Classification of bipartite observables III: simplicity, mixtures and quantum error correction

We verify the hypotheses of Fact Fact. The first five are set algebra, and extension and the independence theorem follow from the extension property of \mathbb{M}. Invariance, symmetry and finite character are immediate. Monotonicity and transitivity hold together, since the conditions A\cap B\subseteq C and A\cap D\subseteq C\cup B say jointly that every element of A\cap(B\cup D) lies in C. For local character, given a finite tuple a and a set B, the finite set B_0=B\cap a satisfies a\cap B\subseteq B_0, which is the relation a\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_{B_0}B.

For extension, let a and C\subseteq B be given, and write a=(c,a_0), where c lists the entries of a in C. The type of a_0 over C prescribes only the equalities and edges of a_0 within itself and to C. Hence the extension property of \mathbb{M}, applied one entry at a time with the excluded set enlarged by B\setminus C, gives a tuple a_0' disjoint from B with the same type over C, and the tuple a'=(c,a_0') satisfies a'\cap B\subseteq C.

For the independence theorem, let M, B, D, a_1 and a_2 be as in Fact Fact(vii). Since \operatorname{tp}(a_1/M)=\operatorname{tp}(a_2/M), the two tuples have the same entries in M and the same remaining equalities; write a_\ell=(m,a_\ell') with a_\ell' disjoint from M. The hypotheses a_1\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_MB and a_2\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_MD say that a_1' is disjoint from B and a_2' from D. We look for a tuple x, disjoint from M\cup B\cup D, whose edges within itself and to M are those of a_1' (equivalently, of a_2'), whose edges to B\setminus M are those of a_1', and whose edges to D\setminus M are those of a_2'. These prescriptions concern disjoint sets of vertices, because B\cap D\subseteq M; the extension property of \mathbb{M} therefore provides such an x, and by quantifier elimination the tuple a=(m,x) is as required.

The vectors a_i lie in a finite-dimensional subspace W spanned by part of the symplectic basis, and the form is nondegenerate on W. Hence the functionals \omega(a_i,\cdot) restricted to W are linearly independent, and the linear map b\mapsto(\omega(a_i,b))_{i\le n} from W to \mathbb{F}_2^n is onto.

The proof follows that of Theorem Theorem, with linear span in place of equality: the first five axioms are linear algebra, and extension and the independence theorem come from the freedom to prescribe the form on a complement. We verify the hypotheses of Fact Fact. Invariance and symmetry are immediate, and finite character holds because a vector of \operatorname{span}(AC)\cap\operatorname{span}(BC) outside \operatorname{span}(C) is a combination of finitely many elements of A, B and C.

For monotonicity and transitivity, put Q_1=\operatorname{span}(AC), Q_2=\operatorname{span}(BC), Q_3=\operatorname{span}(BCD) and Q_0=\operatorname{span}(C); these subspaces satisfy Q_2\subseteq Q_3 and \operatorname{span}(ABC)=Q_1+Q_2. It remains to be shown that Q_1\cap Q_3=Q_0 if and only if Q_1\cap Q_2=Q_0 and (Q_1+Q_2)\cap Q_3=Q_2. Suppose that Q_1\cap Q_3=Q_0. Since Q_2\subseteq Q_3, the intersection Q_1\cap Q_2 is contained in Q_0. If u_1+u_2\in Q_3 with u_1\in Q_1 and u_2\in Q_2, then the vector u_1 also lies in Q_3, hence in Q_1\cap Q_3=Q_0\subseteq Q_2; thus the sum lies in Q_2. Conversely, every u\in Q_1\cap Q_3 lies in (Q_1+Q_2)\cap Q_3=Q_2, and therefore in Q_1\cap Q_2=Q_0.

Local character follows from finite dimension. Given a finite tuple a and a set B, the space \operatorname{span}(a)\cap\operatorname{span}(B) is finite, so it is contained in \operatorname{span}(B_0) for some finite B_0\subseteq B. If u+w\in\operatorname{span}(B) with u\in\operatorname{span}(a) and w\in\operatorname{span}(B_0), then the vector u lies in \operatorname{span}(a)\cap\operatorname{span}(B)\subseteq\operatorname{span}(B_0). It follows that \operatorname{span}(aB_0)\cap\operatorname{span}(B)=\operatorname{span}(B_0), which is the relation a\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_{B_0}B.

For extension, let a and C\subseteq B be given. Replacing a by a maximal subtuple linearly independent over \operatorname{span}(C), we may assume that a is linearly independent over \operatorname{span}(C), since the remaining entries are then determined. Choose a complement B' of \operatorname{span}(C) in \operatorname{span}(BC). By saturation, the alternating space \operatorname{span}(BC)\oplus\operatorname{span}(x) in which x has the values of \omega prescribed by \operatorname{tp}(a/C) on \operatorname{span}(xC) and is orthogonal to B' is realized over \operatorname{span}(BC) by a tuple a'; this tuple has the type of a over C and is linearly independent over \operatorname{span}(BC).

The independence theorem is a gluing of functionals. Let M, B, D, a_1 and a_2 be as in Fact Fact(vii). As before, we may assume that a_1 is linearly independent over M; then so is a_2, and the hypotheses a_1\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_MB and a_2\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_MD make a_1 linearly independent over \operatorname{span}(MB) and a_2 over \operatorname{span}(MD). For each k, the functionals \omega(a_{1,k},\cdot) on \operatorname{span}(MB) and \omega(a_{2,k},\cdot) on \operatorname{span}(MD) agree on M, because \operatorname{tp}(a_1/M)=\operatorname{tp}(a_2/M). Since B\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_MD, their domains meet in \operatorname{span}(MB)\cap\operatorname{span}(MD)=M, and the two functionals glue to a linear functional on \operatorname{span}(MBD). Realize over \operatorname{span}(MBD) a tuple a, linearly independent over \operatorname{span}(MBD), with these functionals and with the values of \omega on a given by \operatorname{tp}(a_1/M). By quantifier elimination, the type of a over MB is that of a_1, and its type over MD is that of a_2; the relation a\mathrel{\mathpalette\di@Ind{}}_MBD holds by construction.

The matrix \Theta defines an alternating form on \mathbb{F}_2^d. Let W_0 be its radical and choose a complement W of W_0; the form is nondegenerate on W, which therefore has a symplectic basis of r pairs, where 2r=\dim W. Send the r pairs to the labels of X and Z on the first r qubits, and a basis of W_0 to the labels of X on \dim W_0 further qubits. This linear map preserves the form, and the images of the standard basis vectors of \mathbb{F}_2^d are the required strings, on r+\dim W_0\le d qubits.

By the theorem of Witt, the map f extends to a linear bijection \tau of \mathbb{F}_2^{2n} that preserves \omega. Every such \tau is induced by conjugation by a Clifford unitary [Calderbank-Rains-Shor-Sloane:1998, Dehaene-deMoor:2003]; let U be one. Since the operator UP_vU^* is a Pauli string up to a phase, Hermitian and with square I, the phase is a sign. For the second statement, let \varepsilon_i\in\{\pm1\} be the sign with UP_{v_i}U^*=\varepsilon_iP_{f(v_i)}. The vectors f(v_i) are linearly independent, so by nondegeneracy there is b\in\mathbb{F}_2^{2n} with (-1)^{\omega(f(v_i),b)}=\varepsilon_i for all i. Conjugation by P_b multiplies P_{f(v_i)} by (-1)^{\omega(f(v_i),b)}, so the Clifford unitary P_bU has the required property.

Let g_1,\dots,g_m and g'_1,\dots,g'_m be independent generators, with labels v_i and v'_i. Both families span isotropic subspaces, so the linear map v_i\mapsto v'_i preserves \omega, and Theorem Theorem gives a Clifford unitary U with Ug_iU^*=g'_i for all i. The signs of the generators are absorbed as in the proof of Theorem Theorem.

By Theorem Theorem, the type \operatorname{tp}(e/B) does not fork over D exactly when \operatorname{span}(eD)\cap\operatorname{span}(B)=\operatorname{span}(D). If e\in\operatorname{span}(D), the spans \operatorname{span}(eD) and \operatorname{span}(D) coincide, and the equality holds. Otherwise the span of eD is \operatorname{span}(D)\oplus\{0,e\}, and the equality fails if and only if some vector e+d with d\in\operatorname{span}(D) lies in \operatorname{span}(B), that is, if and only if e\in\operatorname{span}(B).

Apply Theorem Theorem with D=\emptyset and B=S; the span of S is S itself, and \operatorname{span}(\emptyset)=\{0\}. The second statement is the definition of distance, since a logical error is a nonzero label with zero syndrome outside S.

(a) Since the syndrome of e is zero, the label e lies in S^\perp=\operatorname{span}(S\cup L). By Theorem Theorem with D=S and B=S\cup L, the type \operatorname{tp}(e/S\cup L) forks over S if and only if e\in\operatorname{span}(S\cup L)\setminus S=S^\perp\setminus S, which is the set of logical errors.

(b) By quantifier elimination, the type over S of a label e\notin S is determined by its linear relations over S, of which there are none, and by the values of \omega on \operatorname{span}(eS), which are \omega(s,e)=0 and \omega(e,e)=0 together with the values on S. Hence all labels of S^\perp\setminus S have the same type over S, and it does not fork over \emptyset by Corollary Corollary.

Since \xi_1 and \xi_2 agree on the intersection of their domains, there is a linear functional \xi on \operatorname{span}(BC)+\operatorname{span}(DC) extending both. Extend \xi to \mathbb{F}_2^{2n}. Because \omega is nondegenerate, every linear functional on \mathbb{F}_2^{2n} has the form \omega(\cdot,e) for a unique e.

The unital C^*-algebra generated by commuting projections is the algebra of continuous functions on the Stone space of the Boolean algebra they generate. The Boolean algebra generated by the sets \{b:\varphi(a,b)=1\} has as Stone space the closure of the image of B under b\mapsto\varphi(\cdot,b), which is K_\varphi. States of C(K_\varphi) are Radon probability measures by the Riesz representation theorem, and the formula for r_\mu is the evaluation of the state \nu at the slice.

Each \omega(\cdot,e) is linear, and the linear functionals form a closed subset of \{0,1\}^V. Conversely, a basic neighborhood of a linear functional \lambda prescribes the values of \lambda on finitely many vectors, which may be taken linearly independent, and Lemma Lemma gives e with \omega(\cdot,e) in the neighborhood.

(a) The map is a homomorphism. Write X_k and Z_k for the labels of the strings X and Z on the qubit k. Then the values \omega(X_k,u) and \omega(Z_k,u) are the two coordinates of u at the qubit k, so the map is injective, and every \lambda\in V^* is the image of the vector u=(x,z) with z_k=\lambda(X_k) and x_k=\lambda(Z_k) for every k, because \lambda and \omega(\cdot,u) are linear and agree on the basis \{X_k,Z_k:k\in\mathbb{N}\} of V. The value \omega(a,u) depends on finitely many coordinates of u, so the map is continuous, and a continuous bijection between compact Hausdorff spaces is a homeomorphism.

(b) By Lemma Lemma, Lemma Lemma and (a), the probes are the Radon probability measures on \hat{V}, and r_\mu(\nu)=\int\sum_a\mu(a)\,\omega(a,u)\,d\nu(u), which is the probability stated, by Fubini’s theorem.

(c) Under \nu_p, the events “the error acts nontrivially on the qubit k” are independent and have probability p, so, by the lemma of Borel and Cantelli, almost every error acts nontrivially on infinitely many qubits. At each of the w qubits where P_a acts nontrivially, it anticommutes with two of the three nontrivial Pauli matrices, hence with the error with probability 2p/3, independently of the other qubits. The strings anticommute exactly when an odd number of these w events occur, and this has probability \frac12\bigl(1-(1-\frac{4p}3)^w\bigr).

A basic open subset of \{0,1\}^\Gamma prescribes adjacency to the vertices of a finite set \Gamma_1 and nonadjacency to those of a finite set \Gamma_0, and the extension property gives a vertex outside \Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_0 with that pattern. By Lemma Lemma, the space K_\omega is the group V^*, which is a proper subset of \{0,1\}^V.

We first build finite arrays in \mathcal{S}_\varphi itself and then pass to an elementary extension by compactness.

Let N\ge1 be given, and choose t with 2^t>N. Partition 2^t N of the labels a_n into N blocks J_0,\dots,J_{N-1} of size 2^t, and identify each block with \mathbb{F}_2^t. Choose distinct nonzero vectors w_0,\dots,w_{N-1} in \mathbb{F}_2^t, and for i,j<N let H_{ij}\subseteq J_i be the set of v\in\mathbb{F}_2^t with w_j\cdot v=1. Each H_{ij} has 2^{t-1} elements, and for j\ne j' the set H_{ij}\cap H_{ij'} has 2^{t-2} elements, since w_j and w_{j'} are linearly independent. Let \mu^+_{ij} and \mu^-_{ij} be the uniform probability measures on H_{ij} and on J_i\setminus H_{ij}.

For a probe \nu, write \pi_a(\nu)=\nu\{\lambda:\lambda(a)=1\}\in[0,1] for its marginal at the label a; by Lemma Lemma, the response is then R(\mu,\nu)=\sum_a\mu(a)\pi_a(\nu). With m=2^t, we have

For j\ne j' in the same row, adding the two values gives

so the two values are never both greater than 1/2. For every f\colon N\to N, the hypothesis applied to the finite disjoint sets \bigcup_iH_{if(i)} and \bigcup_i(J_i\setminus H_{if(i)}) gives a label b, and at the pure probe of \varphi(\cdot,b) every value \psi(\cdot;\mu^+_{if(i)},\mu^-_{if(i)}) with i<N equals 1.

Thus, for every N, the structure \mathcal{S}_\varphi satisfies the following conditions on 2N^2 preparations y^\pm_{ij}: for every f\colon N\to N, the value of \sup_x\min_{i<N}\psi(x;y^+_{if(i)},y^-_{if(i)}) is 1; and for all i and j\ne j', the value of \sup_x\min\bigl(\psi(x;y^+_{ij},y^-_{ij}),\psi(x;y^+_{ij'},y^-_{ij'})\bigr) is at most 1/2. These are finitely many closed conditions for each N, and the conditions for N are inherited by subarrays. By compactness, an \aleph_1-saturated elementary extension of \mathcal{S}_\varphi contains an array (y^\pm_{ij})_{i,j\in\mathbb{N}} satisfying them for all N; by saturation, the suprema along paths are attained. This is the tree property of the second kind, which is incompatible with simplicity in real-valued logic [BenYaacov:2003b].

It remains to be shown that a simple diagonal observable has no independence property. The hypothesis of the theorem is the independence property of the pure responses, in the form used in the second paper: actual labels are dense in K_\varphi, and a finite pattern of answers to the labels a_n prescribes a clopen subset of K_\varphi, so the hypothesis says exactly that the functions \lambda\mapsto\lambda(a_n) form an independent sequence on K_\varphi. For a diagonal observable, the pure and the mixed responses have the independence property together, since a mixed response is an average of pure ones. Indeed, if the pure responses have no independent sequence, then, by the dichotomy of Rosenthal, every sequence of them has a subsequence that converges pointwise on K_\varphi, and this subsequence is weakly Cauchy in C(K_\varphi) by dominated convergence; by the theorem of Stegall, as in the second paper, every sequence in the closed absolutely convex hull of the pure responses, which contains the mixed responses, then has a weakly Cauchy subsequence as well. Consequently, if a diagonal observable has the independence property, the hypothesis holds, and the real-valued theory of \mathcal{S}_\varphi has the tree property of the second kind.

The map s\mapsto(-1)^{\sigma(s)}\chi_s(\lambda)=(-1)^{(\sigma+\lambda)(s)} is a character of the finite group G; its sum over G is 2^d if the linear functional \sigma+\lambda vanishes on G, that is, if \lambda\in\Sigma_\sigma, and 0 otherwise, since a nonzero functional on G takes the value 1 on exactly half of G. This is the first equality, and the second follows from \chi_s=1-2r_s. If \sigma\ne0, the first sum on the right vanishes, and the two level sets of \sigma have 2^{d-1} elements each; grouping the second sum by the value of \sigma gives r_{\mu^1_\sigma}-r_{\mu^0_\sigma}. If \sigma=0, the first sum is 2^d, and the second is 2^dr_{\mu_G}. Both sides of each identity are affine in the probe, and integration against \nu, together with Proposition Proposition(b), yields the last statement.

We first compute the response of \mu_{ij} at a pure probe \lambda\in V^*. If \lambda does not vanish on W_{ij}, then the functional \lambda takes the value 1 on exactly half of the coset g_{ij}+W_{ij}, since a nonzero functional on a finite \mathbb{F}_2-space is balanced, and translation by g_{ij} either preserves or exchanges its level sets. If \lambda vanishes on W_{ij}, then the functional \lambda is constant on the coset, with value \lambda(g_{ij}). Hence

In words, the response is 1 exactly when g_{ij} is the first check of block i to fire.

(a) Let f and n be given. The conditions \lambda(g_{im})=0 for m<f(i) and \lambda(g_{if(i)})=1, for i<n, concern finitely many linearly independent vectors, so Lemma Lemma gives an error e with \omega(\cdot,e) satisfying them, and by (Proof) the response r_{\mu_{if(i)}}(e) equals 1 for all i<n. The conditions for all i together define a nonempty closed subset of V^*, since the vectors g_{im} are linearly independent; any \lambda in it works.

(b) By symmetry, we may assume that j<j'. By (Proof), the pair \bigl(r_{\mu_{ij}}(\lambda),r_{\mu_{ij'}}(\lambda)\bigr) at a pure probe takes one of the values

Indeed, if the first check of block i to fire among g_{i0},\dots,g_{ij'} has index m, the pair is (\tfrac12,\tfrac12) for m<j, (1,\tfrac12) for m=j, (0,\tfrac12) for j<m<j' and (0,1) for m=j'; if none fires, the pair is (0,0). Responses are affine in the probe, so at a mixed probe \nu the pair lies in the convex hull of these five points. On that hull the minimum of the two coordinates is at most 2/3, with equality only at \tfrac23(1,\tfrac12)+\tfrac13(0,1), which is the pair of the probe \tfrac23\delta_\lambda+\tfrac13\delta_{\lambda'} with g_{ij} firing first under \lambda and g_{ij'} under \lambda'.

Statements (a) and (b) are the two clauses of Definition Definition for the array (r_{\mu_{ij}}), with k=2, \alpha=2/3 and \beta=1.

Let (h_j) be a sequence in \mathcal{R}_\kappa and let \alpha<\beta be such that each h_j takes a value \ge\beta. We show that for every k there are j_1<\dots<j_k and a pure probe \lambda with h_{j_\ell}(\delta_\lambda)>\alpha for all \ell.

Write h_j=h_{c_j,\gamma_j} with c_j=\sum_ic_{j,i}\mu_{j,i}, whence \|c_j\|_1\le\kappa. Since A is countable, a diagonal argument gives a subsequence, still denoted (c_j), that converges pointwise on A to some c; by Fatou’s lemma, the limit satisfies \|c\|_1\le\kappa. Put \eta=(\beta-\alpha)/5 and choose a finite set F\subseteq A with \|c\restriction(A\setminus F)\|_1<\eta. Put F_0=F, and choose inductively indices j_1<\dots<j_k and finite sets F_0\subseteq F_1\subseteq\dots\subseteq F_k such that

the first condition holds for all large indices by pointwise convergence, and the second for a large enough finite set. Define \lambda\in\{0,1\}^A by \lambda(a)=1 exactly when a\in F and c(a)>0, or a\in F_\ell\setminus F_{\ell-1} and c_{j_\ell}(a)>0 for some \ell\le k.

Let \ell\le k be given. The deficit of \lambda for h_{j_\ell} is

and we bound its contribution on four disjoint pieces of A. On F_\ell\setminus F_{\ell-1} the sign pattern of \lambda is that of c_{j_\ell}, and the contribution is 0. On F it is that of c, and a label where the signs of c_{j_\ell} and c disagree contributes at most |c_{j_\ell}(a)-c(a)|; the total is less than \eta. On F_{\ell-1}\setminus F the contribution is at most \|c_{j_\ell}\restriction(F_{\ell-1}\setminus F)\|_1 \le\|(c_{j_\ell}-c)\restriction F_{\ell-1}\|_1+\|c\restriction(A\setminus F)\|_1<2\eta. On A\setminus F_\ell it is less than \eta. Hence h_{j_\ell}(\delta_\lambda)>\sup h_{j_\ell}-4\eta\ge\beta-4\eta>\alpha.

By Lemma Lemma, the Rado observable has freely independent pure responses, and Theorem Theorem applies. The second statement is Theorem Theorem.

For \nu\in\mathcal{P}(\{0,1\}^A) write \pi(\nu)\in[0,1]^A for its vector of marginals (\pi_a(\nu))_{a\in A}, defined before Theorem Theorem. Every h\in\mathcal{R}_u factors as h(\nu)=H(\pi(\nu)) with

and every q\in[0,1]^A is the vector of marginals of a product measure. It therefore suffices to work on the cube [0,1]^A.

Let (h_j) be a sequence in \mathcal{R}_u, with parameters \mu_{j,1},\dots,\mu_{j,n}, and let \alpha<\beta be such that each h_j takes a value \ge\beta. We show that for every k there are j_1<\dots<j_k and q\in[0,1]^A with H_{j_\ell}(q)>\alpha for all \ell. Since u is uniformly continuous, there is \theta>0 such that |u(s)-u(t)|<\beta-\alpha whenever \max_i|s_i-t_i|<\theta. For each j choose q^{(j)}\in[0,1]^A with H_j(q^{(j)})\ge\beta. The set A is countable and the cube is compact and metrizable, so a diagonal argument provides a subsequence, still indexed by j, along which \mu_{j,i}\to\mu_i pointwise on A for each i\le n and q^{(j)}\to q^\infty in [0,1]^A. By Fatou’s lemma, each limit \mu_i has total mass at most 1. Put \eta=\theta/5 and choose a finite set F\subseteq A with \mu_i(A\setminus F)<\eta for all i\le n.

Put F_0=F, and choose inductively indices j_1<\dots<j_k and finite sets F_0\subseteq F_1\subseteq\dots\subseteq F_k such that, for all i\le n,

The first two conditions hold for all large indices, by convergence on the finite sets F_{\ell-1} and F, and the third for a large enough finite set F_\ell. Define q\in[0,1]^A by q_a=q^\infty_a for a\in F, q_a=q^{(j_\ell)}_a for a\in F_\ell\setminus F_{\ell-1} and \ell\le k, and q_a=0 for a\notin F_k.

Let \ell\le k and i\le n be given. We compare \langle\mu_{j_\ell,i},q\rangle with \langle\mu_{j_\ell,i},q^{(j_\ell)}\rangle, on the same four pieces of A as in the proof of Theorem Theorem; on each piece the two vectors differ by at most 1 in each coordinate. On F_\ell\setminus F_{\ell-1} they agree. On F the difference is at most \sum_{a\in F}|q^\infty_a-q^{(j_\ell)}_a|<\eta, since \mu_{j_\ell,i}(a)\le1. On F_{\ell-1}\setminus F it is at most \mu_{j_\ell,i}(F_{\ell-1}\setminus F)\le\sum_{a\in F_{\ell-1}}|\mu_{j_\ell,i}(a) -\mu_i(a)|+\mu_i(A\setminus F)<2\eta. On A\setminus F_\ell it is at most \mu_{j_\ell,i}(A\setminus F_\ell)<\eta. Hence |\langle\mu_{j_\ell,i},q\rangle-\langle\mu_{j_\ell,i},q^{(j_\ell)}\rangle|<4\eta<\theta for every i\le n, and the choice of \theta gives H_{j_\ell}(q)>H_{j_\ell}(q^{(j_\ell)})-(\beta-\alpha)\ge\alpha.