Supplementarity is Necessary for Quantum Diagram Reasoning
Simon Perdrix, Quanlong Wang

TL;DR
This paper proves the ZX-calculus is incomplete for Clifford+T quantum mechanics by demonstrating the necessity of supplementarity, and proposes adding this rule to improve diagrammatic reasoning.
Contribution
It establishes the incompleteness of the c0/4-fragment of ZX-calculus and introduces supplementarity as a new rule to enhance quantum diagram reasoning.
Findings
ZX-calculus is incomplete for Clifford+T quantum mechanics.
Supplementarity cannot be derived for c0/4 angles in ZX-calculus.
Adding supplementarity simplifies diagrammatic reasoning with antiphase twins.
Abstract
The ZX-calculus is a powerful diagrammatic language for quantum mechanics and quantum information processing. We prove that its \pi/4-fragment is not complete, in other words the ZX-calculus is not complete for the so called "Clifford+T quantum mechanics". The completeness of this fragment was one of the main open problems in categorical quantum mechanics, a programme initiated by Abramsky and Coecke. The ZX-calculus was known to be incomplete for quantum mechanics. On the other hand, its \pi/2-fragment is known to be complete, i.e. the ZX-calculus is complete for the so called "stabilizer quantum mechanics". Deciding whether its \pi/4-fragment is complete is a crucial step in the development of the ZX-calculus since this fragment is approximately universal for quantum mechanics, contrary to the \pi/2-fragment. To establish our incompleteness result, we consider a fairly simple property…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLogic, programming, and type systems · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Semantic Web and Ontologies
