Definition 29: Horizontal Subsystem Balanced Product Code #
The horizontal subsystem balanced product code is the subsystem CSS code (Def_6) whose underlying CSS code is the balanced product Tanner cycle code (Def_26), with the logical/gauge splitting defined by:
H₁ᴸ := H₁ʰ(logical Z-operators correspond to horizontal homology)H₁ᴳ := H₁ᵛ(gauge Z-operators correspond to vertical homology)
We define HL and HG as submodules of H₁ via the Künneth isomorphism and prove they
form a complementary pair (IsCompl). This gives the direct sum decomposition
H₁ ≅ H₁ᴸ ⊕ H₁ᴳ required by the subsystem CSS code structure.
When the quotient Tanner differential is injective, H₁ᵛ = 0 and hence H₁ᴳ = 0,
reducing the subsystem code to an ordinary CSS code.
Main Definitions #
HL— the logical submodule of H₁ (image of H₁ʰ under the Künneth iso)HG— the gauge submodule of H₁ (image of H₁ᵛ under the Künneth iso)hcompl— proof thatHLandHGare complementaryHG_eq_bot_of_tanner_H0_subsingleton— whenH₀(C(X,L)) = 0,HG = ⊥cohomology_iscompl— the cohomology splittingH¹ = H¹_L ⊕ H¹_G
Main Results #
HL_eq_bot_of_quotient_ker_trivial— injectivity of quotient ∂ impliesHL = ⊥encodingRate_eq— the logical qubits equaldim H₁(C(X/H, L))
Abbreviations from Def_27 #
The balanced product complex.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.bpComplex X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat = HorizontalVerticalHomologySplitting.bpComplex X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat
Instances For
The degree-1 homology of the balanced product complex.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.H1 X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat = HorizontalVerticalHomologySplitting.H1 X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat
Instances For
The horizontal homology H₁ʰ.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.H1h X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat = HorizontalVerticalHomologySplitting.H1h X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat
Instances For
The vertical homology H₁ᵛ.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.H1v X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat = HorizontalVerticalHomologySplitting.H1v X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat
Instances For
Logical and Gauge Submodules #
We define the logical submodule HL and gauge submodule HG as the images of the
horizontal and vertical summand inclusions under the inverse Künneth isomorphism.
The inclusion of the horizontal summand H₁ʰ into the Künneth direct sum.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.incH X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat = HorizontalVerticalHomologySplitting.directSumInc X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat 1
Instances For
The inclusion of the vertical summand H₁ᵛ into the Künneth direct sum.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.incV X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat = HorizontalVerticalHomologySplitting.directSumInc X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat 0
Instances For
The embedding of H₁ʰ into H₁ via the inverse Künneth isomorphism.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The embedding of H₁ᵛ into H₁ via the inverse Künneth isomorphism.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The logical submodule H₁ᴸ := H₁ʰ as a submodule of H₁, defined as the range
of the horizontal embedding. Logical Z-operators correspond to nontrivial elements
of the horizontal homology.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.HL X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd = (HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.embH X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd).range
Instances For
The gauge submodule H₁ᴳ := H₁ᵛ as a submodule of H₁, defined as the range
of the vertical embedding. Gauge Z-operators correspond to the vertical homology.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.HG X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd = (HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.embV X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd).range
Instances For
Subsingleton infrastructure for direct sum decomposition #
Complementarity #
The logical and gauge submodules form a complementary pair:
H₁ = H₁ᴸ ⊕ H₁ᴳ. This follows from the Künneth decomposition
H₁ ≅ ⊕_p H_p(C(X,L)) ⊗_H H_{1-p}(C_ℓ) with only the p = 0, 1 summands
being nontrivial.
Cohomology splitting #
Over 𝔽₂, homology and cohomology are naturally isomorphic (Def_2). In Def_27,
the cohomology summands coH1h and coH1v are defined as the same balanced Künneth
summands as H1h and H1v respectively (since the underlying types coincide over 𝔽₂).
Therefore the cohomology logical/gauge submodules are definitionally equal to their
homology counterparts, and the cohomology complementarity follows from hcompl.
The logical cohomology submodule H¹_L := H¹_h. Over 𝔽₂, the cohomology
summands coincide with the homology summands (Def_27: coH1h = H1h), so the
logical cohomology submodule equals HL.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.coHL X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd = HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.HL X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd
Instances For
The gauge cohomology submodule H¹_G := H¹_v. Over 𝔽₂, the cohomology
summands coincide with the homology summands (Def_27: coH1v = H1v), so the
gauge cohomology submodule equals HG.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.coHG X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd = HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.HG X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd
Instances For
The cohomology logical and gauge submodules are complementary:
H¹ = H¹_L ⊕ H¹_G. This follows directly from the homology complementarity
hcompl since over 𝔽₂, the cohomology splitting is identified with the
homology splitting via Def_2 and Def_27.
Reduction to ordinary CSS code #
When the quotient Tanner differential is injective (i.e., ker(∂) = 0), the
horizontal homology H₁ʰ is zero. By the iota/pi isomorphism (Def_28),
H₁ʰ ≅ H₁(C(X/H, L)), so injectivity of the quotient differential implies
H₁ʰ = 0 and hence HL = ⊥.
Note: this is a consequence of injectivity, proving the logical part vanishes.
The paper's main reduction result (gauge vanishes) is HG_eq_bot_of_tanner_H0_subsingleton.
When the degree-0 homology of the Tanner complex H₀(C(X,L)) is trivial, the
gauge submodule HG = H₁ᵛ vanishes. The proof proceeds through the Künneth structure:
H₀(C(X,L))is subsingleton (hypothesis)H₀(C(X,L)) ⊗ H₁(C_ℓ)is subsingleton (tensor with subsingleton)Coinvariants(H₀(C(X,L)) ⊗ H₁(C_ℓ))is subsingleton (quotient of subsingleton)H₁ᵛ = 0sinceH₁ᵛis this coinvariant moduleHG = range(embV) = ⊥sinceembVmaps zero to zero
The paper states this follows from H₀(C(X/H, L)) = 0 (surjectivity of the
quotient differential ∂: C₁(X/H, L) → C₀(X/H, L)), which is a weaker condition:
H₀ of the quotient being trivial implies trivial coinvariants of H₀(C(X,L)),
which in turn implies the result. We use the stronger condition H₀(C(X,L)) = 0
here since the degree-0 iota/pi maps (connecting quotient H₀ to equivariant H₀
coinvariants) are not formalized.
Encoding rate #
The number of logical qubits of the horizontal subsystem code equals the dimension
of the logical submodule HL.
Equations
- HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.logicalQubits X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd = Module.finrank 𝔽₂ ↥(HorizontalSubsystemBalancedProductCode.HL X Λ ℓ hΛ hcompat hodd)
Instances For
Witness lemmas #
Witness: HL is nonempty (it is a submodule, hence contains 0).
Witness: HG is nonempty (it is a submodule, hence contains 0).