are complex and separable for the infinite-dimensional parts
The paper explicitly restricts to separable Hilbert spaces for the infinite-dimensional extension, e.g., §6 and §8D.
domain assumption The generator A(t) of an evolution family is locally integrable (Bochner-Lebesgue)
Used in §11A.3.3 to prove convergence of the Dyson series; this is a weaker assumption than continuity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Notes on completely positive maps and continuous-time Markovian CP evolution. A geometry-flavored perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UP2B4S2U

@misc{pith2026250711766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Notes on completely positive maps and continuous-time Markovian CP evolution. A geometry-flavored perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UP2B4S2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11766}
}

read the original abstract

These notes provide a detailed and self-contained exposition of basic theory of CP maps and continuous-time Markovian evolution.The infinite-dimensional (separable) setting is handled as an extension of the finite-dimensional one.The treatment stands on two legs.For the finite-dimensional part, a basis-free version of the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism called simply Jamiolkowski transform.And, for the extension, the ground matrix element topology (GMET), which does for the superoperators on trace-class operators what the weak-operator topology does for bounded operators on a Hilbert space. Background in open quantum systems or quantum information theory is not assumed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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

Existence of Kraus decomposition in infinite dimension via strongly-convergent direct process tomography
quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An iterative algorithm builds Kraus operators for completely positive maps on separable Hilbert spaces, with strong-operator convergence of the sum.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

717, Springer, Berlin, 2007

Robert Alicki and Karl Lendi,Quantum dynamical semigroups and applications, second ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 717, Springer, Berlin, 2007

work page 2007
[2]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,Theory of open quantum systems, Oxford University Press, 2002

work page 2002
[3]

Heinz-Peter Breuer,Non-markovian generalization of the lindblad theory of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A75(2007), 022103

work page 2007
[4]

Paul Busch, Pekka Lahti, Juha-Pekka Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and Kari Ylinen,Quantum measurement, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Conway,A course in operator theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol

John B. Conway,A course in operator theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 21, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

Davidson,C ∗-algebras by example, Fields Institute Monographs, vol

Kenneth R. Davidson,C ∗-algebras by example, Fields Institute Monographs, vol. 6, Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996

work page 1996
[7]

E. B. Davies,Quantum theory of open systems, Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], London-New York, 1976

work page 1976
[8]

4, 355–370

Janusz Grabowski, Marek Kus, and Giuseppe Marmo,On the relation between states and maps in infinite dimensions, Open Systems & Information Dynamics14(2007), no. 4, 355–370

work page 2007

Show all 22 references

[9]

Jamio lkowski,Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep

A. Jamio lkowski,Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Rep. Mathematical Phys.3(1972), no. 4, 275–278

1972
[10]

2, 311–335

K Kraus,General state changes in quantum theory, Annals of Physics64(1971), no. 2, 311–335

1971
[11]

190, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1983

Karl Kraus,States, effects, and operations, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 190, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1983

1983
[12]

Kubrusly,Bilinear maps and tensor products in operator theory, Universitext, Springer, Cham, 2023

Carlos S. Kubrusly,Bilinear maps and tensor products in operator theory, Universitext, Springer, Cham, 2023

2023
[13]

Serge Lang,Real analysis, second ed., Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program, Reading, MA, 1983

1983
[14]

Lidar,Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems, 2020, arXiv:1902.00967

Daniel A. Lidar,Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems, 2020, arXiv:1902.00967

2020 arXiv
[15]

2, 119–130

G Lindblad,Generators of quantum dynamical semigroups, Communications in Mathemat- ical Physics48(1976), no. 2, 119–130. 61

1976
[16]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum computation and quantum information, Cam- bridge University Press, 2000

2000
[17]

Pedersen,Analysis now, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol

Gert K. Pedersen,Analysis now, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 118, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989

1989
[18]

Huelga,Open quantum systems, an introduction, SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

´Angel Rivas and Susana F. Huelga,Open quantum systems, an introduction, SpringerBriefs in Physics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

2012
[19]

Ryan,Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2002

Raymond A. Ryan,Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2002

2002
[20]

Takesaki,Theory of operator algebras

M. Takesaki,Theory of operator algebras. I, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 124, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, Reprint of the first (1979) edition, Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, 5

1979
[21]

Bassano Vacchini,Open quantum systems—foundations and theory, Graduate Texts in Physics, Springer, Cham, 2024

2024
[22]

123, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980

Kˆ osaku Yosida,Functional analysis, sixth ed., Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis- senschaften, vol. 123, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1980. 62

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

717, Springer, Berlin, 2007

Robert Alicki and Karl Lendi,Quantum dynamical semigroups and applications, second ed., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 717, Springer, Berlin, 2007

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,Theory of open quantum systems, Oxford University Press, 2002

work page 2002

[3] [3]

Heinz-Peter Breuer,Non-markovian generalization of the lindblad theory of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A75(2007), 022103

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Paul Busch, Pekka Lahti, Juha-Pekka Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and Kari Ylinen,Quantum measurement, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Conway,A course in operator theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol

John B. Conway,A course in operator theory, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 21, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Davidson,C ∗-algebras by example, Fields Institute Monographs, vol

Kenneth R. Davidson,C ∗-algebras by example, Fields Institute Monographs, vol. 6, Amer- ican Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996

work page 1996

[7] [7]

E. B. Davies,Quantum theory of open systems, Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], London-New York, 1976

work page 1976

[8] [8]

4, 355–370

Janusz Grabowski, Marek Kus, and Giuseppe Marmo,On the relation between states and maps in infinite dimensions, Open Systems & Information Dynamics14(2007), no. 4, 355–370

work page 2007