Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

Classical and Quantum Error-Correcting Codes

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page develops classical linear codes over an explicitly named finite field and finite-register quantum code subspaces. Classical vectors are columns; a generator has shape n×k, a parity-check matrix has shape (n−k)×n, and the syndrome is Hr. The binary repetition code is used as a worked case, while general finite-field statements are proved locally.

Quantum codes are isometric encodings into a fixed ordered register tensor product. The inner product uses the root library's first-argument-linear convention. Operator support is defined relative to the declared register factorization; the exact QC02 tensor and wire-permutation suppliers remain required for the support-invariance proof. Distance here gives error detection only. Recovery-map criteria are deferred to the next page.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A full-column-rank matrix has image dimension equal to its number of columns

Statement

Let F be a field, let n,k∈N, and let G∈Mn×k(F). Regard G as the linear map TG:Fk→Fn, x↦Gx, using column vectors. If the columns of G are linearly independent, then im⁡TG is a k-dimensional linear subspace of Fn. This includes k=0 and n=0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field F, natural numbers n,k, a matrix G∈Mn×k(F) with linearly independent columns, and the associated column-vector map TG(x)=Gx.

[F2]

Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes: Matrix multiplication is defined entrywise by finite sums, including the empty-sum case.

[F3]

Linear map between vector spaces over the same field: A map between F-vector spaces is linear when it preserves all two-term linear combinations.

[F4]

Linear subspace of a vector space: A subset containing zero and closed under addition and scalar multiplication is a linear subspace.

[F5]

Rank-nullity: dim⁡FV=nullity⁡T+rank⁡T: If T:V→W is linear and V is finite-dimensional, then dim⁡FV=dim⁡Fker⁡T+dim⁡Fim⁡T.

Proof

1.1F2F3F4given

For x,y∈Fk and a,b∈F, the entry formula for matrix multiplication gives G(ax+by)=aGx+bGy, so TG is linear by [F2] and [F3]. It sends zero to zero and its image is closed under linear combinations, hence its image is a subspace by [F4]; these calculations also cover empty coordinate sets.

1.2givenalgebra

If x∈ker⁡TG, then ∑j<kxjgj=0, where gj is column j of G. Independence of the columns forces every xj=0, so ker⁡TG={0}. For k=0, F0={0} and the same conclusion holds.

2.1F1F5step 1.1step 1.2∎

By [F1], dim⁡FFk=k. Applying [F5] to [step 1.1] and [step 1.2] gives dim⁡Fim⁡TG=k. Since the image of x↦Gx is the span of the columns, it is the asserted subspace.

Remarks

  • No Choice axiom is used. The zero-column case is an empty matrix map from the zero space.
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Finite complex linear isometries preserve inner products

Statement

Let V:H→K be a linear isometry between finite-dimensional complex inner-product spaces whose pairings are linear in the first argument. Then ⟨Vx,Vy⟩K=⟨x,y⟩H for all x,y∈H.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Finite-dimensional complex inner-product spaces H,K with first-argument-linear pairings and a linear isometry V:H→K.

[F1]

Real and complex inner-product spaces and their induced length: The complex pairing is linear in its first argument and conjugate-linear in its second, with conjugate symmetry.

[F2]

Real and complex inner-product spaces and their induced length: The induced norm satisfies ∥x∥2=⟨x,x⟩.

[F3]

Real and imaginary parts, complex conjugation, and modulus: Every complex number has unique real and imaginary parts, and conjugation sends a+bi to a−bi.

[L1]

Linear isometries, and orthogonal or unitary operators on finite-dimensional inner product spaces: A linear isometry is linear and preserves the induced norm of every vector.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3givenalgebra

Put z=⟨x,y⟩. Expanding with [F1] and [F2] gives ∥x±y∥2=∥x∥2+∥y∥2±z±z‾, so ∥x+y∥2−∥x−y∥2=2(z+z‾)=4Re⁡z by [F3]. Also ⟨x,iy⟩=−iz, ⟨iy,x⟩=iz‾, and ∥iy∥2=∥y∥2; hence ∥x±iy∥2=∥x∥2+∥y∥2±i(z‾−z) and ∥x+iy∥2−∥x−iy∥2=2i(z‾−z)=4Im⁡z by [F3].

2.1F1F2F3L1givenstep 1.1algebra∎

Linearity and norm preservation [L1] give V(x±y)=Vx±Vy and V(x±iy)=Vx±iVy and equate the four squared norms for (Vx,Vy) with those for (x,y). Applying step 1.1 in each space shows that ⟨Vx,Vy⟩ and ⟨x,y⟩ have the same real and imaginary parts; their equality follows from [F3].

Remarks

The proof is a direct finite algebra expansion under the root convention and uses no choice principle.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Classical linear code over a finite field

Definition

Let F be a finite field of order q, let n≥1, and let C≤Fn be a linear subspace (Finite fields and their order, Vector space over a field, Linear subspace of a vector space). Put k:=dim⁡FC; since Fn has dimension n, 0≤k≤n (The standard list e:n→Fn with ei(i)=1F and ei(j)=0F for j≠i is an ordered basis of Fn; hence dim⁡FFn=n, and F0 is the zero space with basis ∅ and dimension 0, If dim⁡FV=n and U is a linear subspace of V, then U is finite-dimensional, dim⁡FU≤n, and dim⁡FU=n if and only if U=V). A classical linear code over F with a specified encoding is the data (F,n,C,Enc⁡), where Enc⁡:Fk→C is a linear isomorphism. Such an isomorphism exists because dim⁡FFk=k and finite-dimensional vector spaces of equal dimension are isomorphic (Two finite-dimensional vector spaces over F are linearly isomorphic if and only if they have the same dimension). The field is part of the data: notation Fq does not identify the field with Z/qZ; that quotient is a field only when q is prime.

If C={0}, then k=0, F0={0}, and the encoding is the unique map between these zero spaces. If an encoding is represented by a full-column-rank matrix G∈Mn×k(F), its image has dimension k by A full-column-rank matrix has image dimension equal to its number of columns.

Remarks

The code is the linear subspace together with a declared message encoding. No field existence or uniqueness theorem is repeated here.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Hamming weight and distance of a finite-field linear code

Definition

For x=(x0,…,xn−1)∈Fn, its Hamming weight is wt⁡(x):=∣{j<n:xj≠0}∣. For x,y∈Fn, their Hamming distance is dH(x,y):=wt⁡(x−y). For a nonzero code C≤Fn, define its minimum distance by d(C):=min⁡0≠c∈Cwt⁡(c). This minimum exists because its nonempty set of values lies in {1,…,n} and the natural numbers are well ordered (The well-ordering principle). For the zero code C={0}, set d(C):=n+1 by convention; this sentinel exceeds every possible Hamming weight and makes the usual radius statements vacuously valid for distinct codewords.

The code parameters are written [n,k,d]q, where q=∣F∣ and d=d(C). This notation records a finite-field alphabet and does not imply that F=Z/qZ.

Remarks

The identity dH(x,y)=wt⁡(x−y) is used over every characteristic; only in characteristic two does subtraction equal addition.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Bilinear dual of a finite-field linear code

Definition

For x,y∈Fn, define the standard bilinear dot product x⋅y:=∑j<nxjyj. For any linear subspace C≤Fn (Linear subspace of a vector space)—in particular, the codeword subspace of a classical linear code as in Classical linear code over a finite field—its dual code is

C⊥:={y∈Fn:x⋅y=0 for every x∈C}.

This is a bilinear pairing over F; it is not a positive-definite or Hermitian inner product. The proof that C⊥ is a linear subspace, has dimension n−k, and satisfies (C⊥)⊥=C is Dimension and double-dual identity for finite-field code duals.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Quantum code as an isometric encoding and its code projector

Definition

Let HL be a finite-dimensional complex inner-product space and let HP=⨂j<nHj be a fixed ordered finite register tensor product with n≥1, supplied by the QC register interface. A quantum code is an isometric encoding V:HL→HP. Its code subspace is C:=im⁡V, its logical dimension is K:=dim⁡HL, and its physical block length is the number n of tensor factors. When each physical factor is a qubit, HP≅(C2)⊗n; a logical k-qubit register has K=2k. Require K≥1.

Using the root library's adjoint convention, the code projector is P:=VV∗∈End⁡(HP). The theorem An isometric quantum encoding gives an orthogonal code projector ↗ proves V∗V=IHL, P∗=P=P2, and im⁡P=C, including one-dimensional logical spaces and the full-space code.

Remarks

The QC02 suppliers set Qd=Cd for d≥1, order qubit strings lexicographically with the first wire most significant, and distinguish the empty register C from C0 (Finite registers and their ordered computational bases). Ordered tensor registers use the factorwise product pairing, linear in the first argument, and declared wire permutations have inverse permutations (Ordered tensor registers, their inner product, and wire permutations). These are the conventions used here.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Hamming distance is a metric and linear-code distance is minimum nonzero weight

Statement

For every finite field F and n∈N, dH(x,y)=wt⁡(x−y) is a metric on Fn. If n≥1 and C≤Fn is the codeword subspace of a classical linear code, then for nonzero C, min⁡x≠y∈CdH(x,y)=min⁡0≠c∈Cwt⁡(c)=d(C). For C={0} there are no distinct codewords, and the distance parameter is the stated convention n+1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite field F and n∈N for the metric claim. For the code-distance claim, assume n≥1, let C≤Fn be a classical linear code, and use the weight and distance functions of Hamming weight and distance of a finite-field linear code.

[L1]

Classical linear code over a finite field: A code C is a linear subspace of Fn, so it contains 0 and is closed under subtraction.

[L2]

Hamming weight and distance of a finite-field linear code: wt⁡(x) counts nonzero coordinates, dH(x,y)=wt⁡(x−y), and d(C) is the minimum nonzero weight or n+1 for the zero code.

Proof

1.1L2algebra

Weight is nonnegative and vanishes exactly on the zero vector. Also wt⁡(−z)=wt⁡(z) because zj=0 exactly when −zj=0. Hence dH(x,y)≥0, dH(x,y)=0 exactly when x=y, and dH(x,y)=dH(y,x).

1.2L2algebra

If (x−z)j≠0, then at least one of (x−y)j or (y−z)j is nonzero, since their sum is (x−z)j. Therefore the support of x−z is contained in the union of the supports of x−y and y−z, so dH(x,z)≤dH(x,y)+dH(y,z).

2.1L1L2∎

If C≠{0} and x,y∈C are distinct, then [L1] gives x−y∈C∖{0}, so dH(x,y)≥d(C). Conversely every c∈C∖{0} occurs as the difference of the pair (c,0), and dH(c,0)=wt⁡(c). Thus the two nonempty sets of distances have the same minimum. When C={0} no distinct pair exists, and [L2] supplies the separate convention.

Remarks

This proof is independent of the field characteristic and uses no choice principle.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Dimension and double-dual identity for finite-field code duals

Statement

Let F be a finite field, n∈N, and let D≤Fn be a linear subspace (Linear subspace of a vector space) of dimension r. Then D⊥ is a linear subspace of dimension n−r, and (D⊥)⊥=D. In particular this holds for every classical linear code, including D={0} and D=Fn (Classical linear code over a finite field).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite field F, n∈N, a subspace D≤Fn of dimension r, and the bilinear dot product of Bilinear dual of a finite-field linear code.

[L1]

Bilinear dual of a finite-field linear code: D⊥ consists of vectors whose dot product with every vector of D is zero.

[F1]

Row space, column space, nullspace, row rank, column rank and matrix rank: The row space is the span of matrix rows, the column space is the span of columns, and the nullspace is {x:Ax=0}; row and column ranks are their dimensions.

[F2]

Row rank equals column rank, and both equal the number of pivots: For every finite matrix over a field, its row rank equals its column rank.

[F3]

Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes: Matrix products are the finite coordinate sums, including empty shapes.

[F4]

Linear map between vector spaces over the same field: A map between vector spaces over F is linear when it preserves linear combinations.

[F5]

Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension dim⁡FV; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis: A finite-dimensional vector space has a finite basis, and its dimension is the cardinality of such a basis.

[F7]

Rank-nullity: dim⁡FV=nullity⁡T+rank⁡T: For a linear map with finite-dimensional domain, domain dimension is kernel dimension plus image dimension.

[F8]

If dim⁡FV=n and U is a linear subspace of V, then U is finite-dimensional, dim⁡FU≤n, and dim⁡FU=n if and only if U=V: A subspace of a finite-dimensional space has the same dimension as its ambient space exactly when it equals that space.

[F9]

Linear subspace of a vector space: A linear subspace contains zero and is closed under addition and scalar multiplication.

Proof

1.1L1F1F2F3F4F5F9

Since dim⁡FD=r, [F5] supplies a basis d0,…,dr−1. Form the r×n matrix A whose ith row is diT. Its row space has dimension r by [F1]. The map TA:Fn→Fr, y↦Ay, is linear by [F3] and [F4]; the product formula writes Ay as the linear combination of the columns of A with coefficients yj, so its image is the column space. Hence [F2] gives dim⁡im⁡TA=r. This also works for r=0, with an empty row list.

2.1L1F3F4F6F7F9step 1.1

A vector y belongs to ker⁡TA exactly when di⋅y=0 for every basis vector di, which by bilinearity is equivalent to d⋅y=0 for every d∈D. Thus ker⁡TA=D⊥. Since TA is linear, this kernel contains zero and is closed under linear combinations, so it is a subspace. By [F6] and [F7], dim⁡D⊥=n−r.

3.1L1F5F6F7F8step 1.1step 2.1∎

Applying step 1.1 and step 2.1 with D⊥ in place of D gives dim⁡(D⊥)⊥=n−(n−r)=r. Symmetry of the dot product gives D⊆(D⊥)⊥. Apply [F8] to this inclusion inside the r-dimensional space (D⊥)⊥; equal dimensions force equality. This also covers r=0 and r=n.

Remarks

The coordinate pairing is nondegenerate over every field because the standard coordinate rows form a basis. No complex conjugation is used, and no choice principle is needed in finite dimension.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

An isometric quantum encoding gives an orthogonal code projector

Statement

Let HL,HP be finite-dimensional complex inner-product spaces and let V:HL→HP be a linear isometry. Then V∗V=IHL. Consequently P:=VV∗ is self-adjoint and idempotent and is the orthogonal projection onto im⁡V. If K=dim⁡HL and N=dim⁡HP, then 0≤K≤N; when K=1 the code is a line, and when K=N the code subspace is all of HP and P=IHP.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Finite-dimensional complex inner-product spaces HL,HP, with pairing linear in the first argument, and a norm-preserving linear map V:HL→HP.

[F1]

Real and complex inner-product spaces and their induced length: The complex inner product is linear in its first argument and conjugate-linear in its second.

[F2]

Finite complex linear isometries preserve inner products: A linear isometry between finite-dimensional complex inner-product spaces preserves the first-linear inner product.

[F3]

The adjoint T∗:W→V is characterised by ⟨Tv,w⟩W=⟨v,T∗w⟩V: The adjoint satisfies ⟨Vx,z⟩P=⟨x,V∗z⟩L.

[F4]

Every linear map between finite-dimensional inner product spaces has a unique adjoint: Such an adjoint exists uniquely for finite-dimensional inner-product spaces.

[F6]
[F7]

An endomorphism is an orthogonal projection exactly when it is idempotent and self-adjoint: A finite-dimensional endomorphism is an orthogonal projection exactly when it is self-adjoint and idempotent; its range is the projected subspace.

[F8]

Rank-nullity: dim⁡FV=nullity⁡T+rank⁡T: For a finite-dimensional domain, dim⁡V=dim⁡ker⁡T+dim⁡im⁡T.

[F9]

If dim⁡FV=n and U is a linear subspace of V, then U is finite-dimensional, dim⁡FU≤n, and dim⁡FU=n if and only if U=V: A subspace of a finite-dimensional space has dimension at most the ambient dimension and equals the ambient space when dimensions agree.

Proof

1.1F1F2given

Norm preservation and [F2] give ⟨Vx,Vy⟩P=⟨x,y⟩L for all x,y, since each of the four norms in the polarization formula is preserved.

2.1F1F3F4F5step 1.1

The adjoint exists by [F4]. By [F3] and step 1.1, ⟨x,(V∗V−I)y⟩L=0 for every x. Conjugate symmetry from [F1] and nondegeneracy [F5] imply (V∗V−I)y=0 for every y. Thus V∗V=I.

3.1F6step 2.1given

With P=VV∗, [F6] gives P∗=VV∗=P, and step 2.1 gives P2=V(V∗V)V∗=VV∗=P.

4.1F7step 2.1step 3.1given

For every z∈HP, Pz=V(V∗z) belongs to im⁡V. Conversely, P(Vx)=V(V∗V)x=Vx, so every vector in im⁡V lies in im⁡P. Therefore im⁡P=im⁡V, and [F7] identifies P as the orthogonal projection onto the code subspace.

5.1F1F8F9step 4.1given∎

If Vx=0, norm preservation gives ∥x∥=0, hence x=0 by positive definiteness [F1]; so V is injective. [F8] yields dim⁡im⁡V=K, and [F9] gives K≤N. Also 0≤K because dimensions are natural numbers. If K=1, the image is a line. If K=N, [F9] gives im⁡V=HP, so step 4.1 gives P=I.

Remarks

The root inner product is linear in the first argument; no bra-ket convention is imported. The norm-preservation implication is proved locally in Finite complex linear isometries preserve inner products, so this argument uses no choice principle.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Hamming balls below half the code distance are disjoint

Statement

Let C≤Fn have distance parameter d=d(C) and put t=⌊(d−1)/2⌋. For distinct codewords c,c′∈C, the closed Hamming balls Bt(c):={r:dH(r,c)≤t} and Bt(c′) are disjoint.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-field linear code C≤Fn, its distance parameter d(C), and t=⌊(d(C)−1)/2⌋.

[L1]

Hamming weight and distance of a finite-field linear code: d(C) is the minimum distance between distinct codewords for nonzero C and is n+1 for C={0}.

[L2]

Hamming distance is a metric and linear-code distance is minimum nonzero weight: Hamming distance is a metric and its minimum over distinct codeword pairs is d(C) when such pairs exist.

Proof

1.1L1givenalgebra

The defining floor gives 2t≤d−1<d.

2.1L1L2step 1.1∎

If r belonged to both balls, [L2] and the triangle inequality would give dH(c,c′)≤dH(c,r)+dH(r,c′)≤2t<d, contradicting the minimum-distance property [L2]. Thus the balls are disjoint. If C={0} there are no distinct codewords, so the conclusion is vacuous.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Generator and parity-check matrices over a finite field

Definition

Let C≤Fn have dimension k. A generator matrix for C is a matrix G∈Mn×k(F) with linearly independent columns and column space C. A parity-check matrix for C is a matrix H∈M(n−k)×n(F) with linearly independent rows and nullspace C. With column-vector conventions, G:Fk→Fn and H:Fn→Fn−k; the product HG is defined and is the zero matrix. Existence for every code, the identity HG=0, and the boundary shapes are proved in Every finite-field linear code has generator and parity-check matrices.

The row vectors of H, identified with their coordinate columns by transpose and the bilinear dot product, span C⊥. No Hermitian conjugation is used. The matrices have shapes n×k and (n−k)×n, including n×0 and 0×n matrices.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Support and weight of an operator on a finite register

Definition

Fix an ordered physical register HP=⨂j<nHj with finite-dimensional factors. For S⊆[n]:={0,…,n−1}, form HS and HSc in the inherited order, and let ΠS:HP→HS⊗HSc be the declared bijective wire permutation. An operator E∈End⁡(HP) is supported in S if there is ES∈End⁡(HS) with

ΠSEΠS−1=ES⊗ISc.

Its weight is wt⁡(E):=min⁡{∣S∣:E is supported in S}. The minimum exists because the full set [n] supports every operator and [n] has finitely many subsets. Let H∅=C; scalar identity operators have weight zero. The weight is invariant under reordering the tensor factors by their declared wire permutation (Operator support weight is invariant under wire permutation ↗).

Here ES⊗ISc is the tensor map of Tensor products of finitely many linear maps. The product factors may have arbitrary finite dimensions; qubits are the special case dim⁡Hj=2 for every j.

Remarks

The register tensor pairing and exact permutation convention are supplied by Ordered tensor registers, their inner product, and wire permutations and Finite wire permutations are unitary basis permutations. Their current bodies were inspected; Operator support weight is invariant under wire permutation ↗ proves the resulting weight invariance.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Every finite-field linear code has generator and parity-check matrices

Statement

Let C≤Fn have dimension k. There are matrices G∈Mn×k(F) and H∈M(n−k)×n(F) such that the columns of G form a basis of C, the rows of H form a basis of C⊥ after transpose identification, ker⁡H=C, and HG=0. This includes k=0 and k=n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite field F, n∈N, a code C≤Fn of dimension k, and the matrix conventions of Generator and parity-check matrices over a finite field.

[L1]

Classical linear code over a finite field: C is a finite-dimensional linear subspace of Fn with k=dim⁡FC.

[L2]

Bilinear dual of a finite-field linear code: C⊥ is defined using the bilinear dot product x⋅y=∑jxjyj.

[L3]

Dimension and double-dual identity for finite-field code duals: C⊥ is a subspace of dimension n−k and (C⊥)⊥=C.

[F1]

Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension dim⁡FV; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis: A finite-dimensional vector space has a finite basis whose size is its dimension.

[F2]

The vector space Mm×n(F):=F m×n of m by n matrices over a field, with entrywise operations: An m×n matrix is a function on the row-column index set, with rows and columns given by its coordinates.

[F3]

Rectangular matrix multiplication and the identity matrix In, including zero-sized shapes: Matrix multiplication uses the finite coordinate sum; zero-sized shapes use the empty sum.

[F4]

Row space, column space, nullspace, row rank, column rank and matrix rank: The row space is the span of the rows and the nullspace is {x:Hx=0}.

Proof

1.1L1F1F2choose

By [F1], choose a basis c0,…,ck−1 of C; making these vectors the columns of G gives shape n×k, independent columns, and column span exactly C. If k=0, the basis and column list are empty and G is the unique n×0 matrix.

1.2F1L3F2choose

By [L3], C⊥ has dimension n−k; [F1] supplies a basis d0,…,dn−k−1. Place their transposes as the rows of H. These rows are independent and span the row space corresponding to C⊥. If k=n, this is the empty row list and H has shape 0×n.

2.1L2L3F3step 1.1step 1.2

Every row of H is orthogonal to every column of G, by [L2] and [L3]. Hence every entry of HG is zero by [F3], so HG=0 with shape (n−k)×k, including when a dimension is zero.

3.1F4L3step 1.2step 2.1∎

By [F4], Hx=0 exactly when every row of H has zero dot product with x. The transposed rows span C⊥ by step 1.2, so ker⁡H=(C⊥)⊥=C by [L3]. Thus H is a parity-check matrix and G is a generator matrix.

Remarks

The choices in steps 1.1 and 1.2 are choices of one finite basis at a time; the finite-dimensional basis theorem used here is choice-free. For k=0, H can be chosen as the identity matrix of size n; for k=n, G can be chosen as the identity and H is the unique 0×n matrix.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Operator support weight is invariant under wire permutation

Statement

Let the source register have ordered factors H0,…,Hn−1, and let the target register have factors in the QC02 order Hσ(0),…,Hσ(n−1). Let Πσ be the corresponding wire bijection and set E′:=ΠσEΠσ−1. An original factor labeled i is in target position σ−1(i). Thus E is supported in S exactly when E′ is supported in σ−1(S); consequently wt⁡(E′)=wt⁡(E).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The source and target ordered tensor registers in the Statement, a permutation σ, its wire bijection Πσ, and E∈End⁡(HP).

[L1]

Support and weight of an operator on a finite register: Support means conjugating by ΠS and its inverse gives a local operator tensored with identity on the complementary factors; weight is the minimum support size.

[F1]

Ordered tensor registers, their inner product, and wire permutations: A wire permutation sends a product-basis tensor to the tensor with the same factor labels in the declared output order and is extended linearly.

[F2]

Finite wire permutations are unitary basis permutations: Every finite wire permutation is a bijective linear isometry, with inverse the wire permutation for the inverse ordering.

[F3]

Tensor products of finitely many linear maps: A tensor map is the unique linear extension of its factorwise action on elementary tensors.

[F4]

The product basis is orthonormal and tensor dimensions multiply: Elementary product tensors form a basis and span each finite ordered tensor register.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3F4given

Put Sσ:=σ−1(S), the target positions occupied by source factors from S. Let αS reorder those source factors into their target order, and let αSc reorder the complementary factors likewise; these are wire bijections by [F2]. On each elementary tensor, both ΠSσtargetΠσ and (αS⊗αSc)ΠSsource place each factor vector in the same target order. Elementary tensors span by [F4], and the maps agree on them by [F1], so ΠSσtargetΠσ=(αS⊗αSc)ΠSsource.

2.1L1F2F3step 1.1

If E is supported in S, [L1] gives AS with ΠSsourceE(ΠSsource)−1=AS⊗I. Conjugating by step 1.1 gives ΠSσtargetE′(ΠSσtarget)−1=(αS⊗αSc)(AS⊗I)(αS⊗αSc)−1. On y⊗z the right side is αSASαS−1y⊗z, hence equals (αSASαS−1)⊗I by [F3]; thus E′ is supported in Sσ.

3.1F2L1step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

Apply the same implication to E′ and the inverse wire permutation. It gives the converse: if E′ is supported in Sσ, then E is supported in S. Thus S↦σ−1(S) bijects the support sets of E and E′, preserving cardinality; their minimum support sizes agree.

Remarks

The QC02 bodies were inspected. This proof uses their declared factor-order action and bijective inverse; it does not identify differently ordered registers without a map.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Detectable operators and distance of a finite-register quantum code

Definition

Let V:HL→HP be an isometric encoding into a fixed ordered n-factor register with n≥1, K:=dim⁡HL≥1, and code projector P=VV∗. An operator E∈End⁡(HP) is detectable by the code if there is a scalar λE∈C such that

PEP=λEP.

When K≥2, define the quantum distance by

d:=min⁡{wt⁡(E):E∈End⁡(HP), PEP∉CP},

where CP:={λP:λ∈C}.

When K=1, set d:=n+1 by convention; the non-detectable set is empty in that case, as proved in Detectable operators form a subspace and quantum distance is well defined ↗. The same theorem proves that the minimum for K≥2 exists, the condition is linear in E, and changing V to VU for a logical unitary U leaves d unchanged.

This definition distinguishes detection from recovery: no recovery map or correction criterion is asserted here. In particular the distance theorem on this page only proves detection below d; correction maps are deferred to QC19.

Remarks

The convention n+1 for a one-dimensional logical space is a sentinel larger than every possible operator weight. It avoids treating a minimum of an empty set as an ordinary integer minimum.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Detectable operators form a subspace and quantum distance is well defined

Statement

Let P be the code projector of an isometric encoding into an n-factor register and let K be the logical dimension. Then:

  1. The set D(P):={E:PEP∈CP} of detectable operators is a complex linear subspace of End⁡(HP).
  2. Replacing the encoding V by VU for any unitary U on HL leaves P, detectability, and distance unchanged.
  3. If K=1, every operator is detectable, so the distance convention n+1 is appropriate. If K≥2, a non-detectable operator of weight at most n exists, while every weight-zero operator is detectable; hence the minimum defining distance exists and lies in {1,…,n}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An isometric encoding V:HL→HP, its code projector P=VV∗, logical dimension K≥1, and an ordered n-factor register with n≥1.

[L1]

Quantum code as an isometric encoding and its code projector: P=VV∗ and im⁡P is the code subspace.

[L2]

Detectable operators and distance of a finite-register quantum code: E is detectable exactly when PEP=λP for some scalar, and distance is the minimum weight of a non-detectable operator when K≥2.

[L3]

Support and weight of an operator on a finite register: Every operator is supported on the full factor set; scalar identity operators have weight zero.

[L4]

An isometric quantum encoding gives an orthogonal code projector: The code projector is self-adjoint and acts as the identity on its range.

[F1]

Every finite-dimensional real or complex inner product space has an orthonormal basis: Every finite-dimensional inner-product subspace has an orthonormal basis.

[F2]

Orthogonal projection is linear, and an orthonormal basis (ei) of W gives PWv=∑i⟨v,ei⟩ei: Projection onto a unit vector u acts by x↦⟨x,u⟩u under the first-variable-linear convention.

[F5]

Rank-nullity: dim⁡FV=nullity⁡T+rank⁡T: For a linear map with finite-dimensional domain, dim⁡V=dim⁡ker⁡T+dim⁡im⁡T.

Proof

1.1L2algebra

If E,F∈D(P) with PEP=λP and PFP=μP, then for a,b∈C, P(aE+bF)P=(aλ+bμ)P. Thus aE+bF∈D(P), proving linearity.

1.2F3L1L2givenalgebra

For a unitary U on HL, [F3] gives (VU)∗=U∗V∗, so (VU)(VU)∗=VUU∗V∗=VV∗=P. The same projector gives the same detectable set, operator weights, and distance.

1.3F1F2L1given

If K=1, choose a unit vector v spanning im⁡P. By [F2], Px=⟨x,v⟩v, and therefore PEPx=⟨x,v⟩⟨Ev,v⟩v=⟨Ev,v⟩Px for every x and every E. So every operator is detectable.

2.1F1F2F4F5L1L2L3L4givenalgebra∎

Suppose K≥2. If Vx=0, norm preservation gives ∥x∥=0, so positive definiteness gives x=0; hence ker⁡V={0}. Rank-nullity [F5] gives dim⁡im⁡V=dim⁡HL=K. By [L1], im⁡P=im⁡V, so the code subspace is finite-dimensional of dimension at least two. Choose orthonormal u,v in it using [F1], and let E be projection onto Cu. Since Pu=u and P=P∗ by [L4], [F2] gives PE=E; [F4] gives ⟨Px,u⟩=⟨x,P∗u⟩=⟨x,u⟩, so EP=E and PEP=E. It cannot equal λP, since applying both sides to u forces λ=1 while applying them to v forces λ=0. By [L3], E has weight at most n. If an operator has weight zero, the support definition uses S=∅, so it is A∅⊗I=λI and satisfies PEP=λP. Thus the non-detectable weights form a nonempty subset of {1,…,n} and have a minimum.

Remarks

No Pauli-only reduction is used: the definition and proof range over all endomorphisms. The current QC02 register and wire-permutation definitions fix the factor order used by the code and support definitions.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field

Definition

Let C≤Fn have parity-check matrix H∈M(n−k)×n(F). The syndrome map is s:Fn→Fn−k, s(r):=Hr, defined on every received word r. If r=c+e with transmitted codeword c∈C and error vector e∈Fn, its syndrome is the vector s(r). The identity s(r)=He is proved in A received-word syndrome depends only on the error vector. A syndrome is not itself a decoded error; a decoding rule is additional data.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedOpen item page →

A received-word syndrome depends only on the error vector

Statement

For a codeword c∈C, an error e∈Fn, and received word r=c+e, the syndrome satisfies s(r)=He.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A codeword c∈C, error vector e∈Fn, received word r=c+e, and a parity-check matrix H for C.

[L1]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: The syndrome map is s(r)=Hr for each received word r.

[L2]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: Its hypothesis makes H a parity-check matrix of C; the matrix convention in that definition's prerequisites is ker⁡H=C, hence Hc=0 for every codeword.

Proof

1.1L1givenalgebra

By [L1] and the linearity of matrix multiplication, s(r)=H(c+e)=Hc+He.

2.1L2step 1.1∎

Since c∈C=ker⁡H by [L2], Hc=0, so step 1.1 gives s(r)=He. The value depends on e and not on which codeword was transmitted.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Equal classical syndromes imply a codeword difference

Statement

Let e,f∈Fn and let H be a parity-check matrix of C. If He=Hf, then e−f∈C. If also wt⁡(e),wt⁡(f)≤t and 2t<d(C), then e=f.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A code C≤Fn with distance parameter d(C), a parity-check matrix H, errors e,f∈Fn, and a nonnegative integer t with 2t<d(C).

[L1]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: The syndrome of a vector u is Hu.

[L2]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: Its hypothesis makes H a parity-check matrix of C; the matrix convention in that definition's prerequisites is ker⁡H=C.

[L3]

Hamming weight and distance of a finite-field linear code: The weight counts nonzero coordinates, and every nonzero codeword has weight at least d(C); the zero code has d(C)=n+1.

Proof

1.1L1L2givenalgebra

If He=Hf, linearity gives H(e−f)=0. By [L1] and [L2], e−f∈ker⁡H=C. This uses subtraction in Fn; in characteristic two it equals addition.

2.1L3step 1.1givenalgebra∎

The support of e−f is contained in the union of the supports of e and f, so wt⁡(e−f)≤wt⁡(e)+wt⁡(f)≤2t<d(C). If e−f≠0, [L3] contradicts that it is a codeword; for the zero code, its only codeword is already zero. Thus e−f=0 and e=f.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Every operator below the quantum code distance is detectable

Statement

For a finite-register quantum code of distance d, every operator E with wt⁡(E)<d is detectable: PEP=λEP for some λE∈C. No correction-map conclusion is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A quantum code with projector P, distance d, and an operator E on its physical register satisfying wt⁡(E)<d.

[L1]

Detectable operators and distance of a finite-register quantum code: For logical dimension at least two, d is the minimum weight of a non-detectable operator; for logical dimension one, d=n+1.

[L2]

Detectable operators form a subspace and quantum distance is well defined: In logical dimension one every operator is detectable; otherwise the defining minimum exists.

Proof

1.1L2given

If the logical dimension is one, [L2] directly gives detectability.

2.1L1given∎

If the logical dimension is at least two and E were non-detectable, [L1] would imply wt⁡(E)≥d, contradicting the hypothesis. Therefore E is detectable. This proves only the compression identity PEP=λEP, not existence of a recovery map.

Remarks

Correction of a family of errors requires additional product conditions and is deferred to the QC19 Knill–Laflamme and recovery page.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Classical distance gives error detection, unique decoding, and erasure recovery

Statement

Let C≤Fn have distance parameter d=d(C) and let t=⌊(d−1)/2⌋. Then:

  1. Every nonzero error e of weight less than d is detected by a parity-check matrix: He≠0.
  2. If r=c+e for c∈C and wt⁡(e)≤t, then c is the unique codeword c′∈C with wt⁡(r−c′)≤t; moreover distinct errors of weight at most t have distinct syndromes.
  3. If the erased coordinate set S⊆{0,…,n−1} is known and ∣S∣<d, at most one codeword agrees with the received word outside S.

These are detection, unique-decoding, and erasure-uniqueness guarantees. They do not assert an efficient decoder or a complexity bound.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-field linear code C≤Fn with distance d(C), its parity-check matrix H, and t=⌊(d(C)−1)/2⌋.

[L1]

Hamming weight and distance of a finite-field linear code: Every nonzero codeword has weight at least d(C); for the zero code d(C)=n+1.

[L2]

Hamming balls below half the code distance are disjoint: Hamming balls of radius t around distinct codewords are disjoint.

[L3]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: The syndrome map on a received word is s(r)=Hr.

[L4]

A received-word syndrome depends only on the error vector: If r=c+e with c∈C, then s(r)=He.

[L5]

Equal classical syndromes imply a codeword difference: Equal syndromes force errors to differ by a codeword; errors of weight at most t with 2t<d(C) are equal.

[L6]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: Its hypothesis makes H a parity-check matrix of C; the matrix convention in that definition's prerequisites is ker⁡H=C.

Proof

1.1L1L6givenalgebra

The floor formula gives 2t<d. If He=0, [L6] gives e∈C; if e≠0 and wt⁡(e)<d, [L1] is contradicted. Hence every such nonzero error is detected.

1.2L2given

The transmitted codeword c lies in the radius-t ball around r. Any other codeword c′ in that ball would put r in two distinct radius-t balls, contradicting [L2]; therefore c is the unique such word.

1.3L3L4L5given

If two errors e,f of weight at most t have the same syndrome, [L5] gives e=f. For a received word r=c+e, [L3] and [L4] identify the measured syndrome as He, so it uniquely identifies the error within that weight range.

2.1L1givenalgebra∎

If c,c′∈C both agree with the received word outside the known set S, then c−c′ is supported in S, so wt⁡(c−c′)≤∣S∣<d. If c≠c′, this is a nonzero codeword contradicting [L1]. Thus at most one codeword is compatible. For C={0}, the only candidate is already unique and d=n+1.

Remarks

The theorem is an information-theoretic uniqueness statement, not an algorithm or complexity claim. A decoder's representation of field elements, search procedure, termination proof, and cost would be separate algorithmic content.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Binary three-bit repetition code and its syndrome table

Example

Work over F=F2=Z/2Z. Let C={000,111}≤F3, with column-vector generator and parity-check matrices

G=[111],H=[110011].

The code has parameters [3,1,3]2. The four error vectors of weight at most one have distinct syndromes He, giving a unique correction table.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The field F=Z/2Z, code C={000,111}, and matrices G,H displayed above.

[F1]

For every prime p, the two operations on Z/p make it a field: For every prime p, Z/p with its usual residue-class operations is a field.

[L1]

Generator and parity-check matrices over a finite field: A generator matrix has independent columns spanning C; a parity-check matrix has independent rows and nullspace C; and with column-vector conventions their product is zero.

[L2]

Syndrome of a received word over a finite field: The syndrome of a received column r is Hr.

[L3]

Classical distance gives error detection, unique decoding, and erasure recovery: A code of distance d uniquely decodes up to ⌊(d−1)/2⌋ unknown errors.

Verification

1.1F1L1givenalgebra

The prime 2 makes F a field by [F1]. The single nonzero column of G is independent and spans {000,111}. Multiplication gives HG=[00]. Solving Hx=0 gives x0=x1=x2, so ker⁡H=C. If a,b∈F2 and a(1,1,0)+b(0,1,1)=0, coordinate 0 gives a=0 and coordinate 2 gives b=0; hence the rows of H are independent. Thus G and H meet the generator and parity-check definitions [L1].

1.2givenL1algebra

The only nonzero codeword is 111, whose weight is 3; hence k=1 and d=3.

1.3L2givenalgebra

Direct multiplication over F2 gives H(000)=00, H(100)=10, H(010)=11, and H(001)=01. These are all four errors of weight at most one, and their syndromes are distinct.

2.1step 1.3L2L3given∎

For a received word r=c+e with c∈C and wt⁡(e)≤1, step 1.3 identifies e from Hr=He; subtracting it yields r−e=c. This realizes the one-error uniqueness guarantee of [L3].

Remarks

The matrix orientation is column-vector orientation: received words are columns and the syndrome is Hr∈F22. The source notes use row-vector conventions in some passages; the displayed calculations are recomputed in the root library convention.

Sources