2

In this answer it is explained how adding any non-Clifford gate $G$ to the Clifford gate set gives a universal gate set. However, that defines the gate set as the group generated by $G$ and the Cliffords, and hence also contains the inverse of $G$. Does the result continue to hold if we don't add $G^{-1}$ to our gate set?

For the Solovay-Kitaev theorem we now also know that inverses are not necessary, so that would be quite nice.

EDIT: clarification based on comments below. In the answer, they are looking at the group generated by Cliffords and $G$. This means — by definition of generating set — that Cliffords are augmented with both $G$ and $G^{-1}$. I'm asking whether the monoid generated by the Cliffords and $G$ (i.e. without inclusion of $G^{-1}$) is already enough to get a universal set of gates.

Adam Zalcman
  • 25,770
  • 3
  • 43
  • 95
John
  • 546
  • 2
  • 7

2 Answers2

1

TL;DR: Yes, in a finite dimensional Hilbert space, $G^{-1}$ can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy as a finite power of $G$. If $G$ has finite order $r$, this follows from $G^{-1}=G^{r-1}$. The general case can be proven using the simultaneous version of Dirichlet's approximation theorem. Consequently, for any set of gates $C$, if $C\cup\{G,G^{-1}\}$ is universal$^1$, then so is $C\cup\{G\}$.


It is sufficient to show that the set $\{G^n\,|\,n=1,2,\dots\}$ contains a sequence $G_i$ with $i=1,2,\dots$ such that $\lim_{i\to\infty}G_i=I$.

Suppose that $G=\sum_{j=1}^d e^{2\pi i\alpha_j}|\psi_j\rangle\langle\psi_j|$ for some $\alpha_j\in[0,1)$ and some orthonormal basis $|\psi_j\rangle$. The simultaneous version of Dirichlet's approximation theorem asserts that for every positive integer $k=1,2,\dots$, there are integers $p_{k,1},\dots,p_{k,d}$ and $q_k$ such that $1\leqslant q_k\leqslant k$ and $\Delta_{k,j}:=q_k\alpha_j-p_{k,j}\in\left[-\frac{1}{k^{1/d}},\frac{1}{k^{1/d}}\right]$. Consequently, $\lim_{k\to\infty}\Delta_{k,j}=0$ for every $j$.

Define $G_k:=G^{q_k}$. I will use entanglement fidelity $F_e$ as a measure of closeness between $G_k$ and $I$. For a general quantum channel $\mathcal{E}$, it is defined as \begin{align} F_e(\mathcal{E}):=\langle\psi|(\mathcal{E}\otimes\mathcal{I})(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)|\psi\rangle\tag1 \end{align} where $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity channel and $|\psi\rangle:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_k|k\rangle|k\rangle$ is the a maximally entangled state. For a unitary channel $\mathcal{U}(\rho)=U\rho U^\dagger$ we have $F_e(U):=F_e(\mathcal{U})=\frac{1}{d^2}|\mathrm{tr}(U)|^2$, so \begin{align} \lim_{k\to\infty}F_e(G_k)&=\frac{1}{d^2}\lim_{k\to\infty}|\mathrm{tr}(G^{q_k})|^2\tag2\\ &=\frac{1}{d^2}\lim_{k\to\infty}\left|\sum_j e^{2\pi iq_k\alpha_j}\right|^2\tag3\\ &=\frac{1}{d^2}\lim_{k\to\infty}\left|\sum_j e^{2\pi i\Delta_{k,j}}\right|^2\tag4\\ &=\frac{1}{d^2}d^2=1\tag5 \end{align} where the penultimate equality follows from the continuity of the exponential function and the fact that $\lim_{k\to\infty}\Delta_{k,j}=0$ for every $j$. Finally, unitary group is compact, so $G_k$ has a convergent subsequence $G_i$. Let $G':=\lim_{i\to\infty} G_i$. Entanglement fidelity $F_e(U)$ is a continuous function of $U$, so by calculation above $F_e(G')=1$. But this implies that $G'=I$, so $\lim_{i\to\infty}G_i=I$.


$^1$ I assume that universal means "generates a dense subset of the unitary group". A weaker, but perhaps more important, concept of universality is the computational universality which means "able to realize arbitrary quantum computations". An example of a computationally universal set of unitaries that fails to be universal is the Hadamard and Toffoli.

Adam Zalcman
  • 25,770
  • 3
  • 43
  • 95
1

Note that there are non-Clifford gates with no inverse. For example: measurement in a non-Pauli basis.

Consider $M_{X+Y}$, which measures if a single qubit state is in the positive or negative eigenspace of $X+Y$. It projects the qubit into a $|T\rangle$ state or a $Z|T\rangle$ state. Either of these states can be consumed with stabilizer gates to perform a T gate by gate teleportation, giving access to universal computation. But $M_{X+Y}$ has no inverse because it is a measurement gate.

Craig Gidney
  • 47,099
  • 1
  • 44
  • 119