Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Deterministic Pauli measurement on a pure stabilizer state

Statement

Let S be a rank-n stabilizer subgroup on n≥0 qubits and let M be a Hermitian Pauli observable commuting with every element of S. There is a unique g∈S with the same binary label as M, and g=(−1)bM for a unique b∈{0,1}. On the stabilizer state of S, outcome b has probability one and the other outcome has probability zero. Moreover Pbψ=ψ, so the conditional state in the nonzero branch is the original ray.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A rank-n stabilizer subgroup S, its common +1 state, and a Hermitian Pauli M commuting with S.

[F1]

Stabilizer labels form an isotropic space of the same rank: L=λ(S) is isotropic, λ∣S is injective, and dim⁡L=n.

[F2]

Pauli commutator is symplectic pairing: commutation of M with S means its label lies in L⊥.

[F3]

A maximal stabilizer label space is self-dual: L⊥=L for this rank-n isotropic space.

[F4]

Binary Pauli quotient isomorphism: equal binary labels mean the Pauli operators differ by a scalar phase.

[F5]

Hermitian Pauli phase criterion: if both Paulis are Hermitian, their scalar ratio is +1 or −1.

[F6]

Stabilizer state: every element of S fixes the state.

[F7]

Pure state and ray: ψ is a normalized representative of the stabilizer ray.

[F8]

Ray-to-projector is well-defined and bijective: the projector of a unit representative of a pure-state ray is a positive trace-one density operator.

[F9]

Pauli measurement branch semantics: the probability of bit b is Tr⁡(∣ψ⟩⟨ψ∣Pb).

[F10]

Pure-state projective branch probability is a squared norm: this branch probability equals ∥Pbψ∥2 for normalized ψ.

[F11]

Pauli group on the empty register: on the empty register, the Hermitian Paulis are I and −I, both with the unique zero binary label.

Proof

Given: The data in the Statement.

1.1F8F9F10F11givenalgebra

If n=0, then S={I} by [F11] and the exclusion of −I. Write M=(−1)bI for its unique sign bit b. The empty row product is g=I=(−1)bM, so the matching group element and bit are unique. On H0=C, the given stabilizer ray has a unit representative ψ. The projector formula gives Pbψ=ψ and P1−bψ=0. By [F8]–[F10] the probabilities are 1 and 0, respectively; the nonzero branch is the original ray and the other branch has no normalized state by Zero-probability Pauli measurement branch.

1.2F1F2F3given

Assume now n≥1. Since M commutes with S, [F2] gives λ(M)∈L⊥. By [F3], this is L, so there is g∈S with λ(g)=λ(M). Injectivity in [F1] makes this g unique.

2.1F4F5F6step 1.2algebra

Both g and M are Hermitian and have the same binary label, so [F4] and [F5] give g=(−1)bM for exactly one bit b. Since gψ=ψ by [F6], Mψ=(−1)bψ.

3.1F6F7F8F9F10step 2.1algebra

For n≥1, the relation Mψ=(−1)bψ gives Pbψ=ψ and P1−bψ=0. By [F8], the unit ray has its rank-one density projector; [F9] and [F10] then give branch probabilities 1 and 0. The nonzero branch is the original ray, while the zero-probability branch has no normalized state by Zero-probability Pauli measurement branch.

4.1step 1.1step 1.2step 3.1∎

Step 1.1 proves the full claim for n=0, and step 1.2 and step 2.1 and step 3.1 prove it for n≥1. Thus the statement holds for every n≥0.

Sources

De Wolf §20.3, PDF p. 188, identifies the deterministic case from maximal commuting stabilizers and the measured Pauli's signed product. Aaronson– Gottesman §III, PDF pp. 4–5, describes phase recovery for deterministic tableau measurements.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

52 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources