Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: 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.

Projective operator closeness bounds output distributions

Statement

Let H be a nonzero finite-dimensional complex inner-product space (Real and complex inner product spaces, with the inner product linear in the first argument) with a fixed orthonormal computational basis B (Orthogonal vectors and subspaces, orthogonal and orthonormal sets, and orthonormal bases), and let U,V:H→H be unitary operators, meaning invertible linear isometries (Linear isometries, and orthogonal or unitary operators on finite-dimensional inner product spaces). For a unit vector ψ, write Uψ=∑b∈Bαb∣b⟩ and Vψ=∑b∈Bβb∣b⟩, and define their output laws by pUψ(b)=∣αb∣2 and pVψ(b)=∣βb∣2. Unitarity and orthonormality make these finite probability laws (Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities). For laws p,q on B, define total variation by dTV(p,q):=12∑b∈B∣p(b)−q(b)∣. Define projective operator distance by dpr(U,V):=inf⁡∣λ∣=1∥U−λV∥, where ∥⋅∥ is the operator norm. If dpr(U,V)≤ε for ε≥0, then

dTV(pUψ,pVψ)≤ε.

The same bound therefore holds for every computational-basis output law of the two operators. The proof verifies directly that multiplying a vector by a unit scalar leaves these coordinate probabilities unchanged.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nonzero finite-dimensional complex inner-product space, an orthonormal computational basis B, unitary operators U,V, a unit input ψ, and ε≥0.

[F1]

A finite probability space is a finite outcome set with nonnegative weights summing to 1 (Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities).

[F2]

For finite real lists ak,bk, ∣∑kakbk∣≤(∑kak2)1/2(∑kbk2)1/2 (The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for finite sums).

[F3]

If T has nonzero finite-dimensional domain, ∥T∥=max⁡∥v∥=1∥Tv∥ (The operator norm is zero on the zero domain and otherwise is max_{||v||=1} ||Tv||).

[F5]

Complex modulus is multiplicative and satisfies ∣z+w∣≤∣z∣+∣w∣ (Conjugation is an involutive real-field automorphism, zz‾=∣z∣2, and modulus is definite, multiplicative, and subadditive).

[F6]

In an orthonormal basis, the squared norm is the sum of squared coordinate moduli (Bessel's inequality for a finite orthonormal list and Parseval's identity for an orthonormal basis).

[F7]

The norm induced by an inner product satisfies ∥λv∥=∣λ∣ ∥v∥ (The induced length is a norm).

Proof

technique · direct

Given: The objects and hypotheses above.

1.1givenF1F2F4F5F6F7algebra

Fix any λ with ∣λ∣=1, and set α=Uψ and β=λVψ. By [F4], [F7] and ∣λ∣=1, both vectors have norm 1. Parseval [F6] makes their squared coordinate moduli nonnegative weights summing to 1, so [F1] gives the output probability laws. For each b∈B, [F5] applied to αb=(αb−βb)+βb and then to the reversed pair gives ∣∣αb∣−∣βb∣∣≤∣αb−βb∣. Factoring a difference of squares and applying [F2] gives dTV(pUψ,pλVψ)≤12∥α−β∥2(∑b(∣αb∣+∣βb∣)2)1/2. Expanding the last squared sum and applying [F2] to the two nonnegative coordinate lists bounds its square root by ∥α∥2+∥β∥2=2, so the total variation is at most ∥α−β∥2.

2.1givenF3F5step 1.1

If γb is the b-th coordinate of Vψ, then βb=λγb and ∣βb∣2=∣λ∣2∣γb∣2=∣γb∣2 by modulus multiplicativity in [F5]. Hence pλVψ=pVψ. Also ∥α−β∥2=∥(U−λV)ψ∥2≤∥U−λV∥ by [F3] and ∥ψ∥2=1. Combining with step 1.1 gives dTV(pUψ,pVψ)≤∥U−λV∥ for every unit scalar λ.

3.1givenstep 2.1algebra∎

Taking the infimum over all ∣λ∣=1 in step 2.1 gives dTV(pUψ,pVψ)≤dpr(U,V)≤ε. No minimizing phase is required.

Remarks

The proof uses no axiom of choice: the inequality holds for each phase separately, then for their infimum. Standalone phase invariance follows directly from modulus multiplicativity, so no quantum-specific global-phase theorem is required.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

48 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