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.

Controlled Gates, Phase, and Entanglement — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Objective

This companion computes a two-qubit witness in which the phase of a target unitary changes a control measurement probability. It assumes the two controlled operations are separately available and makes no access or efficiency inference.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

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

Controlled Global Phase Changes an X-Outcome

Example

Take the target qubit unitary U=I2, control input ∣+⟩=(∣0⟩+∣1⟩)/2, and target input ∣0⟩. Separately grant controlled access to C(I2) and C(eiθI2). For the finite control effects E±=∣±⟩⟨±∣⊗I2, where ∣±⟩=(∣0⟩±∣1⟩)/2, the plus outcome has probability 1 for C(I2) and cos⁡2(θ/2) for C(eiθI2).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A control-first two-qubit register, U=I2, real θ, the stated input, separate controlled access to the two specified matrices, and the two control effects in the Example.

[L1]

A Controlled Global Phase Becomes a Relative Control Phase proves the general eigenvector witness, verifies the finite two-outcome POVM, and computes its plus probability.

[L2]

Controlled Unitary Access defines the control-first block action and requires each capability to be explicitly granted. Its carrier is present in this batch.

[L3]

Dirac Notation Conversion defines the Dirac pairing by reversing the root linear-first pairing and defines the corresponding outer product.

[L4]

A unit-vector outer product is a density operator proves that every unit-vector outer product is a density operator.

[L5]

Finite POVMs and their outcome law defines the finite POVM outcome weight using the density operator and effect.

[L6]

Ordered tensor registers, their inner product, and wire permutations defines the control-first tensor order and product inner product. Its current draft proof was read.

[L7]

The computational basis is orthonormal proves the one-qubit computational basis is orthonormal. Its current draft proof was read.

[L8]

POVM outcome weights are probabilities proves the finite weights of this POVM form a probability distribution.

[F1]

Verification

1.1givenL1L2L4L6L7algebra

In the ordered basis ∣00⟩,∣01⟩,∣10⟩,∣11⟩, the first controlled block is C(I2)=(I200I2)=I4. It sends the input to ω0=∣+⟩⊗∣0⟩. Both factors are unit vectors by [L7], so their product is unit by [L6], and its rank-one projector is a density operator by [L4]. In [L1], specialize U=I2, ϕ=∣0⟩, and μ=1; its verified control POVM then gives plus probability 1.

1.2givenL1L2L3L4L5L6L7F1algebra

The separately granted second block is C(eiθI2)=(I200eiθI2)=diag⁡(1,1,eiθ,eiθ). It sends the input to ωθ=χθ⊗∣0⟩, where χθ=(∣0⟩+eiθ∣1⟩)/2. By [L3] and [L7], ⟨+∣χθ⟩D=⟨χθ,+⟩root=(1+eiθ)/2. The phase identity [F1] and orthonormality [L7] give ∥χθ∥2=(1+∣eiθ∣2)/2=1; then the product pairing [L6] gives ∥ωθ∥=1. Its projector is a density operator by [L4], so the outcome law [L5] applies and gives ∣(1+eiθ)/2∣2, which equals cos⁡2(θ/2) by the derivation in the proof of [L1].

2.1step 1.1step 1.2L1L2L5L8algebra∎

At θ=0, the second controlled matrix is I4 and its plus probability is 1. At θ=π, its diagonal is (1,1,−1,−1) and its plus probability is 0. The minus probability is the complement by normalization [L8], so these are distinct finite outcome laws under the explicit separate-access assumption.

Sources