arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 3 Nov 2021

arXiv:2111.02391v1 [quant-ph] 3 Nov 2021

Topologically-driven impossibility of superposing unknown states

Zuzana Gavorov´ a

1

School of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract

Our understanding of quantum mechanics broadens by discovering tasks that are easy classi- cally but their quantum versions are impossible, such as cloning. Another such task is the super- position task: Given two input states |ui , |vi ∈ H create a superposition αe

|ui + β |vi for some real function φ. This is the quantum version of the classical adder. Oszmaniec, Grudka, Horodecki and W´ ojcik [1] showed that a quantum circuit acting on a single pair of input states cannot output an exact superposition of them. Here we prove that a quantum circuit cannot approximate a superposition for every pair of states in H - even if it accesses any number of copies of the input states. Our proof follows the ”topological method” [2]: Any quantum circuit defines a continuous function on the input states. Using new topological arguments we prove that no continuous function can have the desired output. Compared to methods that view quantum circuits as linear [3–5] or polynomial [6] functions, the topological method excludes any number of input-state copies. We give some intuition of why the method is applicable to the superposition task.

We consider the following protocol: given a large number of copies of the two input states, use state tomography to obtain a classical description of each, then prepare their superposition from scratch. Comparing our impossibility to this tomography protocol, we find a separation between two types of measurement.

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The superposition task defined and preceding results . . . . 1 1.2 The impossibility: Results and methods overview . . . . 1 1.3 Consequence: A separation between measurement types . . . . 3

2 Quantum circuit as a continuous function 4

3 Continuous functions cannot output superpositions 5

4 Continuous functions cannot approximate superpositions 7

5 Some intuition via a proof of a special case 7

Appendices 10

A The relative phase 10

B Measurement with many success outcomes 10

C No section from pure density matrices to vector states 11

1 Introduction

Discovering limitations of quantum circuits can teach us a great deal about quantum mechanics.

We have learnt a lot for example from the no-cloning theorem [3]. Many works that look for the first principles of quantum mechanics base their search on no-cloning [7–11]. This limitation is so interesting because it distinguishes quantum from classical mechanics - cloning a classical state is possible.

Here we show the impossibility of a task that can be seen as a quantum version of a classically easy task - the superposition task: Given two pure states as an input, output a superposition of them. Superposing can be seen as a quantum version of the classical addition: given two bit strings, output their sum modulo two. We will show that the superposition task is impossible in the quantum circuit - even if the circuit is given any number of copies of either input state. This may bring forth new insights about quantum mechanics, similarly to the no-cloning theorem. For example, one consequence discussed later touches upon the role of measurement.

1.1 The superposition task defined and preceding results

Here we define a superposition of two pure states. Given a finite-dimensional Hilbert space H, denote by L(H) the linear operators from H to itself. Denote by D

(H) ⊂ L(H) the space of pure density operators, namely those ρ ∈ L(H) that are positive semidefinite ρ ≥ 0 and satisfy tr [ρ] = 1 and tr 

ρ



= 1

. Denote by D

(H) ⊂ L(H) the operators ρ ≥ 0 that have positive trace tr [ρ] > 0. A na¨ıve attempt to define a superposition would be

Definition Attempt. An α, β superposition of |uihu| , |vihv| ∈ D

(H) is an operator in D

(H) proportional to

(α |ui + β |vi) (α

hu| + β

hv|) . (1) The problem with this definition is that expression (1) depends on the physically irrelevant global phase of |ui and |vi. Changing |ui to − |ui can produce a superposition that is measurably different.

Therefore we modify expression (1) to depend only on the physical inputs |uihu| and |vihv|:

Definition 1. An α, β superposition of |uihu| , |vihv| ∈ D

(H) is an operator in D

(H) propor-

tional to 

αe

|ui + β |vi  

α

e

hu| + β

hv| 

for some real function φ such that the above operator is a function of |uihu| and |vihv|.

In Appendix A we find such φ functions.

Given α, β ∈ C\{0}, Oszmaniec, Grudka, Horodecki and W´ojcik showed that a quantum circuit cannot create an α, β superposition from one copy of each input [1]. Note that their definition of an α, β superposition was more general in that for some input pairs, the output superposition could be the zero operator. On the other hand, by restricting the input states to a subset of D

(H) superposing becomes possible [1, 12–15].

1.2 The impossibility: Results and methods overview

We extend the impossibility of [1] to any number of input-state copies. We show that any unitary circuit followed by a binary success/fail measurement and the postselection on success cannot

1By eigenvalue decomposition any ρ ∈ Dpure(H) can be written as ρ = |uihu| for some normalised vector |ui ∈ H.

Table 1: Impossibility methods that regard quantum circuits as functions

method some applications # queries/input copies

the method excludes linear cloning [3], deleting [4], superposition [1], con-

trolled unitary [5]

1 polynomial [6] boolean functions: their query [17–21] and com-

munication [22, 23] complexity; oracle separations [24, 25]

smaller than half the de- gree of the polynomial topological tasks with quantum input and output: controlled

unitary [2], fractional power [2], superposition

any finite number

output an α, β superposition of its two input states, even if given any number of copies of each. It cannot even output an approximation of an α, β superposition.

Compared to [1] our impossibilities exclude circuits that are more general in some way but less general in another. We consider circuits that are allowed to take in multiple input-state copies, and to output only an approximation of an α, β superposition, but we limit ourselves to worst-case circuits only - to circuits that for all input state-pairs in D

(H) approximately output a nonzero α, β superposition. Equivalently, the probability of success of worst-case circuits is always nonzero.

In Definition 1 we express this by D

(H), which excludes matrices of trace zero. We need to impose this worst-case requirement to be able to prove our many copies result.

We prove this impossibility using a topological method. We show that the existence of the desired circuit implies the existence of a certain continuous function. Then we use topology to show that there is no such continuous function. In Table 1 we compare this method to other methods that regard quantum circuits as functions - as linear or polynomial functions. We would like to emphasise two differences. First, to discuss continuity we need the function (i.e. the circuit) to map from a connected space to a connected space. These spaces arise naturally in a fully quantum task, such as the α, β superposition. They do not for classical tasks such as the OR function (considered in Grover’s search [16]), which is a boolean function on bit strings. Second, any limitation based only on continuity is an impossibility, not just a lower bound; excluding continuous functions excludes polynomials of any degree - corresponding to circuits that use any number of input-state copies.

Why for our superposition tasks we are able to get an impossibility based on continuity? The superposition impossibility is closely related to the fact that there is no continuous function, also called section, that maps an outer product of a vector to a ”representative” vector |uihu| 7→ |e ui, such that |e uihe u| = |uihu|. We use this no-section fact directly in an alternative proof in Section 5. But the no-section gives us the exact impossibility only. We know of no extension to the approximate case. In the main proof that does extend, we take a different approach: We ask for an intuition for no section |uihu| 7→ |e ui. Roughly, as opposed to the domain, the range is sensitive to a change in the global phase λ ∈ S

. We will extract this S

structure to contradict continuity. We will use a topological lemma that exploits the nontrivial topology of the circle S

; different numbers of loops on S

cannot be contracted to each other.

First, we observe that a quantum circuit corresponds to a continuous function in the following way:

Proposition 1. Let there be a unitary circuit followed by a binary success/fail measurement and

the postselection on success that takes as input a number of copies of state |uihu| and a number of

copies of state |vihv|. Then the output of the circuit is a continuous function of |uihu| , |vihv|.

Then, we prove that no such function can have the desired output. This immediately precludes any quantum circuit from having the desired output.

Theorem 1 (roughly). Let H be a Hilbert space of a finite dimension d ≥ 2 and let α, β ∈ C \ {0}.

There is no continuous function A : D

(H) × D

(H) → D

(H) that for any pair of inputs

|uihu|, |vihv| outputs an |α||β|/ |α|

+ |β|

-approximation of an α, β-superposition of them.

Corollary 1. No unitary circuit followed by a binary success/fail measurement and the postselection on success can take as input two pure states, several copies of each, and output an approximation of an α, β-superposition of them, strictly within the trace-norm error |α||β|/ |α|

+ |β|

.

We remark that for a single copy of each input Oszmaniec [26] excluded a larger error. To prove Theorem 1 we use the following lemma:

Lemma 1. There is no continuous 2-homogeneneous function S

→ S

.

In other words, there is no continuous function f from the 3-sphere to the circle such that f (λx) = λ

f (x) for all λ ∈ S

, x ∈ S

.

1.3 Consequence: A separation between measurement types

First, we point out a weakness of any separation based on a fully quantum task such as the super- position task. A separation in the usual sense proves that two models require different resources in order to estimate a boolean function - in order to output a binary classical outcome that cor- responds to the function’s output with high probability. Equivalently, if the two computational models use the same resources, they differ in their outcome statistics - as in the Bell test. Boolean function as tasks are in this sense verifiable in the lab. But checking a quantum output, as in the superposition task, requires a postprocessing to produce classical data. And attaching this postprocessing defines a new, different task. Thus the superposition task can only give separations that are not very physical.

A new separation of this kind emerges by analysing a protocol that seemingly contradicts our results - it seems to realise the superposition task and it seems to be convertible to a quantum circuit. The following brute force idea seemingly approximates the task to any desired precision:

Given a sufficient amount of input state copies, perform state tomography on them to get an approximate classical description of the two input states. Then build from scratch a circuit that prepares the desired superposition. Moreover, the strategy seems to be convertible to a quantum circuit. We described it as a mixed classical-quantum protocol with measurements in the middle.

Convert the classical parts to quantum and defer the measurements to the end. This seems to give us a quantum circuit of Proposition 1.

Actually, both of the above points are wrong: the tomography idea does not approximate the tasks and does not convert to our quantum circuit model. First, in Definition 1 the relative phase φ is a deterministic function of the inputs. But using tomography we can only realise a superposition with a random relative phase:

Definition 1.1. A random α, β superposition of |uihu| , |vihv| ∈ D

(H) is a collection of operators n r

(|ui , |vi) 

αe

|ui + β |vi  

α

e

hu| + β

hv| o

x∈X

(2)

indexed by x from label set X, such that their sum is in D

(H), where r

, φ

are some real functions

such that each operator is a function of |uihu| and |vihv|.

Table 2: Possibility of two task variants in quantum circuits with different types of measurements measurement superposition random superposition

{Π

, Π

} ✘ ✘

{Π

, Π

. . . Π

, Π

}

✘ ✔

Second, our quantum circuit model is a unitary circuit followed by a single binary success/fail measurement. But the tomography strategy can only be converted to a quantum circuit that uses a measurement with many possible success outcomes – labelled by x ∈ X with |X| ≥ 2.

We could try to further simplify the quantum circuit that corresponds to the tomography strategy - specifically, to simplify its measurement to |X

| = 1. For example, by skipping the success-outcome-distinguishing measurement entirely, or by projecting onto the first outcome only.

The skipping (tracing-out) idea fails because then we approximate a sum X

x∈X

r

(|ui , |vi) 

αe

|ui + β |vi  

α

e

hu| + β

hv|  ,

which is not an α, β superposition of the pure state inputs (it is not even a pure state). The projecting idea fails because the output operator will be zero for some inputs - violating our worst- case condition.

Any attempt to simplify to a single success outcome must fail. Note that the state tomography part estimates the density states corresponding to the two inputs |uihu|, |vihv|. In order to realise the superposition task by a single success outcome, after the tomography the algorithm must make a deterministic choice |uihu| 7→ |e ui and similarly for |vihv|. But as mentioned before, these mappings necessarily have a discontinuity. At the discontinuity, any tiny error on |uihu| will blow up to a constant error on |e ui.

We summarise the distinctions between the impossibility and the tomography idea by putting the first to the top left cell of Table 2 and the second into the bottom right. The antidiagonal impossibilities follow from the top left one by definition: A reasonable definition of a model with X

realising a task with X

when |X

| 6= |X

| assigns zero probability to the spare outcomes/operators (see Appendix B). Table 2 then reveals a new separation based on the random superposition task: Measurements with multiple success outcomes are more powerful than those with one success outcome. This seems to emphasise the significance of registering a measurement outcome.

2 Quantum circuit as a continuous function

Here we repeat and prove Proposition 1.

Proposition 1. Let there be a unitary circuit followed by a binary success/fail measurement and the postselection on success that takes as input a number of copies of state |uihu| and a number of copies of state |vihv|. Then the output of the circuit is a continuous function of |uihu| , |vihv|.

Proof. Any circuit as in Proposition 1 corresponds to some linear operator A = Π

V with a unitary part V and a projection Π

(see Figure 1). The operator A acts on the copies of either input and on an ancilla initialised to |0i. The output of the circuit on the relevant register is A(|uihu| , |vihv|) := tr

h A 

|uihu|

⊗ |vihv|

⊗ |0ih0|  A

i

, so the function A is continuous.

A A A

⊗ ⊗ ⊗

|ui

|vi tr

|ui

V Π

|ui .. .

|ui

|vi |vi .. .

|vi

|0i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Figure 1: A general quantum circuit A that acts on N and M copies of |ui and |vi respectively follows an unphysical but continuous preprocessing step: ⊗ : (|ui , |vi) 7→ |ui

⊗ |vi

.

3 Continuous functions cannot output superpositions

Here we prove that no continuous function of two pure states can output an α, β-superposition of them - the exact case of Theorem 1. We will use Lemma 1, which we prove next.

Theorem 1.1. Let H be a Hilbert space of a finite dimension d ≥ 2 and let α, β ∈ C \ {0}. There is no continuous function A : D

(H) × D

(H) → D

(H) such that

A(|uihu| , |vihv|) = r (|ui , |vi) 

αe

|ui + β |vi  

α

e

hu| + β

hv|  for some real functions r, φ.

Lemma 1. There is no continuous 2-homogeneneous function S

→ S

.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Assume towards contradiction that a function A of Theorem 1.1 exists. We will build from it a function excluded by Lemma 1. Define a function on normalised qubits |xi ∈ C

, g : S

→ C as

g(|xi) := tr 

(tr

[(|xi ⊗ |xi) (h00| + h11|) (I ⊗ Y )] ⊕ 0) A |xihx| ⊕ 0, (I − |xihx|) ⊕ 0


, (3) where tr

is a partial trace of the second qubit register, Y is the Pauli-Y gate and ⊕ 0 is a direct sum with the all-zero (d − 2) × (d − 2) matrix. Observe that g is continuous, because A is, and that g(λ |xi) = λ

g(|xi) for all λ ∈ S

, i.e. g is 2-homogeneous.

Next, we simplify expression (3). In the definition we made use of the following gadget tr

[(|xi ⊗ |xi) (h00| + h11|) (I ⊗ Y )] = |xihx

| ,

where |x

i is a state perpendicular to |xi. The gadget is closely related to quantum teleportation as illustrated in Fig. 2. Next, let |ui ∈ H be the d-dimensional vector with the entries of |xi as the first two entries and zeroes elsewhere and similarly let |vi be the vector |x

i padded with zeroes.

Then we can write |vi = |u

i and eq. (3) simplifies to

g(|xi) = tr [|uihu

| A (|uihu| , |u

ihu

|)] = r (|ui , |u

i) α

βe

|

i

,

where in the second inequality we substituted the assumption on A. Since A maps to D

(H), r never maps to zero. We can define a normalised version of g:

bg(|xi) := g(|xi)

p g(|xi)

g(|xi) . (4)

|xi

|ψ

i

hψ

|

|xi (a)

|xi hx

|

hψ

|

|xi (b)

|xi hx

|

hψ

| Y

|xi

(c) Figure 2: Three circuits with postselection on the |ψ

i = (|00i + |11i) / √

2 outcome. They cor- respond to state preparations |·i or postselections h·|. (a) The teleportation scheme prepares |xi according to the equation (hψ

| ⊗ I) (|xi ⊗ |ψ

i) =

|xi. (b) Half teleportation postselects on

|x

i := (h0|xi)

|0i + (h1|xi)

|1i, because hψ

| (|xi ⊗ I) = hx

| / √

2. (c) Half teleportation with an additional Pauli-Y gate postselects on a state orthogonal to |xi since hψ

| (|xi ⊗ Y ) = hx

| / √

2.

But bg is a function S

→ S

that is continuous and 2-homogeneous, contradicting Lemma 1.

Proof of Lemma 1. We parametrise loops on the 3-sphere by the parameter t ∈ [0, 1]. Let |x

i ∈ S

be some fixed point. Consider the following loops on S

.

f (t) := |x

i f

(t) := e

|x

i .

Namely, f is constant and f

loops in its global phase. Both are loops on S

based at |x

i. They are continuously contractible to each other, or homotopic, because on S

any loop is continuously shrinkable to a point - we say that S

is simply connected. See Fig. 3 for an intuition.

Assume towards contradiction that there is a function g : S

→ S

which is continuous and 2-homogeneous. Composing g onto our loops on S

gives us loops on the circle, S

: The first one, (g ◦ f )(t) = g(|x

i), is the constant function - it corresponds to zero loops on S

; the second one, (g ◦ f

)(t) = g(e

|x

i) = e

g(|x

i), by the 2-homogeneity of g makes 2 loops on S

. But note that by the continuity of g the loops g ◦ f and g ◦ f

must also be continuously deformable to each other. But on the circle S

this is impossible for different numbers of loops.

x y z

Figure 3: Any closed loop on S

is continuously contractible to a point. The same is true for S

.

We say that these spaces are simply connected.

4 Continuous functions cannot approximate superpositions

In this section we relax the requirement on our circuit and on the corresponding continuous function.

We ask that the function outputs a state that is close within a constant to an α, β superposition of its inputs. Even this is impossible. We measure the ”closeness” using trace norm || · ||

.

Theorem 1. Let H be a Hilbert space of a finite dimension d ≥ 2 and let α, β ∈ C \ {0}. There is no continuous function A : D

(H) × D

(H) → D

(H) such that

A(|uihu| , |vihv|)

tr [A(|uihu| , |vihv|)] − αe

|ui + β |vi

α

e

hu| + β

hv|
  

αe

|ui + β |vi    

< |α||β|

|α|

+ |β|

(5) for some real function φ.

Proof. Assume towards contradiction that a function A as in Theorem 1 exists. It satisfies inequality (5), which we repeat here for any orthogonal pair of inputs |ui, |u

i and using some shorthands:

 b A(|uihu| , |u

ihu

|) − Ideal(|uihu| , |u [

ihu

|)     

< |α||β|

|α|

+ |β|

. Namely b A(|uihu| , |vihv|) is a shorthand for the left term and [

Ideal(|uihu| , |vihv|) for the right term inside the trace norm in (5). It follows that

     tr h

|uihu

| b A(|uihu| , |u

ihu

|) i

− tr h

|uihu

| Ideal(|uihu| , |u [

ihu

|) i   

< |α||β|

|α|

+ |β|

, because trace norm contracts both under multiplication by an operator of operator norm at most one, and indeed |||uihu

|||

= 1, and under taking trace. Now define function g

: S

→ C similarly to eq. (3) but with A replaced by b A. Then g

is also a continuous 2-homogeneous function. Let

|xi ∈ S

⊂ C

and let |ui be |xi padded with zeros and |u

i be |x

i of Fig. 2(c) padded with zeroes. Then the left term inside the trace norm above is simply g

(|xi). The right term we evaluate by expanding the shorthand [ Ideal. The above inequality then becomes

 g

(|xi) − α

β

|α|

+ |β|

e

|

i

    < |α||β|

|α|

+ |β|

Because of the strict inequality, g

: S

→ C never maps to zero. If we renormalise it as in eq. (4), we get a continuous 2-homogeneous function S

→ S

. This is excluded by Lemma 1.

5 Some intuition via a proof of a special case

This section supports the intuition we gave in the Introduction, that our impossibility relates to the nonexistence of continuous functions mapping a pure density state to some corresponding vector

|uihu| 7→ |˜ui. Noting that S

is the space of normalised vectors in C

, we restate this formally:

Lemma 2. Let n ∈ N, n ≥ 2. Let π : S

→ D

(C

) be the outer product function π(|ui) =

|uihu|. There is no continuous function s : D

(C

) → S

such that π ◦ s = id.

A continuous function that composes with a projection into the identity function id is called section.

We prove Lemma 2 in Appendix C by first showing that D

(C

) is homeomorphic to the complex

projective space CP

, then showing that there is no section CP

→ S

. Here we use Lemma

2 to prove the exact impossibility (Theorem 1.1) for the Hilbert space dimensions d ≥ 3.

Proof of Theorem 1.1 (d ≥ 3). Assume towards contradiction that for some Hilbert space H of dimension d ≥ 3 a function A : D

(H) × D

(H) → L(H) of Theorem 1.1 exists. Fix a constant unit vector |0i ∈ H and denote by K the subspace of H orthogonal to |0i. The dimension of K is n = d − 1 ≥ 2. Next, define a function h : D

(K) → K:

h(|uihu|) := |uihu| A(|uihu| , |0ih0|) |0i .

Since A is continuous, so is h. Substituting for A and noting that |ui is orthogonal to |0i we get h(|uihu|) = r (|ui , |0i) αβ

e

|ui. The output is a nonzero vector proportional to |ui. Define the normalised version of h:

s(|uihu|) := h(|uihu|)

p h(|uihu|)

h(|uihu|) . (6)

Observing that K ≈ C

we got s : D

(C

) → S

which continuously maps |uihu| 7→

αβ^∗

|α||β|

e

|ui. This contradicts Lemma 2.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Alon Dotan for helpful discussions of algebraic topology, Dorit Aharonov for supervision, and Micha l Oszmaniec and Itai Leigh for useful feedback on the initial results.

References

[1] Micha l Oszmaniec, Andrzej Grudka, Micha l Horodecki, and Antoni W´ojcik. Creating a super- position of unknown quantum states. Physical review letters, 116(11):110403, 2016.

[2] Zuzana Gavorov´a, Matan Seidel, and Yonathan Touati. Topological obstructions to imple- menting controlled unknown unitaries. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10031, 2020.

[3] William K Wootters and Wojciech H Zurek. A single quantum cannot be cloned. Nature, 299(5886):802–803, 1982.

[4] Arun Kumar Pati and Samuel L Braunstein. Impossibility of deleting an unknown quantum state. Nature, 404(6774):164–165, 2000.

[5] Mateus Ara´ ujo, Adrien Feix, Fabio Costa, and ˇ Caslav Brukner. Quantum circuits cannot control unknown operations. New Journal of Physics, 16(9):093026, 2014.

[6] Robert Beals, Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, Michele Mosca, and Ronald de Wolf. Quantum lower bounds by polynomials. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 48(4):778–797, 2001.

[7] Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, and Paolo Perinotti. Probabilistic theories with purification. Physical Review A, 81(6):062348, 2010.

[8] Bob Coecke and Ross Duncan. Interacting quantum observables: categorical algebra and diagrammatics. New Journal of Physics, 13(4):043016, 2011.

[9] Adrian Kent. Quantum tasks in minkowski space. Classical and Quantum Gravity,

29(22):224013, 2012.

[10] Wojciech Hubert Zurek. Quantum darwinism. Nature physics, 5(3):181–188, 2009.

[11] Paul MB Vit´anyi. Quantum kolmogorov complexity based on classical descriptions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 47(6):2464–2479, 2001.

[12] Unai Alvarez-Rodriguez, M Sanz, L Lamata, and E Solano. The forbidden quantum adder.

Scientific reports, 5(1):1–3, 2015.

[13] Rui Li, Unai Alvarez-Rodriguez, Lucas Lamata, and Enrique Solano. Approximate quantum adders with genetic algorithms: an ibm quantum experience. Quantum Measurements and Quantum Metrology, 4(1):1–7, 2017.

[14] Xiao-Min Hu, Meng-Jun Hu, Jiang-Shan Chen, Bi-Heng Liu, Yun-Feng Huang, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, and Yong-Sheng Zhang. Experimental creation of superposition of unknown photonic quantum states. Physical Review A, 94(3):033844, 2016.

[15] Keren Li, Guofei Long, Hemant Katiyar, Tao Xin, Guanru Feng, Dawei Lu, and Raymond Laflamme. Experimentally superposing two pure states with partial prior knowledge. Physical Review A, 95(2):022334, 2017.

[16] Lov K Grover. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 212–219, 1996.

[17] Scott Aaronson and Yaoyun Shi. Quantum lower bounds for the collision and the element distinctness problems. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 51(4):595–605, 2004.

[18] Alexander A Sherstov. Approximating the and-or tree. Theory of Computing, 9(1):653–663, 2013.

[19] Mark Bun and Justin Thaler. Dual lower bounds for approximate degree and markov–bernstein inequalities. Information and Computation, 243:2–25, 2015.

[20] Mark Bun, Robin Kothari, and Justin Thaler. The polynomial method strikes back: Tight quantum query bounds via dual polynomials. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 297–310, 2018.

[21] Scott Aaronson, Robin Kothari, William Kretschmer, and Justin Thaler. Quantum lower bounds for approximate counting via laurent polynomials. In Proceedings of the 35th Compu- tational Complexity Conference, pages 1–47, 2020.

[22] Alexander A Sherstov. The pattern matrix method. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(6):1969–

2000, 2011.

[23] Alexander A Sherstov. The multiparty communication complexity of set disjointness. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 525–

548, 2012.

[24] Richard Beigel. Perceptrons, pp, and the polynomial hierarchy. Computational complexity, 4(4):339–349, 1994.

[25] Adam Bouland, Lijie Chen, Dhiraj Holden, Justin Thaler, and Prashant Nalini Vasudevan.

On the power of statistical zero knowledge. SIAM Journal on Computing, 49(4):FOCS17–1,

2019.

[26] Micha l Oszmaniec. private communication, 2021.

[27] Allen Hatcher. Algebraic topology. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.

Appendices

A The relative phase

Recall that our superposition of two states of (1) was unphysical because it was sensitive to the global phase of the input vectors |ui, |vi. Instead it should depend only on the physical inputs - the density matrices |uihu| and |vihv|. Denote by f |ui = vec (|uihu|) a single representative of the entire set of vectors that differ from each other by the global phase, i.e. e g = f

|ui |ui for all α ∈ [0, 2π).

Then instead of the expression (1) we will write

 α f |ui + β f |vi  

α

hu| + β f

hv| f 

(7) The representative f |ui differs from |ui only by a global phase. We can express it in terms of |ui for example by using the resolution of the identity I = |uihu| + P

i=1

|u

ihu

|. Then f |ui = I f |ui = hu|e ui |ui, where | hu|e ui | = 1. Using this for both f |ui and f |vi we have

α f |ui + β f |vi = hv|evi (α hev|vi hu|e ui |ui + β |vi) .

Now choosing any φ such that e

= hev|vi hu|e ui for some representative function ∼ gives us a well-defined superposition of Definition 1.

B Measurement with many success outcomes

The aim of this section is to define what it means for a quantum circuit with m outcomes to realise the (random) superposition. The definition will justify the anti-diagonal impossibilities in Table 2.

They will follow - by definition - from our main impossibility of Theorem 1.

Expanding the rough statement of Theorem 1 in the Introduction to its exact statement, we specified what we mean by a function ǫ-approximating a superposition:

Definition 2. A : D

(H) × D

(H) → D

(H) ǫ-approximates an α, β superposition if  

  A(|uihu| , |vihv|)

tr [A(|uihu| , |vihv|)] − Ideal [

(|uihu| , |vihv|)        

tr

< ǫ

for some real function φ, where [ Ideal

(|uihu| , |vihv|) = (

)(

)

||

||

.

Now a quantum circuit that uses a measurement with m success outcomes, defines an m-tuple of

continuous functions (use Proposition 1 for each outcome). Call by k-α, β superposition a random

α, β superposition (Definition 1.1) whose label set has size k. We generalise the above definition to

multiple outcome measurements and to the random superposition.

Definition 3. The m-tuple {A

}

of functions on D

(H) × D

(H) ǫ-approximates a k-α, β superposition if Im(A

+ A

+ · · · + A

) ⊆ D

(H) and if

min(m,k)

X

j=1

p

(|uihu| , |vihv|)      

  A

(|uihu| , |vihv|)

tr [A

(|uihu| , |vihv|)] − Ideal [

(|uihu| , |vihv|)        

tr

< ǫ

for some real functions φ

and where p

(|uihu| , |vihv|) =

Pmin(m,k)

l=1 tr[Al(|uihu|,|vihv|)]

.

The above inequality may look not well-defined as for some j ∈ min(m, k) and for some inputs A

could map to zero, which would give a division by zero. But note that we can equivalently absorb the probabilities into the trace norm so that the left-hand side in Definition 3 becomes

min(m,k)

X

j=1

A

(|uihu| , |vihv|) P

l=1

tr [A

(|uihu| , |vihv|)] − tr [A

(|uihu| , |vihv|)]

P

l=1

tr [A

(|uihu| , |vihv|)]

Ideal [

(|uihu| , |vihv|)          

,

which is well-defined by the Im(A

+ A

+ · · · + A

) ⊆ D

(H) condition.

For the antidiagonal cells in Table 2 we have either m = 1 or k = 1, so the sum in Definition 3 will end up with a single term. Then Theorem 1 applies giving us also the antidiagonal impossibilities.

C No section from pure density matrices to vector states

Here we prove Lemma 2. We split it to two claims.

Claim 1. D

(C

) is homeomorphic to the complex projective space CP

.

If we write the vectors in S

as the n-dimensional complex vectors of norm 1, then complex projective space is the quotient space CP

= S

/ ∼ under the identification |ui ∼ e

|ui for any real α.

Claim 2. Let n ∈ N, n ≥ 2. Let p : S

→ CP

be the quotient map. There is no continuous function s : CP

→ S

such that p ◦ s = id.

In other words, there is no section CP

→ S

.

Proof of Claim 1. Let π : S

→ D

(C

) be the outer product function π(|ui) = |uihu|. By footnote 1 π is surjective. Let p be the quotient map p : S

→ CP

as above, p(|ui) = [|ui], where [|ui] denotes the equivalence class under the equivalence relation |ui ∼ e

|ui for any real α. Observe that π (|ui) = π (|vi) whenever p (|ui) = p (|vi). Then by the universal property of the quotient space in topology there exists t : CP

→ D

(C

) continuous, such that t ◦ p = π:

S

CP

D

(C

) π

p

t

In particular, t is surjective. Next, we show that t : [|ui] 7→ |uihu| is injective: Suppose

|uihu| = |vihv| =: M. Since |ui, |vi are unit vectors, there exists a column in matrix M that is

nonzero, label this column’s index by j. This column is equal to M

= u

|ui = v

|vi. Since it is

nonzero we can write |ui =

∗ j

u^∗_j

|vi, and since |ui, |vi are unit vectors, we have

∗ j

u^∗_j

= e

for some real α and therefore [|ui] = [|vi]. We have shown that t : CP

→ D

(C

) is continuous and bijective. The domain of t is compact, because a quotient space of a compact space (here S

) is compact. The range of t is Hausdorff. A bijective continuous map from a compact space to a Hausdorff space is closed and hence a homeomorphism. Thus t is a homeomorphism.

Proof of Claim 2. This proof uses some standard facts in homology theory. They can be found for example in Chapter 2 in [27]. The reduced homology groups of S

are

H ˜

(S

) =

( Z, i = m 0, i 6= m . The singular homology groups of CP

are

H

 CP



=

( Z, i = 0, 2, 4 . . . , 2k 0, otherwise ,

and by definition ˜ H

(X) = H

(X) for all i > 0 for any space X. Assume towards contradiction that s : CP

→ S

continuous exists for some n ≥ 2 such that p ◦ s = id. In diagram:

CP

s S

p CP

id

A continuous map between two spaces f : X → Y induces for any i a homomorphism f

: H

(X) → H

(Y ) between their i-th singular homology groups. For i = 2n − 2 we get

H

CP

H

S

H

CP

s

p

id

where id

is the identity map. However, by the above, H

(CP

) = Z and H

(S

) = 0

for n ≥ 2, which contradicts the last diagram.