How to prove that the query oracle is unitary?
$begingroup$
The query oracle: $O_{x}|irangle|brangle = |irangle|b oplus x_{i}rangle$ used in algorithms like Deutsch Jozsa is unitary. How do I prove it is unitary?
algorithm quantum-gate unitarity deutsch-jozsa-algorithm
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The query oracle: $O_{x}|irangle|brangle = |irangle|b oplus x_{i}rangle$ used in algorithms like Deutsch Jozsa is unitary. How do I prove it is unitary?
algorithm quantum-gate unitarity deutsch-jozsa-algorithm
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Related: Why are oracles Hermitian by construction?
$endgroup$
– Blue♦
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The query oracle: $O_{x}|irangle|brangle = |irangle|b oplus x_{i}rangle$ used in algorithms like Deutsch Jozsa is unitary. How do I prove it is unitary?
algorithm quantum-gate unitarity deutsch-jozsa-algorithm
New contributor
$endgroup$
The query oracle: $O_{x}|irangle|brangle = |irangle|b oplus x_{i}rangle$ used in algorithms like Deutsch Jozsa is unitary. How do I prove it is unitary?
algorithm quantum-gate unitarity deutsch-jozsa-algorithm
algorithm quantum-gate unitarity deutsch-jozsa-algorithm
New contributor
New contributor
edited 15 hours ago
Blue♦
6,57541555
6,57541555
New contributor
asked 15 hours ago
DivyatDivyat
283
283
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Related: Why are oracles Hermitian by construction?
$endgroup$
– Blue♦
15 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Related: Why are oracles Hermitian by construction?
$endgroup$
– Blue♦
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: Why are oracles Hermitian by construction?
$endgroup$
– Blue♦
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: Why are oracles Hermitian by construction?
$endgroup$
– Blue♦
15 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Notice that $mathcal O_x$ is a permutation matrix.
The matrix elements are
$$langle j, crvertmathcal O_xlvert i,brangle
=delta_{ij}langle crvert boplus x_irangle
=delta_{ij}delta_{c,boplus x_i}.$$
In other words, $mathcal O_x$ is diagonal with respect to the first register, and, for each block corresponding to a given $i$, connects all and only the indices $b,c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (remember that here $b,c,x_iinmathbb Z_2^{otimes n}$ are length-$n$ bit strings).
Also, notice that for a given $b$ there is no more than one $c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (more precisely, there isn't any such $c$ if $x_i=0$, and there is exactly one if $x_ineq 0$).
It follows that $mathcal O_x$ is a (real) permutation matrix, and such matrices are always unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues (and therefore unitary).
In this case, we have that the eigenvalues of $mathcal O_x$ are $pm1$, and the eigenvectors are, in the case $x_ineq 0$,
$$lvert irangleotimes(lvert branglepmlvert boplus x_irangle)$$
for all $i$ and $b$. If $x_i=0$ then $mathcal O_x$ is the identity, and therefore its spectrum is trivial${}^dagger$.
This shows explicitly that $mathcal O_x$ is unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues, and therefore is unitary.
${}^dagger$ I'm actually being a bit sloppy for the sake of simplicity here. This analysis holds for each different block of $mathcal O_x$ corresponding to a given $i$. More precisely, I should say that $mathcal O_x$ is block-diagonal as it doesn't connect spaces with $ineq j$ on the first register, and each block is either the identity in the subspace in which it acts if $x_i=0$, or a permutation matrix that connects different pairs of basis states if $x_ineq 0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Apply it twice:
$$
O_xO_x|irangle|brangle=O_x|irangle|boplus x_irangle=|irangle|boplus x_ioplus x_irangle=|irangle|brangle
$$
Hence, $O_x$ is its own inverse.
Since $O_x^2=mathbb{I}$, the eigenvalues of $O_x^2$ are all 1, meaning that the eigenvalues of $O_x$ are all $pm 1$. Hence $O_x^star=O_x$ (where $^star$ represents the Hermitian conjugate), and therefore
$$
O_xO_x^star=mathbb{I},
$$
as required for a unitary.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "694"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Divyat is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5779%2fhow-to-prove-that-the-query-oracle-is-unitary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Notice that $mathcal O_x$ is a permutation matrix.
The matrix elements are
$$langle j, crvertmathcal O_xlvert i,brangle
=delta_{ij}langle crvert boplus x_irangle
=delta_{ij}delta_{c,boplus x_i}.$$
In other words, $mathcal O_x$ is diagonal with respect to the first register, and, for each block corresponding to a given $i$, connects all and only the indices $b,c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (remember that here $b,c,x_iinmathbb Z_2^{otimes n}$ are length-$n$ bit strings).
Also, notice that for a given $b$ there is no more than one $c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (more precisely, there isn't any such $c$ if $x_i=0$, and there is exactly one if $x_ineq 0$).
It follows that $mathcal O_x$ is a (real) permutation matrix, and such matrices are always unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues (and therefore unitary).
In this case, we have that the eigenvalues of $mathcal O_x$ are $pm1$, and the eigenvectors are, in the case $x_ineq 0$,
$$lvert irangleotimes(lvert branglepmlvert boplus x_irangle)$$
for all $i$ and $b$. If $x_i=0$ then $mathcal O_x$ is the identity, and therefore its spectrum is trivial${}^dagger$.
This shows explicitly that $mathcal O_x$ is unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues, and therefore is unitary.
${}^dagger$ I'm actually being a bit sloppy for the sake of simplicity here. This analysis holds for each different block of $mathcal O_x$ corresponding to a given $i$. More precisely, I should say that $mathcal O_x$ is block-diagonal as it doesn't connect spaces with $ineq j$ on the first register, and each block is either the identity in the subspace in which it acts if $x_i=0$, or a permutation matrix that connects different pairs of basis states if $x_ineq 0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notice that $mathcal O_x$ is a permutation matrix.
The matrix elements are
$$langle j, crvertmathcal O_xlvert i,brangle
=delta_{ij}langle crvert boplus x_irangle
=delta_{ij}delta_{c,boplus x_i}.$$
In other words, $mathcal O_x$ is diagonal with respect to the first register, and, for each block corresponding to a given $i$, connects all and only the indices $b,c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (remember that here $b,c,x_iinmathbb Z_2^{otimes n}$ are length-$n$ bit strings).
Also, notice that for a given $b$ there is no more than one $c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (more precisely, there isn't any such $c$ if $x_i=0$, and there is exactly one if $x_ineq 0$).
It follows that $mathcal O_x$ is a (real) permutation matrix, and such matrices are always unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues (and therefore unitary).
In this case, we have that the eigenvalues of $mathcal O_x$ are $pm1$, and the eigenvectors are, in the case $x_ineq 0$,
$$lvert irangleotimes(lvert branglepmlvert boplus x_irangle)$$
for all $i$ and $b$. If $x_i=0$ then $mathcal O_x$ is the identity, and therefore its spectrum is trivial${}^dagger$.
This shows explicitly that $mathcal O_x$ is unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues, and therefore is unitary.
${}^dagger$ I'm actually being a bit sloppy for the sake of simplicity here. This analysis holds for each different block of $mathcal O_x$ corresponding to a given $i$. More precisely, I should say that $mathcal O_x$ is block-diagonal as it doesn't connect spaces with $ineq j$ on the first register, and each block is either the identity in the subspace in which it acts if $x_i=0$, or a permutation matrix that connects different pairs of basis states if $x_ineq 0$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notice that $mathcal O_x$ is a permutation matrix.
The matrix elements are
$$langle j, crvertmathcal O_xlvert i,brangle
=delta_{ij}langle crvert boplus x_irangle
=delta_{ij}delta_{c,boplus x_i}.$$
In other words, $mathcal O_x$ is diagonal with respect to the first register, and, for each block corresponding to a given $i$, connects all and only the indices $b,c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (remember that here $b,c,x_iinmathbb Z_2^{otimes n}$ are length-$n$ bit strings).
Also, notice that for a given $b$ there is no more than one $c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (more precisely, there isn't any such $c$ if $x_i=0$, and there is exactly one if $x_ineq 0$).
It follows that $mathcal O_x$ is a (real) permutation matrix, and such matrices are always unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues (and therefore unitary).
In this case, we have that the eigenvalues of $mathcal O_x$ are $pm1$, and the eigenvectors are, in the case $x_ineq 0$,
$$lvert irangleotimes(lvert branglepmlvert boplus x_irangle)$$
for all $i$ and $b$. If $x_i=0$ then $mathcal O_x$ is the identity, and therefore its spectrum is trivial${}^dagger$.
This shows explicitly that $mathcal O_x$ is unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues, and therefore is unitary.
${}^dagger$ I'm actually being a bit sloppy for the sake of simplicity here. This analysis holds for each different block of $mathcal O_x$ corresponding to a given $i$. More precisely, I should say that $mathcal O_x$ is block-diagonal as it doesn't connect spaces with $ineq j$ on the first register, and each block is either the identity in the subspace in which it acts if $x_i=0$, or a permutation matrix that connects different pairs of basis states if $x_ineq 0$.
$endgroup$
Notice that $mathcal O_x$ is a permutation matrix.
The matrix elements are
$$langle j, crvertmathcal O_xlvert i,brangle
=delta_{ij}langle crvert boplus x_irangle
=delta_{ij}delta_{c,boplus x_i}.$$
In other words, $mathcal O_x$ is diagonal with respect to the first register, and, for each block corresponding to a given $i$, connects all and only the indices $b,c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (remember that here $b,c,x_iinmathbb Z_2^{otimes n}$ are length-$n$ bit strings).
Also, notice that for a given $b$ there is no more than one $c$ such that $boplus c=x_i$ (more precisely, there isn't any such $c$ if $x_i=0$, and there is exactly one if $x_ineq 0$).
It follows that $mathcal O_x$ is a (real) permutation matrix, and such matrices are always unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues (and therefore unitary).
In this case, we have that the eigenvalues of $mathcal O_x$ are $pm1$, and the eigenvectors are, in the case $x_ineq 0$,
$$lvert irangleotimes(lvert branglepmlvert boplus x_irangle)$$
for all $i$ and $b$. If $x_i=0$ then $mathcal O_x$ is the identity, and therefore its spectrum is trivial${}^dagger$.
This shows explicitly that $mathcal O_x$ is unitarily diagonalizable with unit eigenvalues, and therefore is unitary.
${}^dagger$ I'm actually being a bit sloppy for the sake of simplicity here. This analysis holds for each different block of $mathcal O_x$ corresponding to a given $i$. More precisely, I should say that $mathcal O_x$ is block-diagonal as it doesn't connect spaces with $ineq j$ on the first register, and each block is either the identity in the subspace in which it acts if $x_i=0$, or a permutation matrix that connects different pairs of basis states if $x_ineq 0$.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
glSglS
4,303739
4,303739
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Apply it twice:
$$
O_xO_x|irangle|brangle=O_x|irangle|boplus x_irangle=|irangle|boplus x_ioplus x_irangle=|irangle|brangle
$$
Hence, $O_x$ is its own inverse.
Since $O_x^2=mathbb{I}$, the eigenvalues of $O_x^2$ are all 1, meaning that the eigenvalues of $O_x$ are all $pm 1$. Hence $O_x^star=O_x$ (where $^star$ represents the Hermitian conjugate), and therefore
$$
O_xO_x^star=mathbb{I},
$$
as required for a unitary.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Apply it twice:
$$
O_xO_x|irangle|brangle=O_x|irangle|boplus x_irangle=|irangle|boplus x_ioplus x_irangle=|irangle|brangle
$$
Hence, $O_x$ is its own inverse.
Since $O_x^2=mathbb{I}$, the eigenvalues of $O_x^2$ are all 1, meaning that the eigenvalues of $O_x$ are all $pm 1$. Hence $O_x^star=O_x$ (where $^star$ represents the Hermitian conjugate), and therefore
$$
O_xO_x^star=mathbb{I},
$$
as required for a unitary.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Apply it twice:
$$
O_xO_x|irangle|brangle=O_x|irangle|boplus x_irangle=|irangle|boplus x_ioplus x_irangle=|irangle|brangle
$$
Hence, $O_x$ is its own inverse.
Since $O_x^2=mathbb{I}$, the eigenvalues of $O_x^2$ are all 1, meaning that the eigenvalues of $O_x$ are all $pm 1$. Hence $O_x^star=O_x$ (where $^star$ represents the Hermitian conjugate), and therefore
$$
O_xO_x^star=mathbb{I},
$$
as required for a unitary.
$endgroup$
Apply it twice:
$$
O_xO_x|irangle|brangle=O_x|irangle|boplus x_irangle=|irangle|boplus x_ioplus x_irangle=|irangle|brangle
$$
Hence, $O_x$ is its own inverse.
Since $O_x^2=mathbb{I}$, the eigenvalues of $O_x^2$ are all 1, meaning that the eigenvalues of $O_x$ are all $pm 1$. Hence $O_x^star=O_x$ (where $^star$ represents the Hermitian conjugate), and therefore
$$
O_xO_x^star=mathbb{I},
$$
as required for a unitary.
edited 13 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
DaftWullieDaftWullie
15.2k1541
15.2k1541
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks, I now understand $O_{x}$ is its own inverse but how does that make it unitary? For a unitary matrix, one would need to show that its inverse is equal to its conjugate transpose, $MM^{*}=I$. I think we further need to show $O_{x}$ is Hermitian, then it will be done.
$endgroup$
– Divyat
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
One more doubt, I think the answer still assumes that $O_{x}$ is normal matrix, as then with real eigenvalues we can claim it to be Hermitian. Please tell whether it is okay to assume oracle as normal or some justifications for it?
$endgroup$
– Divyat
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
This explanation is not quite correct, because you assumed that $O_x$ is diagonalizable, but it is not follow from $O_x^2=I$. The thing is $O_x$ maps basis vectors to basis vectors. Since $O_x^2=I$ then $Q_x$ is a permutation of basis vectors.
$endgroup$
– Danylo Y
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
I actually asked some time ago on math.SE whether one can deduce that $sqrt A$ is diagonalizable from the fact that $A$ is, see here. As far as I understood the answers, $A^2=I$ is not enough to imply that $A$ is unitarily diagonalizable, a counterexample being $begin{pmatrix}costheta & 2sintheta \ sintheta/2 & -costhetaend{pmatrix}$, which is a square root of the identity, but not (unitarily) diagonalizable, and not unitary, even though its eigenvalues are $pm 1$.
$endgroup$
– glS
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Divyat is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Divyat is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Divyat is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Divyat is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5779%2fhow-to-prove-that-the-query-oracle-is-unitary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Related: Why are oracles Hermitian by construction?
$endgroup$
– Blue♦
15 hours ago