Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T09:26:33.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Generalized Proof-Nets for Compact Categories with Biproducts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Ross Duncan
Affiliation:
Oxford University Computing Laboratory
Simon Gay
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Ian Mackie
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Just as conventional functional programs may be understood as proofs in an intuitionistic logic, so quantum processes can also be viewed as proofs in a suitable logic.We describe such a logic, the logic of compact closed categories and biproducts, presented both as a sequent calculus and as a system of proof-nets. This logic captures much of the necessary structure needed to represent quantum processes under classical control, while remaining agnostic to the fine details. We demonstrate how to represent quantum processes as proof-nets and show that the dynamic behavior of a quantum process is captured by the cut-elimination procedure for the logic. We show that the cut-elimination procedure is strongly normalizing: that is, that every legal way of simplifying a proof-net leads to the same, unique, normal form. Finally, taking some initial set of operations as nonlogical axioms, we show that that the resulting category of proof-nets is a representation of the free compact closed category with biproducts generated by those operations.

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Logic, Processes, and Categories

Birkhoff and von Neumann initiated the logical study of quantum mechanics in their well-known 1936 paper. They constructed a logic by assigning a proposition letter to each observable property of a given quantum system and studied negations, conjunctions, and disjunctions of these properties. The resulting lattice is nondistributive, and so the heart of what is called “quantum logic” is the study of various kinds of nondistributive lattices.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramsky, S., Blute, R., and Panangaden, P. (1999) Nuclear and trace ideals in tensored *-categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 143:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramsky, S., and Coecke, B. (2004) A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science: LICS 2004, pages 415-425. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Abramsky, S., and Duncan, R. (2006) A categorical quantum logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16(3):469–489. Special Issue for the Proceedings of QPL 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramsky, S., Gay, S., and Nagarajan, R. (1996) Interaction categories and the foundations of typed concurrent programming. In Broy, M., editor, Proceedings of the 1994 Marktoberdorf Summer School on Deductive Program Design, pages 35–113. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Abramsky, S., Haghverdi, E., and Scott, P (2002) Geometry of interaction and linear combinatory algebras. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 12:625–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramsky, S., and Jagadeesan, R. (1994) New foundations for the geometry of interaction. Information and Computation 111(1):53–119. Conference version appeared in LiCS '92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baez, J., and Dolan, J. (1995) Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory. Journal ofMathematical Physics 36:6073–6105.Google Scholar
Barr, M. (1979) *-Autonomous Categories, volume 752 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. (1991) *-autonomous categories and linear logic. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 1:159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, C., Brassard, G., Crepeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., and Wootters, W. (1993) Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and EPR channels. Physical Review Letters, pages 1895-1899.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G., and von Neumann, J. (1936) The logic of quantam mechanics. Annals of Mathematics 37(823).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blute, R., Cockett, J., Seely, R., and Trimble, T. (1996) Natural deduction and coherence for weakly distributive categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 113:229–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockett, R., and Seely, R. (1997) Weakly distributive categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 113(2):229–296.Google Scholar
Coecke, B. (2005a) De-linearizing linearity: Projective quantum axiomatics from strong compact closure. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages.Google Scholar
Coecke, B. (2005b) Kindergarten quantum mechanics. arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510032.Google Scholar
Coecke, B., and Duncan, R. (2008) Interacting quantum observables. In Aceto, L., Damgård, I., Goldberg, L. A., Halldórsson, M. M., Ingólfsdóttir, A., and Walukiewic, I., editors, Automata, Languages and Programming, 35th International Colloquium, ICALP 2008, Reykjavik, Iceland, July 7-11, 2008, Proceedings, Part II, volume 5126 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 298–310. Springer.Google Scholar
Coecke, B., Paquette, E. O., and Perdrix, S. (2008a) Bases in diagrammatic quantum protocols. In Proceedings of Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics XXIV.Google Scholar
Coecke, B., Pavlovic, D., and Vicary, J. (2008b) A new description of orthogonal bases. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science13pp, to appear, arxiv.org/abs/0810.0812.Google Scholar
Curry, H. B., and Feys, R. (1958) Combinatory Logic I. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Danos, V, and Regnier, L. (1989) The structure of multiplicatives. Archive Mathematical Logic 28(3):181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deligne, P. (1991) Catégories tannakiennes. In Grothendieck Festschrift, volume 2, pages 111–194. Birkhauser.Google Scholar
Doering, A., and Isham, C. J. (2008) A topos foundation for theories of physics I. Formal languages for physics. Journal of Mathematical Physics 49.Google Scholar
Duncan, R. (2004) Believe it or not, Bell states are a model of multiplicative linear logic. Technical Report PRG-RR-04-18, Oxford University Computing Laboratory.Google Scholar
Duncan, R. (2006) Types for Quantum Computation. Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Gentzen, G. (1935) Untersuchungen uber das Schliessen. In Szabo, M., editor, The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North-Holland.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1987a) Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1987b) Multiplicatives. In Lolli, G., editor, Logic and Computer Science: New Trends and Applcations, pages 11–37. Rendiconti del Seminario Mathematico dell'Universita e Politecnico di Torino.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y. (1996) Proof-nets: the parallel syntax for proof theory. In Ursini, A., and Aglianò, P., Logic and Algebra. Volume 180 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Girard, J.-Y., Scedrov, A., and Scott, P. J. (1992) Normal forms and cut-free proofs as natural transformations. In Moschovakis, Y. N., editor, Logic from Computer Science, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications 21, pages 217-241. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heunen, C., Landsman, K., and Spitters, B. (2009) A topos for algebraic quantum theory. Communications in Mathematical Physics. To appearGoogle Scholar
Houston, R. (2008) Finite products are biproducts in a compact closed category. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 212(2):394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, W. A. (1980) The formulaæ-types notion of construction. In Hindley, J. R., and Seldin, J. P., editors, To H.B. Curry, Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pages 479–490. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, D., and van Glabbeek, R. (2003) Proof nets for unit-free multiplicative-additive linear logic. In Proc. Logic in Computer Science 2003. IEEE.Google Scholar
Hyland, M., and Schalk, A. (2003) Gluing and orthogonality for models of linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 294:183–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyal, A. (1977) Remarques sur la théories des jeux à deux personnes. Gazette des sciences mathématiques du Québec 1(4).Google Scholar
Joyal, A., and Street, R. (1991) The geometry of tensor categories i. Advances in Mathematics 88:55-113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyal, A., and Street, R. (1993) Braided tensor categories. Advances in Mathematics 102:2078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyal, A., Street, R., and Verity, D. (1996) Traced monoidal categories. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 119:447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, G. (1972) Many-variable functorial calculus I, volume 281 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 66–105. Springer.Google Scholar
Kelly, G., and Laplaza, M. (1980) Coherence for compact closed categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 19:193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambek, J. (1968) Deductive systems and categories I. syntactic calculus and residuated categories. Mathematical Systems Theory 2(4):287–318.Google Scholar
Lambek, J. (1969) Deductive systems and categories (ii). In Hilton, R. J., editor, Category Theory, Homology Theory and their Applications I, volume 87 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 76–122. Springer.Google Scholar
Lambek, J., and Scott, P. J. (1986) Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, volume 7 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laurent, O., and Tortora de Falco, L. (2004) Slicing polarized additive normalisation. In Ehrhard, T., Girard, J.-Y., Ruet, P., and Scott, P., editors, Linear Logic in Computer Science, volume 316 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes, pages 247–282. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loader, R. (1994) Models of Lambda Calculi and Linear Logic: Structural, Equational and Proof-theoretic Characterisations. Ph.D. thesis, St Hugh's College, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1997) Categories for the Working Mathematician (second Edition). SpringerVerlag.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1965) Theory of Categories. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1971) Applications of negative dimensional tensors. In Combinatorial Mathematics and its Applications, pages 221–244. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prawitz, D. (1965) Natural Deduction. A Proof-Theoretic Study. Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Selinger, P. (2004) Towards a quantum programming language. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(4):527–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinger, P. (2005) Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages.Google Scholar
Smets, S. (2001) The Logic of Physical Properties in Static and Dynamic Perspective. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Soloviev, S. V (1987) On natural transformations of distinguished functors and their superpositions in certain closed categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabo, M. (1975) Polycategories. Communications in Algebra 3:663–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×