6 ms·

Quantum Picturalism

58 points by mathgenius 1y ago

baxtr 1y ago
> The term, “Quantum Picturalism” was coined to describe this unique approach of teaching quantum concepts visually, reducing intimidation and opening the field to broader audiences.
tmvphil 1y ago
ZX calculus is very interesting framework for doing cutting edge research in error correction and gate compilation, but it seems wildly off base as a means of making quantum computing accessible to a broader audience. Anything beyond the simple "teleportation is like pulling a string" picture is extremely difficult abstract manipulations. (PhD in experimental QC)
- hnuser123456 1y ago
  For those of us who have decent computer science and math education and are curious about QC but have jobs in classical computing, are there any resources you recommend that are a better introduction? I understand something about being able to test large numbers of permutations of something at once, or square rooting the number of necessary operations for some functions... edit: found this below, but it is all ZX calculus https://zxcalc.github.io/book/html/main_html.html https://zxcalc.github.io/book/html/main_html.html
  - ashbreaker 1y ago
    My understanding is ZX calculus is more like a “calculus” or a nice toolkit. So you probably still cannot bypass regular QC formalism (being able to manipulate things fast doesn’t mean you necessarily understand it well)
- Xmd5a 1y ago
  https://x.com/coecke/status/1907809898852667702 https://x.com/coecke/status/1907809898852667702 >High-schoolers excelling at Oxford Uni post-grad quantum exam, thanks to Quantum Picturalism! thoughts?
  - gus_massa 1y ago
    They didn't give the stdents the full post-grad exam. They cherry picked a few of the questions that can be solved with this method. It's handy for a few special cases, but not in general.
- abdullahkhalids 1y ago
  I somewhat agree. I think the goal would be to create a UI that allows you to do the ZX calculus by just creating/moving/joining the spiders etc.
pentaphobe 1y ago
IANAP so got curious about how ZX Calculus related to Feynman Diagrams (if at all) Search landed on this neat summary [^1] (2024) from the lab(?) which also has a link to the original paper [^2] [1]: https://www.quantinuum.com/blog/quantinuum-scientists-have-perfected-a-way-of-doing-maths-with-diagrams-instead-of-symbols https://www.quantinuum.com/blog/quantinuum-scientists-have-p... [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10896
- neom 1y ago
  Just to add, buried away there is this gh repo also: https://github.com/zxcalc/book https://github.com/zxcalc/book
  - pentaphobe 1y ago
    Ooh thanks, totally missed this!
- hbartab 1y ago
  Both are diagrammatic but that's all the overlap there is. Feynman diagrams are a way to compute Green's functions/propagators for particle scattering amplitudes. IOW they give a pictorial representation of things you need to compute to figure out particle reactions at high energies. ZX calculus is for "simplifying" quantum circuits. I write this in quotes because the rules are pretty involved. Apart from Quantinuum, few (if any) are pushing for it. Almost no quantum computing papers are published using ZX notation. Feynman diagrams in particle physics are, however, universal. You might enjoy this write-up: https://pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tutorial_zx_calculus https://pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tutorial_zx_calculus
tlogan 1y ago
Sadly, the only way to truly “understand” quantum physics is through math. A “shut up and calculate” approach. Now, my rant. The main reason math often seems more complicated than it really is has to do with the use of strange symbols and naming conventions. It also feels like academia in the US intentionally uses non-plain language and terminology to sound smarter and exclusive. Back in socialist countries, there was a strong effort to name these concepts using “normal” language, and that really helped. When I came to US, I’d see something like Fourier transformation and think, “Why do use this strange name?” Why not call it “conversion of a signal into frequencies” (lose translation). Of course, maybe the reason is that it is easier to create a new word/term in Slavic languages.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  As if that is the problem with mathematics. 99.9% of mathematics isn't about how things are named. There are zero persons in the world who failed to understand the Fourier transform because of its name.
  - tlogan 1y ago
    I think you are maybe right here.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > it is easier to create a new word/term in Slavic languages. Why is this the case?
- yvdriess 1y ago
  Their pictoral representation is a "shut up and calculate" notation, you can always map it 1:1 with the linear algebra formulation. It was developed as a better tool of thought for working out proofs in QC. I had the pleasure of interacting with Duncan and Bob when XZ calculus was being developed. While I did not use their calculus for my own research, it did inspire the graphical notation I doodled with. While I agree that naming a thing after a person makes it less clear at first glance, it is definitely not to intentionally sound smarter and exclusive; it's simply a handy short label for often subtle and complex things in an environment where you are constantly referring to it. New fields or domains will typically develop their own notation, as they often require new tools of thought. I'm sure you are not suggesting that Feynman diagrams or Einstein summations making things more complicated than they really are. To your point: the annoying part is when the conventions clash. In early QC works an X could be the X-gate or something else completely. A good chunk of the effort in writing or understanding a QC publication was establishing the notation. After a while notation gets a bit more consolidated as conventions get naturally established. Of course, if you move from a world that has established its own conventions, e.g. behind the iron curtain, it can be frustrating to be confronted with the many eponyms in a field where you already have deep expertise. I had similar experiences just from working in teams that were using different programming languages: "Why call it a SAX parser? That's just tree-recursive descent!"

58 points by mathgenius 1y ago

> The term, “Quantum Picturalism” was coined to describe this unique approach of teaching quantum concepts visually, reducing intimidation and opening the field to broader audiences.

tmvphil 1y ago

ZX calculus is very interesting framework for doing cutting edge research in error correction and gate compilation, but it seems wildly off base as a means of making quantum computing accessible to a broader audience. Anything beyond the simple "teleportation is like pulling a string" picture is extremely difficult abstract manipulations. (PhD in experimental QC)

hnuser123456 1y ago
For those of us who have decent computer science and math education and are curious about QC but have jobs in classical computing, are there any resources you recommend that are a better introduction? I understand something about being able to test large numbers of permutations of something at once, or square rooting the number of necessary operations for some functions... edit: found this below, but it is all ZX calculus https://zxcalc.github.io/book/html/main_html.html https://zxcalc.github.io/book/html/main_html.html
- ashbreaker 1y ago
  My understanding is ZX calculus is more like a “calculus” or a nice toolkit. So you probably still cannot bypass regular QC formalism (being able to manipulate things fast doesn’t mean you necessarily understand it well)
Xmd5a 1y ago
https://x.com/coecke/status/1907809898852667702 https://x.com/coecke/status/1907809898852667702 >High-schoolers excelling at Oxford Uni post-grad quantum exam, thanks to Quantum Picturalism! thoughts?
- gus_massa 1y ago
  They didn't give the stdents the full post-grad exam. They cherry picked a few of the questions that can be solved with this method. It's handy for a few special cases, but not in general.
abdullahkhalids 1y ago
I somewhat agree. I think the goal would be to create a UI that allows you to do the ZX calculus by just creating/moving/joining the spiders etc.

pentaphobe 1y ago

IANAP so got curious about how ZX Calculus related to Feynman Diagrams (if at all) Search landed on this neat summary [^1] (2024) from the lab(?) which also has a link to the original paper [^2] [1]: https://www.quantinuum.com/blog/quantinuum-scientists-have-perfected-a-way-of-doing-maths-with-diagrams-instead-of-symbols https://www.quantinuum.com/blog/quantinuum-scientists-have-p... [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10896 https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10896

neom 1y ago
Just to add, buried away there is this gh repo also: https://github.com/zxcalc/book https://github.com/zxcalc/book
- pentaphobe 1y ago
  Ooh thanks, totally missed this!
hbartab 1y ago
Both are diagrammatic but that's all the overlap there is. Feynman diagrams are a way to compute Green's functions/propagators for particle scattering amplitudes. IOW they give a pictorial representation of things you need to compute to figure out particle reactions at high energies. ZX calculus is for "simplifying" quantum circuits. I write this in quotes because the rules are pretty involved. Apart from Quantinuum, few (if any) are pushing for it. Almost no quantum computing papers are published using ZX notation. Feynman diagrams in particle physics are, however, universal. You might enjoy this write-up: https://pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tutorial_zx_calculus https://pennylane.ai/qml/demos/tutorial_zx_calculus

tlogan 1y ago

Sadly, the only way to truly “understand” quantum physics is through math. A “shut up and calculate” approach. Now, my rant. The main reason math often seems more complicated than it really is has to do with the use of strange symbols and naming conventions. It also feels like academia in the US intentionally uses non-plain language and terminology to sound smarter and exclusive. Back in socialist countries, there was a strong effort to name these concepts using “normal” language, and that really helped. When I came to US, I’d see something like Fourier transformation and think, “Why do use this strange name?” Why not call it “conversion of a signal into frequencies” (lose translation). Of course, maybe the reason is that it is easier to create a new word/term in Slavic languages.

constantcrying 1y ago
As if that is the problem with mathematics. 99.9% of mathematics isn't about how things are named. There are zero persons in the world who failed to understand the Fourier transform because of its name.
- tlogan 1y ago
  I think you are maybe right here.
aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> it is easier to create a new word/term in Slavic languages. Why is this the case?
yvdriess 1y ago
Their pictoral representation is a "shut up and calculate" notation, you can always map it 1:1 with the linear algebra formulation. It was developed as a better tool of thought for working out proofs in QC. I had the pleasure of interacting with Duncan and Bob when XZ calculus was being developed. While I did not use their calculus for my own research, it did inspire the graphical notation I doodled with. While I agree that naming a thing after a person makes it less clear at first glance, it is definitely not to intentionally sound smarter and exclusive; it's simply a handy short label for often subtle and complex things in an environment where you are constantly referring to it. New fields or domains will typically develop their own notation, as they often require new tools of thought. I'm sure you are not suggesting that Feynman diagrams or Einstein summations making things more complicated than they really are. To your point: the annoying part is when the conventions clash. In early QC works an X could be the X-gate or something else completely. A good chunk of the effort in writing or understanding a QC publication was establishing the notation. After a while notation gets a bit more consolidated as conventions get naturally established. Of course, if you move from a world that has established its own conventions, e.g. behind the iron curtain, it can be frustrating to be confronted with the many eponyms in a field where you already have deep expertise. I had similar experiences just from working in teams that were using different programming languages: "Why call it a SAX parser? That's just tree-recursive descent!"