1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{fullpage,proof,amssymb,amsmath,epsfig,stmaryrd}

3: \include{macros}

4: \bibliographystyle{alpha}

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \title{Discrete Quantum Causal Dynamics}

8: 

9: \author{

10: \begin{tabular}[t]{c}

11:         Richard F. Blute\thanks{

12: Research supported in part 

13: by NSERC.

14: }\\Ivan T. Ivanov\\

15:         {\small Department of Mathematics}\\

16:         {\small \rule{0mm}{3mm} and Statistics}\\

17:         {\small University of Ottawa}\\

18:         {\small Ottawa, Ontario, Canada}\\

19:         \texttt{rblute,iti@mathstat.uottawa.ca}\\ 

20: \end{tabular}

21: \and

22: \begin{tabular}[t]{c}

23:         Prakash Panangaden\footnotemark[1]\\ 

24:         {\small School of Computer Science}\\

25:         {\small McGill University}\\

26:         {\small Montr\'eal, Qu\'ebec, Canada}\\

27:         \texttt{prakash@cs.mcgill.ca}

28:     \end{tabular}

29: }

30: 

31: \maketitle

32: 

33: \renewcommand{\girpar}{\bindnasrepma}

34: 

35: 

36: \begin{abstract}  We give a mathematical framework to

37: describe the evolution of an open quantum systems subjected

38: to finitely many interactions with classical apparatuses.  The

39: systems in question may be composed of distinct, spatially

40: separated subsystems which evolve independently but may also

41: interact. This evolution, driven both by unitary operators

42: and measurements, is coded in a precise mathematical

43: structure in such a way that the crucial properties of

44: causality, covariance and entanglement are faithfully

45: represented.  We show how our framework may be expressed

46: using the language of (poly)categories and functors. 

47: Remarkably, important physical consequences - such as

48: covariance - follow directly from the functoriality of our

49: axioms.

50: 

51: We establish strong links between the physical

52: picture we propose and linear logic. Specifically we show

53: that the refined logical connectives of linear logic can be

54: used to describe the entanglements of subsystems in a

55: precise way. Furthermore, we show that there is a precise 

56: correspondence between the evolution of a given 

57: system and deductions in a certain formal logical system

58: based on the rules of linear logic.

59: 

60: This framework generalizes and enriches both

61: causal posets and the histories approach to quantum

62: mechanics.

63: \end{abstract}

64: 

65: 

66: 

67: \section{Introduction}  

68: 

69: We propose a uniform scheme for describing a quantum system,

70: interacting with a network of classical objects.  The

71: system in question may be composed of distinct spatially

72: separated subsystems which evolve independently, but may

73: also interact with each other at various points as well as

74: with the classical objects.  When analyzing physical

75: laboratory experiments on quantum systems, we frequently

76: abstract away from the concrete experimental setup and from

77: the particular details of the machinery involved.  What we

78: usually keep is the description of the quantum system - and

79: its spatially separated subsystems - in terms of wave

80: functions or density matrices and unitary operators as well

81: as the changes of the quantum system induced by the

82: interactions with classical devices. Crucial properties of

83: the evolution such as the causal ordering, covariance of the

84: description for different observers and quantum entanglement

85: between distinct subsystems should be completely reflected

86: in any such description.

87: 

88: The basis of our representation is the graph of events and

89: causal links between them.  An event could be one of the

90: following: a unitary evolution of some subsystem, an

91: interaction of a subsystem with a classical device (a

92: measurement) or perhaps just the coming together or

93: splitting apart of several spatially separated  subsystems. 

94: Events will be depicted as vertices of a directed graph.  The

95: edges of the graph will represent the causal relations

96: between the different events.  The vertices of the graph are

97: then naturally labelled with operators representing the

98: corresponding processes.

99: 

100: Of course, the processes of unitary evolution and

101: measurement take a certain amount of time; but we are only

102: interested in the causal relations between such events and

103: this allows us to consider them as point-like vertices on the

104: graph.  Thus we are thinking of the duration between events

105: as being longer than the duration of an event so that no

106: causal information is lost when we represent interactions as

107: events.

108: 

109: The structure described thus far reflects the kinematical

110: properties of the quantum system.  To describe the dynamics

111: we need a composition of the operators assigned to the

112: vertices of the graph.  This composition is most conveniently

113: described in terms of a composition in a specific

114: mathematical structure, namely a polycategory generated by

115: the graph.  The whole description could then be concisely

116: summarized by noticing that we have a functor from this

117: polycategory to the polycategory of Hilbert spaces.   This

118: functor captures the dynamics of the system.

119: 

120: Causal relations are made explicit and we prove that no

121: influences breaking causality arise in our scheme.  The

122: possible entanglement between spatially separated subsystems

123: - represented by distinct edges of the graph - is also

124: accounted for.  Thus, our framework allows one to represent

125: locality of interaction - i.e.\ causal influences do not

126: propagate outside the causal ``cone'' - while allowing the

127: expression of nonlocal correlations which occur when one has

128: quantum entanglement.  The tension between causal evolution

129: and quantum entanglement is resolved.

130: 

131: The categorical framework that we use is intimately

132: connected with linear logic. Linear logic was

133: originally introduced~\cite{Girard87} as a logic intended

134: for a finer analysis of the way resources are consumed

135: during the course of a proof.  This logic has had a

136: significant impact on the theory of computation as well as

137: such far-flung areas as linguistics and pure mathematics. 

138: In the present paper, the connectives of linear logic will

139: be used to express the existence or nonexistence of nonlocal

140: correlations. What we will introduce is a deductive system

141: based on the graph-theoretic structure of the system

142: that precisely picks out the spatial slices of physical

143: interest. Thus evolution of the system corresponds to 

144: logical deductions within this deductive system.

145: For an expository introduction

146: to linear logic, see the review by Girard~\cite{Girard95} or

147: the brief exposition in the appendix.

148: 

149: \subsection{Relation to other work}

150: 

151: Next we outline the relations of our proposal to some

152: recent approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity.

153: 

154: \subsubsection{Consistent and decoherent histories}

155: 

156: The \emph{consistent histories} approach to quantum

157: mechanics due to Griffiths and Omn\`es

158: \cite{Griffiths96,Omnes94} was formulated with the aim of

159: shedding new light on the conceptual difficulties of the

160: theory.  A closely related proposal with different

161: motivation is the \emph{decoherent histories} approach to

162: quantum cosmology of Gell-Mann and Hartle

163: \cite{Gell-Mann93}.  The basic ingredient in both approaches

164: is the notion of a \emph{history} of the quantum system

165: described by a sequence of projection operators in the

166: Hilbert space of the system, for a succession of times.  The

167: goal of quantum mechanics is to determine the probability of

168: an event or a sequence of events, thus one might hope to

169: assign probabilities to the histories of the quantum

170: system.  In order for the probabilities to be additive in

171: the usual sense, the histories have to be mutually

172: noninterfering.  Sets of histories obeying this condition

173: are selected with the use of a special bilinear form on

174: histories - the decoherence functional.  

175: 

176: A particular history is mathematically represented as a

177: linearly ordered sequence of projection operators in the

178: Hilbert space of the quantum mechanical system.  But the

179: linear causal ordering of the events in a history is too

180: restrictive in many experimental situations, in particular

181: when analyzing spatially separated entangled quantum

182: systems.  This issue is even more pressing for quantum

183: cosmology considerations.  An application of the histories

184: approach to quantum field theory on a curved space-time

185: \cite{Blencowe91} must assume the existence of a globally

186: hyperbolic manifold, and thus via the associated foliation,

187: a linear ordering of the histories of the quantum field.

188: 

189: Our proposal for describing the evolution of an open quantum

190: system can be considered as describing a single history in a

191: set of histories.  The important point is that events are no

192: longer linearly ordered by temporal order but, rather,

193: partially ordered with respect to the causal order.  This

194: allows one to capture the notion of causal evolution in a

195: manifestly covariant fashion.  The consistency/decoherence

196: condition for histories has an immediate generalization for

197: histories described by more general graphs as proposed here.

198: 

199: \subsubsection{Causal sets}

200: 

201: \emph{Causal sets} form the basis of an approach to quantum

202: gravity mainly advocated by R. Sorkin and collaborators

203: \cite{Bombelli87,Sorkin91}, where the basic idea is to take

204: the notion of causality as the primitive. In classical

205: relativity, the structure of the space-time manifold

206: together with a metric of Lorentzian signature determines

207: the causality relation.  An important observation is that

208: the causal structure is conformally invariant, i.e.\

209: determined by only the conformal equivalence class of the

210: metric and hence more primitive than the metric.  Various

211: proposals for quantum gravity - for example, the twistor

212: program~\cite{Penrose72} - have taken as their point of

213: departure the idea that the causal structure is more

214: fundamental than the metric structure.

215:   

216: In the causal sets approach, one takes the point of view

217: that, at the smallest length scales, spacetime is inherently

218: discrete and that the causal structure, the ``light cones'',

219: are fundamental.  This leads naturally to the idea of a

220: partially ordered set (poset for short) where the elements

221: are events and two events are related by causality.  The

222: main interest is in approximating continuous spacetimes with

223: such structures and defining processes that would generate

224: these structures, with a view to an eventual theory of

225: quantum gravity.  Though the aims are rather different the

226: issues connected with causality are closely related.

227: 

228: Causal sets are further motivated by the idea that a

229: discrete structure would avoid the singularities that plague

230: physics (both classical and quantum).  The assumption that

231: space-time should be a continuous manifold is one of the

232: ingredients that leads to the problematic singularities of

233: quantum field theory and general relativity.  In the causal

234: sets approach, space-time is a discrete structure, thus

235: possibly avoiding these singularities, the idea being that

236: at the Planck scale, continuous geometry gives way to

237: discrete geometry.  

238: 

239: One way to think of this is that one approximates a manifold

240: as one ``sprinkles'' more and more points into the causal

241: set in a uniform fashion.  More formally, one would want to

242: obtain a manifold as the categorical limit of a diagram of

243: posets and embeddings \cite{Maclane98}. Applications and

244: extensions of these ideas can be found in papers such as

245: \cite{Markopoulou00,Markopoulou97,Raptis00b}, although this

246: list is by no means exhaustive.  In our approach we are not

247: thinking about generating the spacetime through such

248: limiting processes, but the idea of a causal set is implicit

249: in our work.  For us, a finite causal set is the kinematical

250: framework on which we describe evolution and information

251: flow.

252: 

253: \subsubsection{Quantum causal histories}

254: 

255: The notion of \emph{quantum causal history} was introduced

256: by Markopoulou in \cite{Markopoulou00}.  One begins with

257: a poset (causal set) and assigns Hilbert spaces to the

258: vertices and evolution operators to sets of edges.  The

259: assignment must satisfy properties analogous to

260: functoriality.  However, within this framework, one is

261: quickly led to violations of causality - as the author

262: herself notes - essentially because the slices used are

263: ``too global.''  She mentions the possibility of working

264: with a dual view.  In fact, in our work, we take such a

265: dualized view as our starting point.  In other words we

266: assign operators representing evolution or measurement to

267: vertices and Hilbert spaces to the edges, in a way

268: satisfying (poly)functoriality.

269: 

270: \subsection{The Importance of Categories} A category can be

271: seen as a generalization of a poset in the following sense. 

272: A poset merely records that an element $x$ is less than $y$

273: but a category keeps track of the different ways in which

274: $x$ might be less than

275: $y$.  For example, in logic one might consider formulas

276: (denoted by Greek letters like $\phi$, $\psi$ etc.\ ) and

277: the relationship of provability between them.  Thus one

278: would write $\phi\vdash\psi$ to mean that starting from the

279: assumption $\phi$ one can prove $\psi$.  This gives rise to

280: a transitive and reflexive relation; if one considers

281: equivalence classes of formulas (two formulas being

282: equivalent if each can be used to prove the other) we get a

283: poset.  However, if we are interested in distinguishing

284: distinct proofs we need to keep track of the different ways

285: in which $\phi$ can be used to prove $\psi$.  Thus formulas

286: as objects and proofs as morphisms can be organized into a

287: category.  

288: 

289: In a poset when one writes $x\leq y$ then, depending on the

290: context, one is stating something like the following:

291: \begin{itemize}

292: \item $x$ is less than $y$;

293: \item $x$ precedes $y$;

294: \item $x$ implies $y$.

295: \end{itemize}

296: \noindent or any of several other possibilities.  In a

297: causal set, we have in mind that $x$ causally precedes $y$.  

298: 

299: In the present work, we are particularly interested in

300: modelling the idea that information can flow from one event

301: to another in a number of different ways, \emph{along

302: different paths or channels}.  We would like to keep track

303: of all these various independent paths.  The structure of a

304: poset is inadequate for achieving this, as we would like to

305: say that $x\leq y$ in several different ways.  This

306: naturally suggests that we pass from posets to more general

307: graphs and eventually to categories.

308: 

309: Many recent experiments feature spatially distributed

310: quantum systems. When entangled quantum subsystems come back

311: together in the same spacetime region, the description of the

312: resulting system is causally influenced by all events in the

313: paths of the subsystems.  In particular a past event could

314: influence the future events in several distinct ways through

315: different paths.  Our scheme is well adapted for analyzing

316: experiments featuring spatially separated quantum entangled

317: entities and could be used in the field of quantum

318: information processing to analyze information flow

319: situations.

320: 

321: \subsection{Contents of the present paper}

322: 

323: Section~\ref{causal} presents the basic ideas of our scheme

324: via an example. Section~\ref{dyn} discusses the basic

325: physical ideas involved.  In the first subsection we review

326: the notions of measurements and interventions. In the next

327: subsection we give the dynamical prescription in a special

328: case and in the final subsections we give the general

329: prescription and prove covariance.  In section~\ref{poly} we

330: review basic facts about polycategories and their

331: construction.  We also describe the polycategory of Hilbert spaces 

332: and intervention operators 

333: we will be using. In section~\ref{logic} we give a logical

334: presentation of polycategories and establish the connection

335: between our structures and linear logic. A functorial version of 

336: our dynamical prescription is then presented.   

337: We end with a discussion on further

338: applications of our scheme.  

339: It is our hope that this paper will

340: interest members of several different communities within

341: mathematics, logic and physics.

342:  

343: \section{Causal information flow via

344: examples}\label{causal}  

345: 

346: Consider a quantum system evolving in space-time while being

347: subjected to interactions with classical observers at a

348: number of points.  The causal and spatio-temporal relations

349: in the system will be represented by a directed acyclic

350: graph (hereafter called a \emph{dag}).  The vertices of the

351: graph - which will be drawn as boxes - represent the events

352: in the evolution of the system.  An event could be a

353: measurement by a classical observer, a local unitary

354: evolution or just a splitting of a subsystem into several

355: spatially separated subsystems, which however could still

356: share an entangled common state.  The propagation of the

357: different subsystems will be indicated by the edges of the

358: graph.

359: 

360: There are a number of causal relations between edges and

361: vertices.  A vertex $v_1$ is said to \emph{immediately

362: precede} $v_2$ if there is a (directed) edge from $v_1$ to

363: $v_2$.  We write $v_1 \leq v_2$ for the reflexive transitive

364: closure of immediate precedence; thus $v \leq v$ always

365: holds and $v_1 \leq v_2$ means that there is a

366: \emph{directed path} from $v_1$ to $v_2$ (possibly of length

367: zero).  When $v_1 \leq v_2$ we sometimes say $v_1$ is ``to

368: the past of'' $v_2$ and dually ``$v_2$ is to the future of

369: $v_1$.''  When we draw a poset we typically leave out the

370: self-loops and only draw the minimal number of edges needed

371: to infer all the others; the so-called ``Hasse diagram'' of

372: the poset. We note that  our graphs will have initial and

373: final  ``half-edges'', i.e. edges with only one endpoint. 

374: Physically we have some quantum states incoming (or

375: ``prepared'') followed by some interactions and some

376: outgoing state.

377: 

378: The relation between vertices induces a causal relation

379: between edges.  We say that an edge $e_1$ is to the past of

380: another edge $e_2$ if the terminal vertex of $e_1$, say

381: $v_1$ and the initial vertex of $e_2$, say $v_2$, satisfy

382: $v_1 \leq v_2$.  Note that we could have $v_1 = v_2$.  An

383: initial edge is not to the future of any edge, nor is a

384: final edge to the past of any other edge.  If two edges are

385: not causally related, we say that they are ``spacelike

386: separated'' or acausal.  Note that two spacelike separated

387: edges could share a common terminal vertex or a common

388: initial vertex, (but since we have a graph, not both).  A

389: \emph{space-like slice} is defined as a set of pairwise

390: acausal edges.  Henceforth, whenever we say ``slice'' we

391: will always mean ``spacelike slice.''  Note that the initial

392: (or final) edges form a spacelike slice.  We call this the

393: \emph{initial (final) slice}.

394: 

395: For example for the graph of Figure~\ref{figureN} the set of

396: edges $\{e_c, e_d, e_e\}$ form a space-like slice.  Another

397: example is the set $\{e_f, e_d, e_e\}$.  The edges $e_a$ and

398: $e_b$ form the initial slice.   The edges $e_a,e_b,e_f$ and

399: $e_g$ are half-edges, with $e_a$ and $e_b$ initial, and

400: $e_f$ and $e_g$ final.

401: 

402: \begin{figure}[htb]

403: \begin{center}

404: \input{figure1}

405: \end{center}

406: \caption{}

407: \label{figureN}

408: \end{figure}

409: 

410: Associated with any edge $e_i$ is an observer who has access

411: to a subsystem of the complete quantum system. Thus the

412: edges represent local information. Each edge $e_i$ is

413: assigned a density matrix $\rho_i$ in a Hilbert space

414: $\hi_i$\footnote{Throughout the paper, we assume that the

415: graph and the dimensions of all Hilbert spaces are

416: finite.}.  The density matrix $\rho_i$ describes the

417: knowledge about the quantum system available to the local

418: observer at the edge $e_i$.  More generally density matrices

419: will be associated to space-like slices.  For a space-like

420: slice consisting of edges $\{e_{i_1}, \dots e_{i_p}\}$, the

421: assigned density matrix will be denoted $\rho_{i_1, \dots

422: i_p}$.  This density matrix describes the subsystem of the

423: whole quantum system for that space-like slice.  Every

424: space-like slice has also a Hilbert space which is the

425: tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the edges forming

426: the slice.  However the density matrix associated with the

427: slice is not in general a tensor product of the density

428: matrices on the edges. If it were, we could not capture

429: non-local quantum correlations.

430: 

431: The graph of Figure~\ref{figureN}, represents a quantum

432: system $\mathit{Q}$ which starts evolving from a state in

433: which $\mathit{Q}$ consists of two spatially separated

434: subsystems $\mathit{Q}_a$ and $\mathit{Q}_b$ described by

435: density matrices $\rho_a$ and $\rho_b$ respectively, in

436: Hilbert spaces

437: ${\hi}_a$ and ${\hi}_b$.  The initial edges $e_a$ and $e_b$

438: form the initial slice in this simple system.  We will

439: follow the convention that if the initial slice consists of

440: several edges, the initial state of the whole system is a

441: tensor product state, i.e.  the subsystems are not

442: entangled. For the above example, $\psi_{init} = \psi_a

443: \otimes \psi_b$ and $\rho_a =

444: \proj{\psi_a}$ and $\rho_b = \proj{\psi_b}$. Entangled

445: subsystems on distinct edges will always have at least one

446: event in the common past.  Thus we always explicitly

447: represent the interaction which caused the entanglement.

448: 

449: Each vertex $v_i$ of the graph is labelled with an operator

450: $T_i$ which describes the process taking place at the

451: corresponding event.  The operator $T_i$ at a given event

452: $v_i$ takes density matrices on the tensor product of

453: Hilbert spaces living on the incoming edges at $v_i$ to

454: density matrices on the tensor product Hilbert space of

455: outgoing edges.  The process at a vertex could be an

456: \emph{intervention}\footnote{Interventions are generalized

457: measurements where a quantum subsystem could be

458: discarded~\cite{Peres00}.  This will be discussed more fully

459: below.} corresponding to a positive operator-valued measure

460: (POVM)~\cite{Nielsen00,Peres95} or a unitary

461: transformation.  Or instead of an external or unitary action

462: there could be several quantum subsystems that come together

463: and then split apart, possibly in a different way.  We will

464: consider this last case as a particular instance of a

465: unitary evolution with identity evolution operator. As a

466: simple example, in the case of an event corresponding to

467: unitary evolution by a unitary operator

468: $U$, we have the usual expression:

469: 

470: \begin{equation}\label{inop}

471: \rho^{in} \ \mapsto \ \rho^{out} \ = \

472: U \rho^{in} U^\dagger

473: \end{equation}  

474: 

475: The general expression for an operator associated to an

476: event will be discussed fully in the next section, see

477: equation (\ref{inap}).

478: 

479: Here we will discuss some of the conditions such a dynamical

480: scheme has to satisfy in order to reflect causality and

481: other physical properties of the quantum system.  Causality

482: is the condition that the density matrix on a given edge

483: should not depend on the actions performed at vertices which

484: are acausal to this edge or are in its future.  For example,

485: referring back to Figure~\ref{figureN}, we would like any

486: quantum evolution rule to say that the density matrix at

487: $e_g$ is unaffected by the intervention at $v_3$ or the

488: density matrix at $e_f$ is unaffected by the intervention at

489: $v_2$.  A general unitary evolution between the states of

490: two space-like slices is easily shown to violate this

491: condition.  Therefore we need to incorporate some sort of

492: locality condition into the evolution scheme.

493: 

494: It is not hard to formulate such an evolution scheme.  For

495: example, one could work with the dual picture and have

496: evolution occur along edges with density matrices at the

497: vertices.  It is not hard to formulate rules which would

498: enforce causality properly in such a framework. 

499: Unfortunately this rules out quantum correlations across

500: spatially separated subsystems. Thus, the evolution scheme

501: cannot be too local because entangled subsystems of the

502: quantum system could fly apart and later come together at a

503: vertex.

504: 

505: Consider the system shown in Figure~\ref{figureD}.

506: \begin{figure}[htb]

507: \begin{center}

508: \input{figure2}

509: \end{center}

510: \caption{}

511: \label{figureD}

512: \end{figure} The quantum system represented in this graph is

513: as follows.  The system is prepared in a state $\psi_a$ as

514: indicated by the density matrix $\rho_a =

515: \proj{\psi_a}$ on the incoming edge.  At the vertex $v_1$

516: the system splits into two spatially separated subsystems on

517: the edges $e_b$ and $e_c$ which, in general, are still

518: described by a global entangled state.  The local

519: transformations $T_2$ and $T_3$ will, in general, preserve

520: the entanglement and the global state will be still

521: entangled on the space-like slice

522: $\{e_d, e_e\}$.  The two subsystems come together at the

523: vertex $v_4$.  The two local density matrices $\rho_d$ and

524: $\rho_e$ are not sufficient to reconstruct the entangled

525: state of the system described by $\rho_f$.  The off-diagonal

526: terms of $\rho_f$ are not reflected in the local density

527: matrices, $\rho_d$ and $\rho_e$.  We need to include

528: information about the history of the state on the space-like

529: slice $\{e_d, e_e\}$ in order to reconstruct the global

530: state.  One possibility is to work with global space-like

531: slices, and show that the scheme is generally covariant in

532: the sense of being slice-independent.  In our functorial

533: approach, certain preferred (not necessarily global)

534: spacelike slices account for all entanglement.

535: 

536: The rules for constructing and labeling the graphs given so

537: far reflect the kinematics of the quantum system. 

538: Specifying the dynamics amounts to a prescription for how to

539: obtain the density matrices on every edge from the density

540: matrix on the initial slice and the operators at the

541: vertices of the graph.  This prescription will be given

542: below in section~\ref{dyn}.

543: 

544: \section{Dynamics on Graphs}\label{dyn}

545: \subsection{Measurements and Interventions} We begin with

546: some standard material on density matrices and positive

547: operator-valued measures (POVMs)

548: \cite{Nielsen00,Preskill98}, before introducing Peres'

549: notion of

550: \emph{intervention operator} \cite{Peres00}.

551: 

552: Density matrices are used for describing quantum subsystems

553: which are part of larger quantum systems. 

554: In particular a local observer who has

555: access only to a subsystem $Q_1$ of a quantum system $Q$

556: will associate a density matrix to his subsystem.  Let

557: $\hi$ be the Hilbert space of state vectors of $Q$.

558: 

559: If the overall system $Q$ is in a state described by a wave

560: function

561: $\ket{\psi} \in \hi$, then its density matrix is the

562: operator $\rho =

563: \proj{\psi} \in End(\hi)$.  Since $Q$ can be decomposed into

564: subsystems, its Hilbert space is a tensor product $\hi =

565: \hi_{1} \otimes \hi_{2}$ of the Hilbert space $\hi_{1}$ of

566: the subsystem $Q_1$ and the Hilbert space

567: $\hi_{2}$ describing the remaining degrees of freedom.  The

568: density matrix of the subsystem $Q_1$ is then given by a

569: partial trace with respect the Hilbert space $\hi_{2}$:

570: $\rho_{1} = Tr^{\hi_2} \rho$.  If $\hi$ is any Hilbert

571: space, then the space of all density matrices will be denoted

572: $\mathsf{DM}(\hi)$. 

573: 

574: 

575: The \emph{measurement} of a property of a quantum system

576: involves interaction with a classical apparatus.  When a

577: classical apparatus measures an observable of a quantum

578: subsystem sitting inside a larger system the appropriate

579: mathematical formalism for such generalized measurement is

580: that of \emph{positive operator-valued measure} or POVM. Let

581: the possible outcomes of the measurement be labelled by the

582: letter $\mu

583: \in \{1 \dots N\}$.  The measurement involves interaction

584: between the apparatus and the quantum system, described by a

585: unitary operator.  The classical apparatus has a preferred

586: basis of states indexed by $\mu$.  After the measurement,

587: the apparatus appears in one these preferred states.  Since

588: we are only interested in describing our quantum subsystem

589: $Q_1$, we trace out all the remaining degrees of freedom. 

590: Effectively to every outcome

591: $\mu$ is associated an operator $F_{\mu}$.  The density

592: matrix of $Q_1$ after the measurement with outcome $\mu$ is

593: given by

594: \begin{equation} 

595: \rho'_{\mu} = \frac{1}{p_{\mu}} F_{\mu} \rho

596: F^{\dagger}_{\mu} 

597: \end{equation} where $\rho$ is the density matrix before the

598: measurement and $p_{\mu}$ is a  numerical factor normalizing

599: the resulting density matrix to unit trace.   Consider the

600: family of positive operators $E_{\mu} = F^{\dagger}_{\mu}

601: F_{\mu}

602: $.  For a generalized measurement these have to satisfy the

603: condition 

604: $\sum_{\mu} E_{\mu} = I$.  The probability $p_{\mu}$ for

605: obtaining a  measurement result labelled by $\mu$ is then

606: given by: $p_{\mu} =  Tr E_{\mu} \rho$.  This justifies the

607: name POVM.  

608: 

609: Even more general measurement processes could be considered

610: if the observer  discards part of the quantum system during

611: the process of measurement.   The appropriate mathematical

612: formalism for describing these generalized  measurements is

613: that of {\it intervention operators} \cite{Peres00}.   In

614: the process of measurement, the density matrix changes

615: according to:

616: \begin{equation}\label{inap}

617: \rho'_{\mu} \ = \

618: \frac{1}{p_{\mu}} \sum_m A_{\mu m} \ \rho \ A_{\mu

619: m}^{\dagger}

620: \end{equation} The families of maps $A_{\mu m}$ now act in

621: general from one Hilbert space to another, i.e for fixed

622: $\mu$ and $m$ they correspond to rectangular matrices.

623: 

624: The label $\mu$ again distinguishes the set of possible

625: outcomes and the letter $m$ labels the degrees of freedom

626: discarded during this generalized measurement.  Since the maps

627: $A_{\mu m}$ come from measurements realized by unitary

628: operator on some larger Hilbert space they again satisfy a

629: completeness condition: $\sum_{\mu m} A^{\dagger}_{\mu m}

630: A_{\mu m} = I$, where $I$ is the identity operator in the

631: appropriate Hilbert space. Notice that if the labels $\mu$

632: and $m$ are absent in (\ref{inap}) the equation describes

633: unitary evolution.  Since the events we consider are

634: generalized measurements or unitary evolutions, equation

635: (\ref{inap}) is the appropriate mathematical representation

636: of those processes in full generality. Such maps

637: (\ref{inap}) on density matrices will be called {\it

638: intervention operators}.

639: 

640: \subsection{The dynamical prescription}\label{dyna}

641: 

642: We are now ready to start discussing the dynamics of a

643: quantum system represented by a dag $G$.  Dynamics will be

644: described by supposing that we are given a density matrix on

645: the initial spacelike slice, and then giving a prescription

646: for calculating the density matrices of future spacelike

647: slices. In essence, we are propagating the initial data

648: throughout the system. 

649: 

650: To each vertex $i\in G$ will be assigned an operator $T_i$,

651: and to each edge $e_j$ will be assigned a Hilbert space

652: $\hi_j$.  We note that all incoming (or outgoing) edges of a

653: given vertex are pairwise acausal and thus form a spacelike

654: slice.  Thus there will be a density matrix

655: $\rho_i^{in}$ associated to the slice of the incoming

656: edges.  Then one obtains the density matrix for the slice of

657: the outgoing edges by:

658: \[ \rho_i^{in}= T_i (\rho_i^{out}).\]

659: 

660: Notice that more generally, for two acausal vertices, the sets of

661: incoming or outgoing edges are pairwise acausal.  Thus, the

662: associated intervention operators will act on different

663: Hilbert spaces and hence commute.

664: 

665: We begin with an illustrative example.  Consider  the dag of

666: Figure~\ref{fig3}.  

667: \begin{figure}

668: \begin{center}

669: \epsfig{file=figure3.eps}

670: \end{center}

671: \caption{}

672: \label{fig3}

673: \end{figure} Given the state on the initial slice, the

674: operators at the events propagate the state to the future. 

675: In the example of Figure~\ref{fig3} we have:

676: $\rho_c = T_1 (\rho_a)$,\ $\rho_{fde} = T_2 (\rho_b)$. 

677: However the next intervention operator $T_3$ must act on the

678: so far undefined density matrix

679: $\rho_{cd}$.  $T_3$ takes density matrices on

680: $\hi_c\ox\hi_d$ to those on

681: $\hi_g\ox\hi_h$.  By extending 

682: $T_3$ with the appropriate identity operators, we

683: can view it as a map from

684: $\mathsf{DM}(\hi_c\ox\hi_d\ox\hi_e\ox\hi_f)$ to

685: $\mathsf{DM}(\hi_e\ox\hi_f\ox\hi_g\ox\hi_h)$.  Then we can

686: define the density matrix on another space-like slice,

687: namely $\rho_{fghe} = T_3 (\rho_c \otimes \rho_{fde})$. 

688: Similarly $\rho_{fdi} = T_4 (\rho_{fde})$ and so on. 

689: Starting from density matrices on the initial edges and

690: using the intervention operators associated with the

691: vertices - extended with identities as needed - we obtain

692: density matrices on specific space-like slices.

693: 

694: The above inductive process for propagating density matrices

695: can be applied to any system described by a dag.  However,

696: the procedure only gives the density matrices for certain

697: spacelike slices within the dag.  For example, this

698: procedure does not yet yield a matrix for the slice $de$. 

699: To calculate such density matrices, we will also have to

700: make use of the trace operator.  Before extending the

701: procedure to such slices, we first consider those for which

702: the above process is sufficient.  We call these slices

703: \textit{locative}.

704: \begin{defin}{\rm Let $G$ be a dag, and $L$ a slice of $G$. 

705: Consider the set of all vertices $V$ which are to the past

706: of some edge in $L$.  Let $I$ be the set of initial edges in

707: the past of $L$.  Consider all paths of maximal length

708: beginning at an element of $I$ and only going through

709: vertices of $V$.  Then $L$ is \emph{locative} if all such

710: paths end with an edge in $L$.}

711: \end{defin} In our example, the locative slices are the

712: following:

713: $$a, b, ab, c, cb, def, adef, cdef, efgh, adfi, cdfi, fghe,

714: fghi, fgk, hej, hij, jk$$ while, for example, $de$ is not

715: locative.  Note that the fact that maximal slices are always

716: locative follows immediately from the definition of locative.

717: 

718: We now describe the general rule for calculating the density

719: matrices on locative slices.  Associated with each locative

720: slice $L$ is the set $I$ of initial edges in the past of

721: $L$.  We choose a family of slices that begins with $I$ and

722: ends with $L$ in the following way.  Consider the set of

723: vertices $V$ between the edges in $I$ and the edges in $L$. 

724: Because $L$ is locative we know that propagating slices

725: forwards through the vertices in

726: $V$ will reproduce $L$.  Let $M\subset V$ be such that the

727: vertices in $M$ are minimal in $V$ with respect to causal

728: ordering.  We choose arbitrarily any vertex $u$ in $M$,

729: remove the incoming edges of $u$ and add the outgoing edges

730: of $u$ to the set $I$ obtaining a new set of edges $I_1$. It

731: is clear that $I_1$ is spacelike and locative.  Proceeding

732: inductively in this fashion we obtain a sequence of slices

733: $I=I_0,I_1,I_2,\ldots,I_n = L$, where $n$ is the cardinality

734: of $V$.  Of course, this family of slices is far from unique.

735: 

736: The dynamics is obtained as follows.  Recall that the states

737: on initial edges are assumed not to be entangled with each

738: other so that one can obtain the density matrix on any set

739: of initial edges, in particular $I$, by a tensor product. 

740: Let $\rho_0$ be the density matrix on $I$.  We look at the

741: vertex $u$ that was used to go from $I$ to $I_1$ and apply

742: the intervention operator $T$ assigned to this vertex -

743: possibly augmented with identity operators as in the example

744: above.  Proceeding inductively along the family of slices,

745: we obtain the density matrix $\rho_n$ on $L$.

746: 

747: The important point now is that $\rho_n$ does not depend on

748: the choice of slicing used in going from $I$ to $L$.  This

749: can be argued as follows. Suppose we have a locative slice

750: $S$ and two vertices $u$ and $v$ which are both causally

751: minimal above $S$ and acausal with respect to each other.

752: Then we have four slices to consider, $S$, $S_u$, $S_v$ and

753: $S_{uv}$ where by $S_u$ we mean the slice obtained from $S$

754: by removing the incoming edges of $u$ and adding the

755: outgoing edges of $u$ to $S$ and similarly for the others. 

756: It is clear, in this case, that the intervention operators

757: assigned to $u$ and to $v$ commute and the density matrix

758: computed on

759: $S_{uv}$ is independent of whether we evolved along the

760: sequence

761: $S\to S_u\to S_{uv}$ or $S\to S_v\to S_{uv}$.  Now when we

762: constructed our slices at each stage we had the choice

763: between different minimal vertices to add to the slice.  But

764: such vertices are clearly pairwise acausal and hence, by the

765: previous argument applied inductively, the evolution

766: prescription is independent of all possible choices.

767: 

768: So far we have defined density matrices on locative slices

769: only.  To define density matrices on general spacelike

770: slices we will need to consider partial tracing operations.

771: 

772: \subsection{General Slices}

773: 

774: Recall that when one has subsystems $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ of a

775: quantum system

776: $Q$, the Hilbert space for $Q$ may be decomposed as

777: $\hi_1\ox\hi_2$ where

778: $\hi_i$ represents $Q_i$.  The density matrix for $Q_1$ is

779: obtained by tracing over $\hi_2$.  To obtain a candidate for

780: the density matrix of a spacelike slice $L$, we should find

781: a locative slice $M$ that contains $L$ and trace over the

782: Hilbert spaces on edges in $M\setminus L$.  Such a locative

783: slice $M$ always exists because maximal spacelike slices are

784: always locative.  $M$ is not unique however, and thus - as

785: we did for locative slices - we must show that different

786: choices give the same result.  To simplify the notation we

787: will discuss the case of density matrices associated with

788: single edges.  The case of a general space-like slice is

789: similar.

790: 

791: Consider an edge $e_i$ in a graph $G$.  Let $V_i =

792: \{v_{i_1}, \dots, v_{i_p}\}$ be the set of vertices in the

793: past of $e_i$.  Let $I_i =

794: \{e_{i_1}, \dots, e_{i_q}\}$ be the set of initial edges in

795: the past of

796: $e_i$.  Constructing a sequence of slices by incrementally

797: incorporating the vertices of $V_i$ in a manner similar to

798: what we did in the previous subsection, we get a locative

799: slice $M_i$ containing $e_i$.  Starting with the density

800: matrices on the edges of $I_i$ and applying the operators

801: associated with the vertices of $V_i$, we obtain the density

802: matrix on the locative slice $M_i$.  It is clear that $M_i$

803: is in an evident sense the minimal locative slice containing $e_i$. 

804: 

805: \begin{defin}{\rm We shall refer to $M_i$ as the \emph{least

806: locative slice} of the edge $e_i$.}  

807: \end{defin}   

808: 

809: Let the least locative slice $M_i$ of an edge $e_i$ consist

810: of edges $\{e_i, e_{j_1}, \dots, e_{j_r}\}$.  The density

811: matrix $\rho_{i,j_1,

812: \dots, j_r}$ on $M_i$ is an element of the space $\ind(\hi_i

813: \otimes

814: \hi_{j_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \hi_{j _r})$.  Let $Tr^{j_1

815: \dots j_r}$ be the partial trace operation $\ind(\hi_i

816: \otimes \hi_{j_1} \otimes \dots

817: \otimes \hi_{j_r}) \rightarrow \ind(\hi_i)$.

818: \begin{defin}[Density matrix associated with an

819: edge]\label{rho}\emph{The density matrix $\rho_i$ at the

820: edge $e_i$ is defined to be:

821: \begin{equation}

822: \rho_i \ = \ Tr^{j_1 \dots j_r} \ \rho_{i,j_1, \dots, j_r} .

823: \end{equation}}

824: \end{defin} If $M_i$ consists of the single edge $e_i$, then

825: no tracing is  done.

826: 

827: \begin{rem}

828: The causality condition for evolving the initial data on $G$

829: requires that the density matrix associated with a given

830: edge $e_i$ depends only on the initial data in the past of

831: $e_i$ and only those interventions to the past of $e_i$. 

832: The density matrix $\rho_i$ as defined in~\ref{rho}

833: satisfies this requirement by construction and so our

834: prescription for dynamical evolution is causal.

835: \end{rem}

836: 

837: In general, the edge $e_i$ is contained in many locative

838: slices and we could just as well have defined $\rho_i$ by

839: tracing over the complimentary degrees of freedom in any of 

840: these locative slices.  Independence of the resulting

841: density matrices  is the discrete analog of Lorenz (or

842: general) covariance in our framework.   To clarify the

843: discussion consider the quantum system represented by the

844: graph on Figure~\ref{figureF}.

845: 

846: \begin{figure}[htb]

847: \begin{center}

848: \input{figure4}

849: \end{center}

850: \caption{}

851: \label{figureF}

852: \end{figure}

853: 

854: Let the initial $\rho_a$ be the density matrix of a

855: maximally entangled state of two spin $1/2$ subsystems:

856: $\rho_a = |\psi_a\rangle\langle\psi_a|$, where $\psi_a =

857: 1/\sqrt{2} \ (\psau \otimes \psbu + \psad \otimes \psbd)$. 

858: At the first vertex the two subsystems separate with no

859: classical intervention.  Therefore $\rho_{bc} = \rho_a$. 

860: The slice

861: $\{e_b, e_c\}$ is the least locative slice for the edge $e_b$

862: and we can compute the density matrix associated to this

863: edge: $\rho_b = T r^{c} \rho_{bc} = 1/2 \ (\psauk \psaub +

864: \psadk \psadb)$.  Next, let the intervention at the second

865: vertex be a measurement on the corresponding subsystem with

866: the result that the spin was found to be in the state

867: $\psbu$.  The intervention operator is the projection

868: operator on this state of the second subsystem: $T (\rho) =

869: 2\ P_2^{\uparrow} \rho P_2^{\uparrow}$.  We obtain:

870: $\rho_{bd} = T (\rho_{bc}) = (\psauk \otimes \ \psbuk)

871: (\psaub \ \otimes

872: \psbub)$.  If now we attempt to trace $\rho_{bd}$ over the

873: subsystem associated with the edge $e_d$, we will obtain an

874: incorrect result for $\rho_b$, namely $\psauk \psaub$.   The

875: resolution is well known.  Since a classical observer

876: located on the edge $e_b$ is not aware of the result of the

877: intervention at the second vertex, for him the density

878: matrix $\rho_{bd}$ has evolved from $\rho_{bc}$ by an

879: operator $\tilde T$ which includes all possible outcomes of

880: the measurement:

881: $\tilde\rho_{bd} = {\tilde T} (\rho_{bc}) =

882: \sum_{s=\uparrow,\downarrow} P_2^s \rho_{bc} P_2^s$. 

883: Tracing out the

884: $d$-subsystem in the expression for $\tilde\rho_{bd}$, we

885: obtain the correct expression for $\rho_b$, namely  

886: $\rho_b = 1/2 \ (\psauk \psaub + \psadk \psadb)$.

887: 

888: Now we give the general prescription for computing the

889: density matrix on  an edge $e_i$ from an arbitrary locative

890: slice $L$ containing this edge.   We first compute a density

891: matrix $\tilde\rho_L$ for the slice $L$. But note this is

892: not the density matrix of definition~\ref{rho}. 

893:  

894: This density matrix is computed from the initial data by

895: applying intervention operators for the events in the past

896: of $L$ as before.  But now, we will consider two types of

897: events in the past of $L$, those that are in the past of

898: $e_i$ and those that are not.  For the events that are in

899: the past of the edge $e_i$, we use our regular intervention

900: operators without a summation over the set of possible

901: outcomes: $\rho \mapsto 1/p_{\mu} \sum_m A_{\mu m} \rho

902: A_{\mu m}^\dagger$.  We do not sum over the outcomes in this

903: case precisely because the outcome is in fact known at

904: $e_i$.  For the events that are in the past of the slice $L$

905: but not in the past of the edge $e_i$, we use operators

906: which sum over all possible outcomes: $\rho \mapsto

907: \sum_{\mu m} A_{\mu m} \rho A_{\mu m}^\dagger$. This time,

908: of course, the summation is there because the outcome cannot

909: be known at $e_i$ since these events are not in the past of

910: $e_i$.  

911: 

912: After we have obtained $\tilde\rho_L$, we trace out those

913: subsystems associated with edges in $L$ except for $e_i$ to

914: obtain the density matrix

915: $\tilde\rho_i$.  This is the density matrix associated with

916: our preferred edge $e_i$, as computed from the slice $L$. 

917: The independence of the result on the choice of $L$ is

918: expressed in the following proposition:

919: 

920: \begin{prop}[Covariance] Let $e_i$ be an edge in the dag

921: $G$.  The density matrix

922: $\rho_i$ associated  with the edge $e_i$ does not depend on

923: the choice of locative slice used to compute it.  

924: \end{prop}

925: 

926: \begin{proof} \\ We have already demonstrated that to any

927: edge $e_i$,  there is a unique least locative slice $M_i$

928: containing $e_i$.  Let

929: $\rho_i$ be the density matrix for the edge $e_i$ as

930: computed from the least locative slice and let

931: $\tilde\rho_i$ be the density matrix for the same edge but

932: computed from an arbitrary locative slice, say $L$,

933: containing $e_i$.  We will demonstrate the lemma by showing

934: that

935: $\rho_i=\tilde\rho_i$.

936: 

937: First note that $M_i$ being less than $L$ implies that there

938: is a set $V$ of events between $M_i$ and $L$.  The plan is

939: to remove the effect of these events and show that, at each

940: stage, the density matrix is unaffected.  We begin by

941: picking a maximal event, say $k$, with the intervention

942: operator

943: $T_k$.  Since $k$ is maximal and hence acausal with all

944: other maximal elements of $V$, as well as with all the

945: maximal elements to the past of

946: $e_i$, the intervention operator at $k$ commutes with all

947: the intervention operators at the vertices just mentioned. 

948: Thus, we can choose the intervention operator $T_k$ to be

949: the outermost, i.e.\ the density matrix

950: $\rho_L$ obtained by propagating to $L$ can be written as

951: \[ \rho_L = T_k(\rho') \] where $\rho'$ is the density

952: matrix on the (locative) slice obtained by removing the

953: edges to the future of $k$ from $L$ and adding the edges to

954: the past of $k$.  Using the explicit general form for an

955: intervention operator,

956: \[ \rho_L =

957: \sum_{\mu,m}A^{(k)}_{\mu,m}\rho'A^{\dagger(k)}_{\mu,m}.\] In

958: order to obtain the density matrix $\tilde\rho_i$, we trace

959: over all Hilbert spaces associated with edges in $L$ except

960: $e_i$.  In particular, we trace over the outgoing edges

961: associated with $k$.  Now we can use the cyclic property of

962: trace and rewrite the expression for $\tilde\rho_i$ as,

963: \[ \tilde\rho_i =

964: Tr(\sum_{\mu,m}A^{\dagger(k)}_{\mu,m}A^{(k)}_{\mu,m}\rho').

965: \] Now we use the identity

966: \[ \sum_{\mu m} A_{\mu m}^\dagger A_{\mu m}= I \] to get

967: \[ \tilde\rho_i = Tr(\rho').\]

968: 

969: We have eliminated the effect of the intervention operator at

970: $k$. Proceeding inductively we can peel off the intervention

971: operators associated with the rest of the vertices in $V$,

972: thus

973: \[ \tilde\rho_i = \rho_i.\]

974: \end{proof}

975: 

976: A similar argument for the case of a simple system

977: represented by the dag in Figure~\ref{figureD} is contained

978: in~\cite{Peres00b}.

979: 

980: \section{Polycategories}\label{poly}

981: 

982: We now wish to give a more axiomatic treatment of the above 

983: construction. This will require the use of several concepts from 

984: category theory and logic, which we now present.

985: 

986: We begin by introducing the algebraic or categorical concepts

987: necessary for our formulation of the dynamics of quantum

988: information flow.  While it might seem that these structures

989: are excessively abstract, this level of abstraction has

990: several advantages.  First, it provides a great deal of

991: generality.  Our definition can be applied in many contexts,

992: in particular it may be applied in situations other than the

993: sorts of information flow considered here.  Second, the two

994: crucial properties of interest, causality and covariance,

995: now become straightforward consequences of the functoriality

996: of our axioms.

997: 

998: \subsection{Posets, directed graphs and categories}

999: 

1000: For comparison, we recall briefly that a poset is a set $P$

1001: together with a binary relation on $P$ (i.e.  a subset of

1002: $P\times P$) denoted $\leq$ that satisfies the properties of

1003: antisymmetry, transitivity and reflexivity.  It is a natural

1004: generalization of this idea to consider \emph{directed

1005: graphs}.  A directed graph is simply a set $D$, the set of

1006: \emph{vertices} or \emph{nodes}, together with a binary

1007: relation $R$ on $D$.   No properties of $R$ are required in

1008: the definition of directed graph.  In particular there is no

1009: implicit transitivity assumed.  A directed graph has a

1010: natural geometric visualization.  One considers the nodes as

1011: points in the plane, and if $x$ and $y$ are nodes with

1012: $\langle x,y\rangle\in R$,  we draw an arrow from $x$ to $y$.

1013: 

1014: As already remarked, the nodes of our directed graph will be

1015: events, and arrows will represent propagation from one event

1016: to another.  To avoid temporal loops, we will add the single

1017: requirement that our directed graphs be \emph{acyclic},

1018: i.e.  there does not exist a sequence of edges

1019: $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n$ such that for all

1020: $i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n-1\}$, we have

1021: $\langle x_i,x_{i+1}\rangle\in R$,  and $x_1=x_n$.  This of

1022: course corresponds to there being no directed cycles in the

1023: geometric representation.  Hereafter, a directed acyclic

1024: graph will be called a \emph{dag}.  Note that every poset,

1025: considered as a directed graph, is acyclic.  This is a

1026: consequence of transitivity and antisymmetry.  But dags are

1027: a genuine generalization of posets.  

1028: 

1029: This difference will become more apparent when we consider

1030: the space of

1031: \emph{paths}.  In a poset all the paths are already included

1032: (even if they are not explicitly drawn in the visualization

1033: of the poset).  When we consider paths through a dag we may

1034: have multiple paths between the same two vertices.  These

1035: multiple paths represent different ways that information

1036: flowed from one point to another, thus, we must regard them

1037: as distinct.  Therefore - unlike the case with posets - we

1038: do not just want to regard the resulting structure as a

1039: binary relation, rather, we want to view it as a category.

1040: 

1041: It is natural to associate to any dag $D$, indeed to any

1042: directed graph, a category.  We first briefly remind the

1043: reader of the basic definitions. See \cite{Maclane98} for a

1044: more extensive introduction.

1045: 

1046: \begin{defin} 

1047: \rm{ A \textbf{category} \textsf{C} consists of two

1048: collections, the collection of {\it objects} and the

1049: collection of {\it morphisms}. Each morphism is assigned a

1050: domain and codomain, both being objects of

1051: \textsf{C}.  Typically we write $f\colon A\rarr B$ to mean

1052: $f$ is a morphism with domain $A$ and codomain $B$.  To

1053: every object $A$, we have a special morphism, the identity

1054: $id\colon A\rarr A$.  There is also a composition law which

1055: takes morphisms $f\colon A\rarr B$ and $g\colon B\rarr C$

1056: and returns a morphism $gf\colon A\rarr C$.  All this data

1057: must satisfy several evident equations, as described for

1058: example in 

1059: \cite{Maclane98}. We also remind the reader that a

1060: \textbf{functor} is a morphism of categories, i.e.  a

1061: functor, denoted $F\colon C\rarr D$ consists of a function

1062: taking objects $c\in C$ to objects $F(c)\in D$ and taking

1063: morphisms $f\colon c\rarr d$ in $C$ to morphisms $F(f)\colon

1064: F(c)\rarr F(d)$.  A functor must preserve identities and

1065: composition. } \end{defin}

1066: 

1067: To each dag $D$, we associate a category $\mathsf{C}(D)$. 

1068: This is the category \emph{freely generated} by the dag. 

1069: See for example \cite{Maclane98} Chapter 2, for a detailed

1070: description.  The objects of our free category will be the

1071: vertices of $D$.  If $x$ and $y$ are vertices, a morphism

1072: from $x$ to $y$ is a directed path in our dag.  Identities are

1073: paths of length 0, and composition is given by concatenation

1074: of paths.  The verification of the axioms for a category is

1075: straightforward.

1076: 

1077: One of the key points of our work is that we are proposing

1078: passing from posets to categories.  As we have remarked

1079: before, categories are more general than posets, indeed

1080: posets correspond to a degenerate class of categories in

1081: which there is at most one morphism between any two

1082: objects.  The richer structure of categories allows us to

1083: retain more information about the system.  Intuitively, the

1084: use of categories allows us not merely to note that $x$

1085: causally precedes

1086: $y$, but to keep track of the different ways that $x$ may

1087: evolve into $y$.   To make this more precise, we need

1088: a slightly different construction on dags, which will 

1089: yield polycategories as opposed to categories.  

1090: 

1091: \subsection{Polycategories}

1092: 

1093: Roughly speaking, the distinction between categories and

1094: polycategories is the following: A category allows one to

1095: have morphisms which go from single objects to single

1096: objects.  A polycategory allows one to have morphisms from

1097: lists of objects to lists of objects.  A typical morphism in

1098: a polycategory (hereafter called a polymorphism) would be

1099: denoted:

1100: 

1101: \[ f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m\]

1102: 

1103: There are a number of contexts in which such a generalization would be

1104: useful.  Before giving the formal definition, we discuss two such contexts.

1105: The first arises in algebra.  Consider Hilbert spaces, vector spaces or any

1106: class of modules in which one can form a tensor product.  Then we can

1107: define a polycategory as follows.  Our objects will be such spaces, and a

1108: morphism of the above form will be a linear function:

1109: 

1110: \[ f\colon A_1\ox A_2\ox\ldots\ox A_n\lrarr B_1\ox

1111: B_2\ox\ldots\ox B_m\]

1112: 

1113: Thus polycategories have proven to be quite useful in the analysis of

1114: (ordinary) categories in which one can form tensor products of objects.

1115: Indeed this was the original motivation for their definition.  See

1116: \cite{Lambek69,Szabo75}.  Categories in which one has a reasonable notion

1117: of tensor product are called \emph{monoidal}, and have recently figured

1118: prominently in several areas of mathematical physics, most notably

1119: topological quantum field theory \cite{Atiyah90,Baez95}.

1120: 

1121: The second well-known application of polycategories is to

1122: logic.  Typically logicians are interested in the analysis of

1123: \emph{sequents}, written:

1124: \[ A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\vdash B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m\]

1125: \noindent Now 

1126: $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n,B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$  represent formulas

1127: in some logical system.  We say that the above sequent holds

1128: if and only if the conjunction of $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n$

1129: logically entails the disjunction of $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$. 

1130: There is a well-established correspondence between the sort

1131: of logical entailments considered here and categorical

1132: structures.  See for example

1133: \cite{Lambek86}.

1134: 

1135: But notice the difference between this and our first

1136: example.  When talking about vector spaces, the ``commas''

1137: on the left and right were both interpreted as the tensor

1138: product.  However in the logic example, we have two

1139: different interpretations.  Commas on the left are treated

1140: as conjunction, while commas on the right are treated as

1141: disjunction.  Thus for a proper categorical interpretation

1142: of polycategories, one needs categories with two monoidal

1143: structures which interact in an appropriate fashion.  Such

1144: categories are called \emph{linearly} or \emph{weakly

1145: distributive}, a notion due to Cockett and Seely

1146: \cite{Cockett97,Blute96}. Linearly distributive categories

1147: are the appropriate framework for considering a specific

1148: logical system known as \emph{linear logic}, introduced by

1149: Girard \cite{Girard87,Girard89}.  For a brief exposition of

1150: linear logic, see the appendix. As we will see, the refined

1151: logical connectives of linear logic will be used to express

1152: the entanglements of our system. 

1153: 

1154: There is a very geometric or graphical calculus for

1155: representing morphisms in polycategories, which was

1156: introduced by Joyal and Street in

1157: \cite{Joyal91}, and given a logical interpretation in

1158: \cite{Blute96}.  A polymorphism of the form:

1159: \[ f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m\]

1160: \noindent is represented as follows:

1161: 

1162: \setlength{\unitlength}{.6in}

1163: 

1164: \begin{picture}(6,3)(-2,0)

1165: \put(1.2,1){\framebox(3,.6){$f$}}

1166: \put(1.5,1){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1167: \put(1.9,1){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1168: \put(2.7,1){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1169: \put(3,.7){\ldots}

1170: \put(2.2,.7){\ldots}

1171: \put(3.5,1){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1172: \put(3.9,1){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1173: \put(1.5,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1174: \put(1.9,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1175: \put(2.7,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1176: \put(3,1.9){\ldots}

1177: \put(2.2,1.9){\ldots}

1178: \put(3.5,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1179: \put(3.9,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1180: \put(1.15,2.1){$A_1$}

1181: \put(1.55,2.1){$A_2$}

1182: \put(2.9,2.1){$A_{n-1}$}

1183: \put(4.0,2.1){$A_n$}

1184: \put(1.15,.5){$B_1$}

1185: \put(1.55,.5){$B_2$}

1186: \put(2.85,.5){$B_{m-1}$}

1187: \put(4.0,.5){$B_m$}

1188: \end{picture}

1189: 

1190: Thus the polymorphism is represented as a box, with the

1191: incoming and outgoing arrows labelled by objects. 

1192: Composition in polycategories then can be represented

1193: pictorially in a very natural fashion.  Before giving a

1194: general discussion of composition in a polycategory, we

1195: illustrate this graphical representation.  Suppose we are

1196: given two polymorphisms of the following form:

1197: 

1198: \begin{center}

1199: $f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m,C$\\

1200: $g\colon C,D_1,D_2,\ldots,D_k\lrarr E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_j$

1201: \end{center}

1202: 

1203: Note the single object $C$ common to the codomain of $f$ and 

1204: the domain of $g$.  Then under the definition of

1205: polycategory,  we can compose these to get a morphism of 

1206: form:

1207: 

1208: \[g\circ_Cf\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n,D_1,D_2,\ldots,D_k\lrarr B_1,B_2,

1209: \ldots,B_m,E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_j\]

1210: 

1211: The object $C$ which ``disappears'' after composition is called the \emph{cut

1212: object}, a terminology derived from logic.  Note that we subscript the

1213: composition by the object being cut.  This composition would be represented

1214: by the diagram on Figure~\ref{FigureComp}:

1215: 

1216: \begin{figure}[htb]

1217: \begin{picture}(6,4)(-1,-1.5)

1218: \put(1.2,1){\framebox(3,.6){$f$}}

1219: \put(1.5,1){\vector(0,-1){2.12}}

1220: \put(1.9,1){\vector(0,-1){2.12}}

1221: \put(2.7,1){\vector(0,-1){2.12}}

1222: \put(3,.7){\ldots}

1223: \put(2.2,.7){\ldots}

1224: \put(3.5,1){\vector(0,-1){2.12}}

1225: \put(3.9,1){\line(0,-1){.6}}

1226: \put(1.5,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1227: \put(1.9,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1228: \put(2.7,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1229: \put(3,1.9){\ldots}

1230: \put(2.2,1.9){\ldots}

1231: \put(3.5,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1232: \put(3.9,2.2){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1233: 

1234: \put(3.6,-0.5){\framebox(3,.6){$g$}}

1235: \put(3.9,-.5){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1236: \put(4.3,-.5){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1237: \put(5.1,-.5){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1238: \put(5.4,-.8){\ldots}

1239: \put(4.6,-.8){\ldots}

1240: \put(5.9,-.5){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1241: \put(6.3,-.5){\vector(0,-1){.6}}

1242: \put(3.9,.7){\line(0,-1){.6}}

1243: \put(3.65,.5){$C$}

1244: \put(4.3,2.23){\vector(0,-1){2.13}}

1245: \put(5.1,2.23){\vector(0,-1){2.13}}

1246: \put(5.4,.4){\ldots}

1247: \put(4.6,.4){\ldots}

1248: \put(5.9,2.23){\vector(0,-1){2.13}}

1249: \put(6.3,2.23){\vector(0,-1){2.13}}

1250: \end{picture}

1251: \caption{}

1252: \label{FigureComp}

1253: \end{figure}

1254: 

1255: We only label the segment corresponding to the cut object, for ease of

1256: reading.  Thus composition in a polycategory is represented by the

1257: concatenation of the graphs of $f$ and $g$, followed by joining the

1258: incoming and outgoing edges corresponding to the cut object.  There are

1259: several other possibilities for applications of the composition rule.  In

1260: some cases, the graphical representation requires our arrows to cross.

1261: This corresponds to having a \emph{symmetric} polycategory.  This is very

1262: much related to having a symmetric tensor or tensors, i.e.  ones with the

1263: property that $A\ox B\cong B\ox A$.  We will always assume our

1264: polycategories are symmetric.

1265: 

1266: We now give a more formal definition of polycategory.  We

1267: refer the reader to \cite{Cockett97,Szabo75} for further details.

1268: 

1269: \begin{defin}

1270: \rm{

1271: A \textbf{polycategory} $\mathsf{C}$ consists of

1272: the following data:

1273: 

1274: \begin{itemize}

1275: \item A set of objects, denoted $|\mathsf{C}|$.

1276: \item If $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n$ and  $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$ are

1277: finite  sequences of  objects, then we have a set of

1278: morphisms of the form 

1279: $f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$.  We note that

1280: technically one must consider these sequences of objects as being defined

1281: only up to permutation.

1282: \item For every object $A$, we have an identity 

1283: morphism $id_A\colon A\rarr A$.

1284: \end{itemize}

1285: 

1286: \noindent The composition law was already described pictorially.  The data

1287: of course are subject to a number of axioms, of which most important for us

1288: is the one which requires associativity of composition.  The

1289: notion of \emph{polyfunctor} between polycategories is also straightforward

1290: to formulate.  One first has a function $F$ taking objects to objects, and

1291: then given a morphism $f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n \lrarr B_1,B_2, \ldots,

1292: B_m$, one assigns to it a morphism

1293: \begin{equation}

1294: F(f)\colon F(A_1),F(A_2),\ldots, F(A_n) \lrarr F(B_1),F(B_2),\ldots,F(B_m).

1295: \end{equation}

1296: Again, a number of axioms must be satisfied, in particular the polyfunctor 

1297: must commute with the composition of polymorphisms.  

1298: }

1299: \end{defin}

1300: 

1301: As suggested by the above, there is a relationship between polycategories 

1302: and monoidal categories.  It is summarized in the following lemma, which 

1303: can be found for example in \cite{Cockett97}:

1304: 

1305: \begin{prop}\label{thelemma}

1306: Let $\mathsf{C}$ be a monoidal category.  Then one can associate to

1307: $\mathsf{C}$ a polycategory (which will typically be denoted by

1308: $P(\mathsf{C})$ as follows:

1309: \begin{itemize}

1310: \item The objects of $P(\mathsf{C})$ will be the same as those of 

1311: $\mathsf{C}$.

1312: \item A polymorphism of the form $f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,

1313: \ldots,B_m$ is a morphism $f\colon A_1\ox A_2\ox\ldots\ox A_n\lrarr B_1\ox

1314: B_2\ox\ldots\ox B_m$.  

1315: \item Composition is induced by the composition in $\mathsf{C}$ in the

1316: following way.  Suppose that we have two polymorphisms in $P(\mathsf{C})$

1317: as follows:

1318: 

1319: \begin{center}

1320: $f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m,C$\\

1321: $g\colon C,D_1,D_2,\ldots,D_k\lrarr E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_j$

1322: \end{center}

1323: 

1324: \noindent Then since we are in a monoidal category, we have morphisms

1325: \begin{center}

1326: $f\colon A_1\ox A_2\ox \ldots\ox A_n\lrarr B_1\ox B_2\ox\ldots\ox B_m\ox C$\\

1327: $g\colon C\ox D_1\ox D_2\ox \ldots\ox D_k\lrarr E_1\ox E_2\ox \ldots\ox E_j$

1328: \end{center}

1329: 

1330: The composite in  $P(\mathsf{C})$ is then given by:

1331: \begin{equation}\label{identi}

1332: g\circ_C f=(id_{B_1\ox B_2\ox\ldots\ox B_m}\ox g)\circ(f\ox id_{D_1\ox

1333: D_2\ldots\ox D_k})

1334: \end{equation}

1335: \end{itemize}

1336: \end{prop}

1337: 

1338: We note that the concepts of polycategory and monoidal category are not

1339: equivalent.  To obtain an equivalence, one needs to replace monoidal

1340: categories with the more general notion of linearly distributive category

1341: mentioned above.

1342: 

1343: Now we will demonstrate that a dag generates a polycategory.  In this

1344: construction, the nodes of the dag will be assigned morphisms and the edges

1345: will be assigned objects.

1346: 

1347: We consider the dag example of Figure~\ref{figure6}.  We have changed

1348: labels to be more appropriate for the present 

1349: discussion.  

1350: 

1351: 

1352: \begin{figure}[htb]

1353: \input{figure6}

1354: \caption{}

1355: \label{figure6}

1356: \end{figure}

1357: 

1358: The idea behind the construction is that the nodes of the

1359: dag (the  boxes in our picture)  will correspond to

1360: polymorphisms.  For example, in the above picture,  the box

1361: $f_1$ determines a polymorphism:

1362: 

1363: \[f_1\colon A\lrarr C,D\]

1364: 

1365: Similarly, $f_4$ determines a polymorphism $f_4\colon

1366: D,E\rarr G$.  Thus we see that one has a polymorphism

1367: corresponding to each node.  The domain of that polymorphism

1368: will be the labels of the incoming arrows, and the codomain

1369: is determined by the labels of the outgoing arrows.  These

1370: are the basic morphisms of the polycategory.  As in the

1371: previous construction, one must adjoin morphisms

1372: corresponding to the allowable compositions.  For example,

1373: in the above case, we can compose the morphisms $f_4$ and

1374: $f_1$ along the cut object $D$ to obtain a new polymorphism

1375: $f_4\circ_D f_1\colon A,E \rarr C,G$.  One must also add

1376: identities and must force these composites to satisfy the

1377: appropriate equations.  This construction yields the {\it

1378: polycategory freely generated by the dag}.  More generally,

1379: we would have the following definition.

1380: 

1381: \begin{defin}\label{free}{\rm We suppose that we are given a

1382: finite dag $G$. The {\em free polycategory generated by

1383: $G$}, denoted $P(G)$, is defined as follows.  If a given

1384: vertex $v$ has incoming edges

1385: $A_1,A_2,\ldots, A_n$ and outgoing edges $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$

1386: then the polycategory will have a polymorphism of the form

1387: $f_v\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\rarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$. In

1388: general by induction,  if $P(G)$ has polymorphisms of the

1389: form:

1390: 

1391: \begin{center}

1392: $f\colon A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\lrarr B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m,C$\\

1393: $g\colon C,D_1,D_2,\ldots,D_k\lrarr E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_j$

1394: \end{center}

1395: 

1396: \noindent then we require the existence of a composite

1397: $g\circ_C f$ as a new polymorphism. We assume the existence

1398: of an identity  morphism for each edge of $G$. Finally we

1399: impose on this data the necessary equations implied by the

1400: definition of polycategory. }

1401: \end{defin}

1402: 

1403: \subsection{Categories of interventions} Next we describe an

1404: appropriate for our construction polycategory of intervention

1405: operators; there are several reasonable choices, this being 

1406: the most straightforward. We start with the well known fact that  the

1407: category $\mathsf{Hilb}$ of  Hilbert spaces and bounded

1408: linear operators is a monoidal category.   Hence by the

1409: construction of lemma \ref{thelemma}, we obtain a

1410: polycategory.  However this is not the category we will

1411: ultimately use. We will introduce a category

1412: $\mathsf{Conj}$. Intuitively, the objects are Hilbert space 

1413: endomorphisms and morphisms are conjugations. A more formal

1414: definition is as  follows. Objects are finite-dimensional

1415: Hilbert spaces. A morphism from

1416: $\hi_1$ to $\hi_2$ is a finite family of maps $\{A_i\}_{i\in

1417: I}$ of linear morphisms $A_i\colon \hi_1\rarr\hi_2$.

1418: Composition is then described as  follows. If we have the

1419: following pair of maps:

1420: 

1421: \[ \hi_1\to^{\{A_i\}_{i\in I}}\hi_2

1422: \to^{\{B_j\}_{j\in J}}\hi_3\]

1423: 

1424: \noindent then the composite is:

1425: 

1426: \[ \hi_1\to^{\{B_j\circ A_i\}_{\langle i,j\rangle\in I\times J}}\hi_3\]

1427: 

1428: A morphism in $\mathsf{Conj}$ can be seen as taking

1429: endomorphisms of

1430: $\hi_1$ to endomorphisms of $\hi_2$ by the formula

1431: $\cO\mapsto\sum_m A_m {\cal O} A_m^{\dagger}$. The monoidal

1432: structure on $\mathsf{Hilb}$ lifts to a monoidal structure

1433: on the category $\mathsf{Conj}$.  The tensor product

1434: operator is the usual tensor product of operators on Hilbert

1435: spaces, on maps we take all possible pairings.  We next

1436: restrict the class of morphisms by considering only those

1437: families suxh that the corresponding conjugation is trace

1438: preserving. We call

1439: the resulting category $\mathsf{Dio}$.  This category also

1440: inherits a monoidal structure.  As discussed in Lemma

1441: \ref{thelemma} any monoidal category canonically gives rise

1442: to a polycategory associated to it.  We will denote by

1443: $\cP(\mathsf{Dio})$ the polycategory associated with

1444: $\mathsf{Dio}$.

1445:       

1446: \section{The logic of polycategories}\label{logic}

1447: 

1448: While definition~\ref{free} gives the free polycategory

1449: generated by  a dag $G$, it will prove to be useful to have

1450: a more constructive description.    Proof-theoretic

1451: techniques have proven to be useful in describing free polycategories. 

1452: In our case, the logical structures necessary are quite

1453: simple, and so we  digress briefly to put definition~\ref{free} in 

1454: logical terms.  Recall

1455: that one of the common interpretations of a polymorphism is

1456: as a logical sequent\footnote{We note that for

1457: purposes of this paper sequents should always be considered

1458: "up to permutation", i.e. one may rearrange the order of

1459: premises and conclusions as one sees fit.} of the form:

1460: 

1461: \[ A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\vdash B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m\]

1462: 

1463: Our system will have only one inference rule, called 

1464: the \textit{Cut rule}, which states:

1465: \begin{center}

1466: \mbox{

1467: \infer{\Gamma,\Gamma'\vdash\Delta,\Delta'}{\Gamma\vdash\Delta, A &

1468: \Gamma',A\vdash\Delta'}}

1469: \end{center}

1470: 

1471: This should be interpreted as saying that if one has derived

1472: the two sequents above the line, then one can infer the

1473: sequent below the line. Proofs in the system always begin

1474: with \textit{axioms}.  Axioms are of the form 

1475: $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n\vdash B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$, where

1476: $A_1,A_2,\ldots, A_n$ are the incoming edges of some vertex

1477: in our dag, and

1478: $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_m$ will be the outgoing edges. There will

1479: be one such  axiom for each vertex in our dag. For example,

1480: consider Figure~\ref{fig3}. Then we will have the following

1481: axioms:

1482: \[

1483:  a\stackrel{1}{\ent} c\;\;\;

1484:  b\stackrel{2}{\ent}  d,e,f\;\;\;

1485:  c,d\stackrel{3}{\ent}  g,h\;\;\;

1486:  e\stackrel{4}{\ent}  i\;\;\;

1487:  f,g\stackrel{5}{\ent}  j\;\;\;

1488:  h,i\stackrel{6}{\ent}  k

1489: \] where we have labelled each entailment symbol with the

1490: name of the corresponding vertex. The following is an

1491: example of a deduction in this  system of the sequent

1492: $a,b\vdash f,g,h,i$.

1493: 

1494: \begin{center}

1495: \mbox{

1496: \infer{a,b\vdash f,g,h,i}

1497: {\infer{a,b\vdash e,f,g,h}{b\vdash 

1498: d,e,f & \infer{a,d\vdash g,h}{a\vdash c & c,d\vdash g,h}}

1499: & e\vdash i}

1500: }

1501: \end{center}

1502: This deduction corresponds to the fact that in the free

1503: polycategory generated by this dag, one has a morphism

1504: $a,b\rarr f,g,h,i$. In fact, it is easy to see that there is

1505: a precise correspondence between deductions in  this logical

1506: system and nonidentity morphisms in the free polycategory. 

1507: 

1508: As a first attempt at capturing quantum evolution on a dag $G$ 

1509: axiomatically, one

1510: might consider taking a polyfunctor from $P(G)$ to

1511: $P(\mathsf{Hilb})$, where

1512: $\mathsf{Hilb}$ is the usual category of finite-dimensional

1513: Hilbert spaces with its usual tensor product. Note that such

1514: a polyfunctor must necessarily take a sequence of, say, incoming edges

1515: $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_n$ to

1516: $\hi_1\ox\hi_2\ldots\ox\hi_n$ where $\hi_i$ corresponds to

1517: $A_i$. Then one would (tentatively) define a set

1518: $\Delta$ of edges to be {\it valid} if there is a

1519: deduction in the logic generated by $G$ of

1520: $\Gamma\vdash\Delta$ where

1521: $\Gamma$ is a set of initial edges. Equivalently there must

1522: be a morphism

1523: $\Gamma\rarr\Delta$ in $P(G)$. Then the polyfunctor would

1524: take this to a morphism of Hilbert spaces

1525: $T\colon\hi_\Gamma\rarr\hi_\Delta$. The initial density

1526: matrices would always be assumed to be given, and one would

1527: just apply $T$ to the appropriate initial density matrices

1528: to obtain the density matrix associated to $\Delta$. The locative 

1529: slices are the ones on which density matrices can be obtained without 

1530: the trace operation and we are looking to equate the notions of 

1531: locative and valid for slices. This

1532: approach would be genuinely axiomatic, and would evidently

1533: be applicable to other situations by simply using a category

1534: other than Hilbert spaces as the target of the polyfunctor.

1535: Furthermore we would suggest that using logic as the means

1536: of calculating the matrices gives the approach a very

1537: canonical flavor.

1538: 

1539: However, with this notion of validity, we would fail to

1540: capture all locative slices, and thus our tentative notion

1541: of validity will have to be modified.  For example, consider

1542: the dag underlying the system of Figure~\ref{figureD} shown

1543: in Figure~\ref{figure5}.

1544: 

1545: \begin{figure}[htb]

1546: \begin{center}

1547: \input{figure5}

1548: \end{center}

1549: \caption{}

1550: \label{figure5}

1551: \end{figure}

1552:  

1553: Corresponding to this dag, we get the following basic

1554: morphisms (axioms):

1555: \[a\vdash b,c \,\,\,\,\,\,\, b\vdash d\,\,\,\,\,\,\, c\vdash

1556: e\,\,\,\,\,\,\, d,e\vdash f.\] Evidently, the set $\{f\}$ is

1557: a locative slice, and yet  the sequent $a\vdash f$ is not

1558: derivable. The sequent $a\vdash d,e$ is derivable, and one

1559: would like to cut it against $d,e\vdash f$, but one is only

1560: allowed to cut a single formula. Such ``multicuts'' are

1561: expressly forbidden, as they lead to undesirable logical

1562: properties

1563: \cite{Blute93}.

1564: 

1565: Physically, the reason for this problem is that the sequent

1566: $d,e\vdash f$ does not encode the information that the two

1567: states at $d$ and $e$ are correlated.  It is precisely the

1568: fact that they are correlated that implies that one would

1569: need to use a multicut. To avoid this problem, one must

1570: introduce some notation, specifically a syntax 

1571: for specifying such correlations. We will

1572: use the {\it logical connectives} of the multiplicative

1573: fragment of {\it linear logic} \cite{Girard87,Girard95}

1574: to this end. The multiplicative disjunction of linear

1575: logic, denoted $\girpar$ and called the {\it par} connective, 

1576: will express such nonlocal correlations.

1577: In our example, we will write the sequent corresponding to

1578: vertex $4$ as

1579: $d\girpar e\vdash f$ to express the fact that the subsystems associated 

1580: with these two edges are possibly entangled through interactions in their 

1581: common past. 

1582: 

1583: Note that whenever two (or more)

1584: subsystems emerge from an interaction, they are correlated. 

1585: In linear logic, this is reflected by the following rule

1586: called the (right) \emph{Par rule}:

1587: 

1588: \begin{center}

1589: \mbox{

1590: \infer[]{\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A\girpar

1591: B}{\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A, B} }

1592: \end{center}

1593: Thus we can always introduce the symbol for correlation in the right 

1594: hand side of the sequent.   

1595: 

1596: Notice that we can cut along a compound formula without

1597: violating any logical rules.  So in the present

1598: setting, we would have the following deduction:

1599: \begin{center}

1600: \mbox{

1601: \infer{a\vdash f}

1602:    {\infer{a\vdash d\girpar e}{\infer{a\vdash d, e}

1603: {\infer{a\vdash c,d}{a\vdash b,c & b\vdash d}  & c\vdash e}}

1604: & d\girpar e\vdash f} }

1605: \end{center} All the cuts in this deduction are legitimate;

1606: instead of a multicut we are cutting along a compound

1607: formula in the last step. So the first step in modifying our

1608: general prescription is to extend our polycategory logic, which originally

1609: contained only the cut rule, to

1610: include the connective rules of linear logic. These are described in 

1611: the appendix. 

1612: 

1613: The above logical rule determines how one introduces a par connective

1614: on the righthand side of a sequent. For the lefthand side, 

1615: one introduces pars in the axioms by the following general prescription.

1616: Given a vertex in a

1617: multigraph, we suppose that it has incoming edges

1618: $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n$ and outgoing edges $b_1,b_2,\ldots,b_m$.

1619: In the previous formulation, this vertex would have been

1620: labelled with the axiom $\Gamma=a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\vdash

1621: b_1,b_2,\ldots,b_m$. We will now introduce several pars

1622: ($\girpar$) on the lefthand side to indicate entanglements

1623: of the sort described above. Begin by defining a relation

1624: $\sim$ by saying $a_i\sim a_j$ if there is an initial edge

1625: $c$ and directed paths from $c$ to $a_i$ and from $c$ to

1626: $a_j$. This is not an equivalence relation, but one takes

1627: the equivalence relation generated by the relation $\sim$. 

1628: Call this new relation $\cong$. This equivalence relation,

1629: like all equivalence relations, partitions the set $\Gamma$

1630: into a set of equivalence classes. One then "pars" together

1631: the elements of each equivalence class, and this determines

1632: the structure of the lefthand side of our axiom. For

1633: example, consider vertices 5 and 6 in Figure~\ref{fig3}.

1634: Vertex 5 would be labelled by $f\girpar g\vdash j$ and

1635: vertex 6 would be labelled by $h\girpar i\vdash k$. On the

1636: other hand, vertex 3 would be labelled by $c,d\vdash g,h$.

1637: 

1638: Just as the par connective indicates the existence of past 

1639: correlations, we use the more familiar tensor symbol $\ox$, 

1640: which is also a connective of linear logic, to indicate the lack of 

1641: nonlocal correlation. This connective also has a logical rule:

1642: 

1643: 

1644: \begin{center}

1645: \mbox{

1646: \infer{\Gamma,\Gamma'\vdash \Delta,\Delta',A\ox B}

1647: {\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A & \Gamma'\vdash \Delta',B} }

1648: \end{center}   

1649: 

1650: But we note that unlike in ordinary logic, this rule can only 

1651: be applied in situations that are physically meaningful. We will say

1652: that two deductions $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are {\it spacelike

1653: separated} if all the the vertices of $\pi$ and $\pi'$ 

1654: are pairwise spacelike separated. In the above formula, we

1655: require that the deductions of $\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A$ and 

1656: $\Gamma'\vdash \Delta',B$ are spacelike separated.

1657: This restriction of application of

1658: inference rules is similar to the restrictions of

1659: {\it ludics} \cite{Girard01}. 

1660: >From a categorical standpoint, the restrictions imply

1661: that the connectives are only partial functors, but this is

1662: only a minor issue. 

1663: 

1664: Summarizing, to every dag $G$ we associate its ``logic'', 

1665: namely the edges are considered as formulas and vertices are 

1666: axioms. We have the usual linear logical connective rules,

1667: including the cut rule which in our setting is interpreted physically

1668: as propagation. The par connective denotes correlation, and the tensor 

1669: lack of correlation. Note that every deduction in our system

1670: will conclude with a sequent of the form $\Gamma\vdash\Delta$,

1671: where $\Gamma$ is a set of initial edges.

1672: 

1673: Now one would

1674: like to modify the definition of validity to say that a set

1675: of edges $\Delta$ is {\it valid} if in our extended

1676: polycategory logic, one can derive a sequent

1677: $\Gamma\vdash\hat{\Delta}$ such that the list of edges

1678: appearing in $ \hat{\Delta}$ was precisely $\Delta$, and

1679: $\Gamma$ is a set of initial edges. However this is still

1680: not sufficient as an axiomatic approach to capturing all

1681: locative slices. We note the example in Figure~\ref{figure8}.

1682: 

1683: \begin{figure}[htb]

1684: \begin{center}

1685: \input{figure8}

1686: \end{center}

1687: \caption{}

1688: \label{figure8}

1689: \end{figure}

1690: 

1691: Evidently the slice $\{f,g\}$ is locative, but we claim that

1692: it cannot be derived even in our extended logic. To this

1693: directed graph, we would associate the following axioms:

1694: 

1695: \[ a\vdash c,h \,\,\,\,\,\, b\vdash d,e\,\,\,\,\,\,

1696: c,d\vdash f\,\,\,\,\,\, h,e\vdash g\]

1697: 

1698: Note that there are no correlations between $c$ and $d$ or

1699: between $h$ and $e$. Thus no $\girpar$-combinations can be introduced. 

1700: Now if one attempts to derive $a,b\vdash f,g$, we proceed as

1701: follows:

1702: 

1703: \begin{center}

1704: \mbox{

1705: \infer{a,b\vdash h,e,f}{\infer{a,b\vdash c\ox d,h,e}{a\vdash

1706: c,h & b\vdash d,e} & \infer{c\ox d\vdash f}{c,d\vdash f}}

1707: }\end{center}

1708: 

1709: At this point, we are unable to proceed. Had we attempted

1710: the symmetric approach tensoring $h$ and $e$ together, we

1711: would have encountered the same problem. 

1712: 

1713: The problem is that our logical system is still missing one

1714: crucial aspect, and that is that correlations develop

1715: dynamically as the system evolves, or equivalently as the 

1716: deduction proceeds. Thus our axioms must

1717: change dynamically as well. We give the following definition.

1718: 

1719: \begin{defin}{\em

1720: Suppose we have a deduction $\pi$ of the sequent

1721: $\Gamma\vdash\Delta$ in the graph logic associated to the

1722: dag $G$, and that $T$ is a vertex in $G$ to the future or acausal 

1723: to the edges of the set

1724: $\Delta$ with $a$ and $b$ among the incoming edges of $T$.

1725: Then $a$ and $b$ are {\em correlated} with respect to $\pi$

1726: if there exist outgoing edges $c$ and $d$ of the proof 

1727: $\pi$ and directed paths from $c$ to $a$ and from $d$ to $b$.

1728: }\end{defin}

1729: 

1730: So the point here is that when performing a deduction, one does 

1731: not assign an axiom to a given vertex until it is necessary to use 

1732: that axiom in the proof. Then one assigns that axiom using this new 

1733: notion of correlation and the equivalence relation defined above. 

1734: This prescription reflects the physical reality that entanglement of 

1735: local quantum subsystems could develop as a result of a distant interaction 

1736: between some other subsystems of the same quantum system. 

1737: We are finally able to give the following crucial definition:

1738: 

1739:      

1740: 

1741: \begin{defin}{\em

1742: A set

1743: $\Delta$ of edges in a dag $G$ is said to be {\em valid} if there is a

1744: deduction in the logic associated to $G$ of

1745: $\Gamma\vdash\hat{\Delta}$ where $\hat{\Delta}$ is a sequence of formulas

1746: whose underlying set of edges is precisely $\Delta$ and where

1747: $\Gamma$ is a set of initial edges, in fact the set of initial edges

1748: to the past of $\Delta$.}

1749: \end{defin}

1750: 

1751: We are also ready to state the result relating the logical deduction and 

1752: the dynamics of Section~\ref{dyna} in a graph. 

1753: 

1754: \begin{thm} A set of edges is valid if and only if it is locative. More 

1755: specifically, if there is a deduction of $\Gamma\vdash\hat{\Delta}$

1756: as described above, then $\Delta$ is necessarily locative. Conversely,

1757: given any locative slice, one can find such a deduction.

1758: \end{thm}

1759: \begin{proof}\\ Recall that a locative slice $L$ is obtained from the set

1760: of initial edges in its past by an inductive procedure.  

1761: At each step, we choose arbitrarily a minimal vertex $u$ in the past of $L$,

1762: remove the incoming edges of $u$ and add the outgoing edges. This step 

1763: corresponds to the application of a cut rule, and the method we have used

1764: of assigning the par connective 

1765: to the lefthand side of an axiom ensures that it is 

1766: always a legal cut. The tensor rule is necessary in order to combine 

1767: spacelike separated subsystems in order to prepare for the application of 

1768: the cut rule.

1769: \end{proof}

1770: 

1771: Thus we have successfully given an axiomatic logic-based approach

1772: to describing evolution. In summary, to find the density matrix 

1773: associated to a locative slice $\Delta$, one finds a set 

1774: of linear logic formulas whose underlying set of atoms is $\Delta$ 

1775: and a deduction of $\Gamma\vdash\hat{\Delta}$ where $\Gamma$ is 

1776: as above. This deduction is interpreted as a morphism in the 

1777: corresponding polycategory, and the polyfunctor to $\cP(\mathsf{Dio})$

1778: is applied to obtain a morphism in the category $\mathsf{Dio}$. 

1779: (Note that in this context a polyfunctor is furthermore required to take 

1780: any tensor or par connective in $\Gamma$ or $\hat{\Delta}$ to the 

1781: usual tensor in $\mathsf{Dio}$.)

1782: One then plugs in the given initial data to obtain the density matrix

1783: corresponding to that slice. Given a nonlocative slice, one simply finds

1784: a locative slice containing it, repeats the above procedure and then 

1785: traces out the extraneous edges.

1786: 

1787: \section{Conclusions}\label{conc}

1788: 

1789: We have presented an axiomatic system for the analysis 

1790: of quantum evolution. The dynamics is local as to preserve causality, but at 

1791: the same time entanglement of separated quantum systems is faithfully 

1792: represented. One could apply these ideas 

1793: to other situations

1794: by using a category other than the category of intervention

1795: operators

1796: as the target of the functor. An appropriate

1797: categorical structure for the target is the notion of  

1798: a {\it traced monoidal category} \cite{Joyal96} or

1799: the notion of a {\it traced ideal} \cite{Blute99}. 

1800: See also \cite{Blute00}.

1801: One particular situation which might be analyzed in this

1802: framework is the notion of classical probabilistic

1803: information. The paper \cite{Blute99} contains a category of

1804: {\it probabilistic relations} which might be of particular

1805: interest in this setting.

1806: 

1807: Our work also suggests a natural

1808: extension of the notion of {\it consistent} or {\it

1809: decoherent histories} \cite{Gell-Mann93,Griffiths96}.

1810: Restricting the intervention operators at the vertices of our graph $G$ 

1811: to be projection operators we can consider $G$ to denote a particular 

1812: history within a set of histories. This relaxes the usual linear ordering of 

1813: events considered in the literature thus far.

1814: An exposition of histories on graphs is under preparation. 

1815: 

1816: \section*{Acknowledgements} The authors would like to thank

1817: NSERC for its financial support.  We would also like to

1818: thank Phil Scott and Jean-Yves Girard for inviting us to

1819: present this work at the joint SMF-AMS conference in Lyon.  The

1820: paper

1821: \cite{Markopoulou00}, which led to our initial consideration

1822: of these ideas, was pointed out to us by Ioannis Raptis.  We

1823: would like to especially thank Rafael Sorkin for a lengthy

1824: discussion on causal sets and related topics.  Finally, the

1825: second author would like to thank the University of Ottawa

1826: Department of Mathematics and Statistics for its support. 

1827: \bibliography{causal}

1828: 

1829: 

1830: \appendix

1831: \section{Linear logic}

1832: 

1833: This section can safely be skipped by logicians.

1834: 

1835: Linear logic~\cite{Girard87} is a logic introduced by Girard

1836: in 1987 to allow a finer analysis of how ``resources'' are

1837: consumed in the course of a deduction. As already remarked

1838: in the text, the primary objects of study in logic and

1839: especially proof theory are {\it sequents}, and the

1840: constructors of sequents, the {\it inference rules}. Several

1841: examples have already been given such as the {\it cut rule}:

1842: 

1843: \begin{center}

1844: \mbox{

1845: \infer[CUT]{\Gamma,\Gamma'\vdash\Delta,\Delta'}{\Gamma\vdash\Delta,

1846: A &

1847: \Gamma',A\vdash\Delta'}}

1848: \end{center}

1849: 

1850: So typically an inference rule is a prescription for

1851: creating a more complex sequent from one or possibly several 

1852: simpler ones. Two typical inference rules are the rules of

1853: {\it contraction} and {\it weakening}. These are as follows:

1854: 

1855: \begin{center}

1856: \mbox{\infer[CONT]{\Gamma,A\vdash\Delta}

1857: {\Gamma,A,A\vdash\Delta}}

1858: \end{center}

1859: 

1860: \begin{center}

1861: \mbox{\infer[WEAK]{\Gamma,A\vdash\Delta}

1862: {\Gamma\vdash\Delta}}

1863: \end{center}

1864: 

1865: There are similar rules for the righthand side as well. These

1866: have long been standard in most logics, and indeed have a

1867: strong intuitive meaning. For example, contraction says that

1868: it is unnecessary to make the same assumption twice.

1869: However, in Girard's reexamination of the sequent calculus,

1870: he proposed an interpretation in which the formulas to the

1871: left of a sequent are resources to be consumed in the course

1872: of producing the output, i.e. the conclusions. From this

1873: perspective, the rules of contraction and weakening are

1874: quite dubious. The first step towards defining linear logic

1875: then is to recover these rules from the system. The result is

1876: a remarkably rich structure, the most notable aspect of

1877: which is that the usual connectives of logic, conjunction

1878: and disjunction, each split into two connectives. These

1879: connectives are naturally split into two classes, the {\it

1880: multiplicative} and the {\it additive} connectives. It is

1881: only the multiplicative connectives that will concern us

1882: here. Here are the rules for these connectives:

1883: 

1884: \begin{center}

1885: \mbox{

1886: \infer[Right-\girpar]{\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A\girpar

1887: B}{\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A, B} }

1888: \end{center}   

1889: 

1890: \begin{center}

1891: \mbox{

1892: \infer[Left-\girpar]{\Gamma,\Gamma' A\wp B\vdash \Delta,\Delta'}

1893: {\Gamma,A\vdash \Delta & \Gamma',B\vdash \Delta'} }

1894: \end{center}   

1895: 

1896: \begin{center}

1897: \mbox{

1898: \infer[Right-\ox]{\Gamma,\Gamma'\vdash \Delta,\Delta',A\ox B}

1899: {\Gamma\vdash \Delta,A & \Gamma'\vdash \Delta',B} }

1900: \end{center}   

1901: 

1902: \begin{center}

1903: \mbox{

1904: \infer[Left-\ox]{\Gamma,A\ox B\vdash \Delta}{\Gamma,A,B\vdash \Delta} }

1905: \end{center}   

1906: 

1907: 

1908: Categorically, the structure of linear logic has striking

1909: properties as well. As is traditional in categorical logic,

1910: one can form a category whose objects are formulas, and

1911: morphisms are proofs. This construction is described for

1912: example in \cite{Lambek69,Lambek86}. When one applies this

1913: construction to (multiplicative) linear logic ({\bf MLL}),

1914: one obtains a special class of symmetric monoidal closed

1915: categories called {\it $*$-autonomous}. These were defined

1916: by Barr in \cite{Barr79}. 

1917: 

1918: Subsequently it was demonstrated that the correspondence

1919: between proofs in {\bf MLL} and morphisms in the free

1920: $*$-autonomous category is quite sharp.  See

1921: \cite{Blute93,Blute96}.   This correspondence between

1922: morphisms and proofs is best expressed using {\it proof

1923: nets}, a graph-theoretic system for representing {\bf MLL}

1924: proofs \cite{Girard87}. Proof nets had already been seen to

1925: be a remarkable deductive system, exhibiting properties of

1926: great importance in the analysis of computation, especially

1927: concurrent computation.  The precise connection between

1928: proof nets and free $*$-autonomous categories

1929: provides further evidence of their great utility.

1930: 

1931: 

1932: 

1933: 

1934: \end{document}

1935: 

1936: 

1937: 

1938: 

1939: 

1940: 

1941: 

1942: 

1943: 

1944: 

1945: 

1946: 

1947: 

1948: 

1949: 

1950: 

1951: 

1952: 

1953: 

1954: 

1955: