arXiv:1510.06649v1 [cs.LO] 22 Oct 2015 On operator algebras in quantum computation Mathys Rennela, under the supervision of Bart Jacobs Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen) The general context In the following we discuss how the theory of operator algebras, also called operator theory, can be applied in quantum computer science. From a computer scientist point of view, we will discuss some fundamental results of operator theory and their relevance in the context of domain theory. The the- ory of operator algebras originated in functional analysis in the 1930s and was extensively applied in mathematical physics, in order to understand the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. In the past 15 years, domain theory was successfully applied to quantum computation, for semantics and verification (see [Gay06] for an overview of the literature). The research problem Our aim here is to use the theory of operator algebras to study the differences and similarities between probabilistic and quantum computations, by unveiling their domain-theoretic and topological structure. To our knowledge, the deep connection between the theory of operator algebras and domain theory was not fully exploited before. This might be due to the fact that the theory of operator algebras, mostly unknown to computer scientists, was developed way before the theory of domains. Although there is now a real commercialization of quantum cryptographic systems, it is still un- known if quantum computers exist and moreover, it is yet unknown what such a computer (if any) would look like. However, in our opinion, it is important to provide some formal tools for the design and verification at an early level, to prevent system failure. Our contribution Our main contribution is a connection between two different communities: the community of theoretical computer scientists, which use domain theory to study program language semantics (and logic), and the community of mathematicians and theoretical physicists, which use a special class of algebras called W*-algebras to study quantum mechanics. This connection involves a quantum domain theory and a quantum setting for a weakest precondition calculus, described categorically. We will also introduce the notion of effect algebras, in order to associate a predicate logic to computations. Arguments supporting its validity We only assume that W*-algebras are suitable for representing quantum computations, which is a com- mon assumption in mathematical physics. During our research, we have found in the standard literature 1
37
Embed
On operator algebras in quantum computation - arXivarXiv:1510.06649v1 [cs.LO] 22 Oct 2015 On operator algebras in quantum computation Mathys Rennela, under the supervision of Bart
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
arX
iv:1
510.
0664
9v1
[cs.
LO]
22 O
ct 2
015
On operator algebras in quantum computation
Mathys Rennela, under the supervision of Bart Jacobs
Institute for Computing and Information Sciences, RadboudUniversiteit Nijmegen)
The general context
In the following we discuss how the theory of operator algebras, also called operator theory, can be
applied in quantum computer science. From a computer scientist point of view, we will discuss some
fundamental results of operator theory and their relevancein the context of domain theory. The the-
ory of operator algebras originated in functional analysisin the 1930s and was extensively applied in
mathematical physics, in order to understand the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. In
the past 15 years, domain theory was successfully applied toquantum computation, for semantics and
verification (see [Gay06] for an overview of the literature).
The research problem
Our aim here is to use the theory of operator algebras to studythe differences and similarities between
probabilistic and quantum computations, by unveiling their domain-theoretic and topological structure.
To our knowledge, the deep connection between the theory of operator algebras and domain theory was
not fully exploited before. This might be due to the fact thatthe theory of operator algebras, mostly
unknown to computer scientists, was developed way before the theory of domains.
Although there is now a real commercialization of quantum cryptographic systems, it is still un-
known if quantum computers exist and moreover, it is yet unknown what such a computer (if any)
would look like. However, in our opinion, it is important to provide some formal tools for the design
and verification at an early level, to prevent system failure.
Our contribution
Our main contribution is a connection between two differentcommunities: the community of theoretical
computer scientists, which use domain theory to study program language semantics (and logic), and the
community of mathematicians and theoretical physicists, which use a special class of algebras called
W*-algebras to study quantum mechanics. This connection involves a quantum domain theory and a
quantum setting for a weakest precondition calculus, described categorically. We will also introduce the
notion of effect algebras, in order to associate a predicatelogic to computations.
Arguments supporting its validity
We only assume that W*-algebras are suitable for representing quantum computations, which is a com-
mon assumption in mathematical physics. During our research, we have found in the standard literature
A Correspondence between operator theory and order theory 21
B A state-and-effect triangle for discrete subprobabilistic computation 23
C A state-and-effect triangle for quantum computation 27
D Domain-theoretic properties of the lattices of projections on Hilbert spaces 31
2
1 Preliminaries
From now on, we will assume that the reader is familiar with category theory. Otherwise, an introduction
to category theory can be found in [Awo06, McL98].
In this section, assuming basic knowledge of linear algebra, we will briefly recall standard notions of
topology and order theory, and then lay the foundation for further discussion on quantum computation,
providing some standards definitions in the theory of operator algebras. The interested reader will find
in Appendix A a detailed correspondence between operator theory and order theory.
1.1 Order theory
Definition 1.1. A setP together with a partial order≤ is called a partially ordered set (or poset).
A bottom ofP is an element⊥∈ P such that⊥≤ x for everyx ∈ P .
A top of P is an element⊤ ∈ P such thatx ≤ ⊤ for everyx ∈ P .
A bounded poset is a poset that has both a top and a bottom.
For every poset, it is clear that if a top (or a bottom) exist, then it is unique.
Definition 1.2. In a posetP , the down set of an elementx ∈ P is the set
↓x = {y ∈ P | y ≤ x} .
Definition 1.3. A poset(P,≤) is a chain if every pair of elements ofP is comparable:
∀x, y ∈ P, x ≤ y or y ≤ x.
We denote respectivelya ∨ b anda ∧ b the least upper bound (or join) and the greatest lower bound
(or meet) of two elementsa andb of a poset, if they exist. For any subsetX, the join (resp. the meet) of
X is denoted by∨
X (resp. denoted by∧
X).
Definition 1.4. A non-empty subset∆ of a posetP is called directed if every pair of elements of∆ has
an upper bound. We denote it by∆ ⊆dir P .
Definition 1.5 (Completeness). Let P be a poset.
• P is a directed-complete partial order (dcpo) if each directed subset has a least upper bound.
• P is bounded-complete if for each subsetS ⊆ P , S has some upper bound implies thatS has a
least upper bound.
• P is chain-complete if all chains inP have a least upper bound.
It can be proved with Zorn’s lemma that a poset is chain-complete if and only if it is directed-
complete.
3
Definition 1.6. Let φ : P → Q be a function between two posetsP andQ.
φ is monotonic ifx ≤P y =⇒ φ(x) ≤Q φ(y) for all x, y ∈ P .
φ is Scott-continuous if for every directed subset∆ ⊆dir P with least upper bound∨
∆ ∈ P , the
subsetφ(∆) of Q is directed with least upper bound∨
φ(∆) = φ(∨
∆).
The set of all Scott-continuous maps fromP to Q is denoted by[P → Q] and can be ordered
pointwise:
f ≤ g if and only if ∀x ∈ P, f(x) ≤Q g(x) (f, g ∈ [P → Q])
We denote byDcpo the category with dcpos as objects and Scott-continuous maps as morphisms.
Theorem 1.7([DP06], Theorem 8.9). LetP andQ be two posets.
The poset[P → Q] is a dcpo wheneverP andQ are dcpos.
Definition 1.8. LetP andQ be two posets with bottoms⊥P and⊥Q respectively.
A functionφ : P → Q is strict if φ(⊥P ) =⊥Q.
We denote byDcpo⊥ (resp. Dcpo⊥!) the category of dcpos with bottoms and Scott-continuous
maps (resp. strict Scott-continuous maps).
The productD1×· · ·×Dn of a family of dcposD1, · · · ,Dn is defined by then-tuples(x1, · · · , xn)
wherexi ∈ Di for every1 ≤ i ≤ n. The partial order is defined coordinatewise by(x1, · · · , xn) ≤
(y1, · · · , yn) iff xi ≤ yi for every1 ≤ i ≤ n. It is known that the product of dcpos forms itself a
dcpo where the least upper bounds are calculated coordinatewise. Moreover, the categoriesDcpo and
Dcpo⊥ are cartesian closed, whereasDcpo⊥! is only monoidal closed, see [AJ94].
1.2 Topology
Definition 1.9. LetX be a nonempty set. A topology onX is a subsetτ of P(X) such that:
• X and∅ are inτ .
• If two setsU andV are inτ , thenU ∩ V is in τ .
• If I is the index set of a family(Ui)i∈I of elements ofτ , then⋃
i∈I
Ui ∈ τ .
A topological space(X, τ) is a setX with a family τ that satisfies these properties. It is common to
say thatX is a topological space whenτ is understood from the context.
The elements ofX are called points and the elements ofτ are called open sets.
Definition 1.10. Let (X, τ) be a topological space.
A subbase forτ is a subcollectionB of τ which generatesτ . That is to say,τ is the smallest topology
which containsB: if a topologyτ ′ onX containsB, then it also containsτ .
A subsetY ⊆ X is a closed set ifX \ Y is an open set.
A subsetY ⊆ X is a subspace ofX if (Y, τ ′) is a topological space, whereτ ′ = {U ∩ Y | U ∈ τ}.
A net is a function(xλ)λ∈Λ from some directed setΛ toX.
4
A net is a generalization of the notion of sequence, which canbe seen as a net withA = N. Nets
are used in topology to consider continuity for functions between topological spaces, since sequences
do not fully encode all the information about such functions. In fact, the range of a function between
topological spaces is not always the natural numbers but canbe any topological space.
In a topological spaceX, a neighbourhood of a pointx ∈ X is a subsetV of X such thatx ∈ U ⊆ V
whereU is an open set ofX. A (countable) basisBx at a pointx ∈ X is a collection of (countable)
neighbourhoods ofx such that, for every neighbourhoodV of x, there is a neighbourhoodV ′ in Bx such
thatV ′ ⊆ V . X is said to be first-countable when every point has a countablebasis. WhenX is not
first-countable, there might be some pointsx ∈ X with an uncoutable basis. It follows that sequences,
which are countable by definition, might not succeed to get close enough tox.
Indeed, a functionf : X → Y between topological spaces is continuous at a pointx ∈ X if and
only if, for every net(xλ)λ∈Λ with lim xλ = x, we havelim f(xλ) = f(x) [Wil04]. This statement is
generally not true if we replace "net" by "sequence", since we have to allow for more directed sets than
just the natural numbers whenX is not first-countable.
1.3 C*-algebras
Definition 1.11. A Banach space is a normed vector space where every Cauchy sequence converges.
A Banach algebra is a linear associative algebraA overC with a norm‖·‖ such that:
• The norm‖·‖ is submultiplicative:∀x, y ∈ A, ‖xy‖ ≤ ‖x‖ ‖y‖
• A is a Banach space under the norm‖·‖.
Definition 1.12. A unit is an element of a Banach algebraA such thata1 = 1a = a for every element
a ∈ A.
A Banach algebraA is unital if it has a unit1 and satifies‖1‖ = 1.
Definition 1.13. A *-algebra is a linear associative algebraA overC with an operation(−)∗ : A → A
such that for allx, y in A:
(x∗)∗ = x (x+ y)∗ = (x∗ + y∗) (xy)∗ = y∗x∗ (λx)∗ = λx∗ (λ ∈ C)
A *-homomorphism of *-algebras is a linear map that preserves all this structure.
Definition 1.14. A C*-algebra is a Banach *-algebraA such that‖x∗x‖ = ‖x‖2 for all x ∈ A.
This identity is sometimes called the C*-identity, and implies that every elementx of a C*-algebra
is such that‖x‖ = ‖x∗‖.
We will now assume that C*-algebras are unital (i.e. have a unit element denoted1).
Definition 1.15. LetA be a C*-algebra.
• An elementx ∈ A is self-adjoint (or hermetian) ifx = x∗.
We writeAsa →֒ A for the subset of self-adjoint elements ofA.
5
• An elementx ∈ A is positive if it can be written in the formx = y∗y, wherey ∈ A.
We writeA+ →֒ A for the subset of positive elements ofA.
Every self-adjoint element of a C*-algebraA can be written as differencex = x+ − x− where
x+, x− ∈ A+, with ‖x+‖ , ‖x−‖ ≤ ‖x‖. Moreover, an arbitrary elementx of a C*-algebraA can be
written as linear combination of four positive elementsxi ∈ A such thatx = x1 − x2 + ix3 − ix4 with
‖xi‖ ≤ ‖x‖, see [Bla06, II.3.1.2].
Definition 1.16. A linear mapf : A → B of C*-algebras is a positive map if it preserves positive
elements, i.e.∀x ∈ A+, f(x) ∈ B+.
This means thatf restricts to a functionA+ → B+. Alternatively,∀x ∈ A,∃y ∈ B, f(x∗x) = y∗y.
For every C*-algebra, the subset of positive elements is a convex cone and thus induces a partial
order structure on self-adjoint elements, see [Tak02, Definition 6.12]. That is to say, one can define a
partial order on self-adjoint elements of a C*-algebraA as the binary relation≤ defined forx, y ∈ Asa
by: x ≤ y if and only if y − x ∈ A+. By convention, one writesx ≥ 0 whenx ∈ A+.
Lemma 1.17. A positive map of C*-algebras preserves the order≤ on self-adjoint elements.
Proof. Let f : A → B be a positive map of C*-algebras andx, y ∈ Asa.
If x ≤ y, theny − x ∈ A+. Thusf(y)− f(x) = f(y − x) ∈ B+ and therefore,f(x) ≤ f(y).
Definition 1.18. Let f : A → B be a linear map between unital C*-algebrasA andB.
• f is a multiplicative map if∀x, y ∈ A, f(xy) = f(x)f(y).
• f is an involutive map if∀x ∈ A, f(x∗) = f(x)∗.
• f is a unital map if it preserves the unit, i.e.f(1) = 1.
• f is a sub-unital map if0 ≤ f(1) ≤ 1.
Definition 1.19. We shall define three categoriesCStarMIU, CStarPU and CStarPsU with C*-
algebras as objects but different morphisms:
• A morphismf : A → B in CStarMIU is aMultiplicative InvolutiveUnital map (or MIU-map).
• A morphismf : A → B in CStarPU is aPositiveUnital map (or PU-map).
• A morphismf : A → B in CStarPsU is aPositivesub-Unital map (or PsU-map).
Lemma 1.20. There are inclusionsCStarMIU →֒ CStarPU →֒ CStarPsU.
Proof. Let f : A → B be a linear map between two C*-algebrasA andB.
If f : A → B is a MIU-map, then for everyx ∈ A, f(x∗x) = f(x∗)f(x) = (f(x))∗f(x). It follows
thatf is positive (∀x ∈ A, f(x∗x) = y∗y wherey = f(x) ∈ B).
If f : A → B is a PU-map,f(1) = 1 and therefore0 ≤ f(1) ≤ 1. Hence,f is a PsU-map.
Definition 1.21. A state on a C*-algebraA is a PsU-mapφ : A → C. The state space of a C*-algebra
A is the hom-setCStarPsU(A,C).
6
1.4 Hilbert spaces
Definition 1.22. A Hilbert space is a Banach spaceH together with an inner product〈·|·〉 and a norm
defined by‖x‖2 = 〈x|x〉 (x ∈ H).
Proposition 1.23(Cauchy-Schwarz inequality). LetH be a Hilbert space.
For everyx, y ∈ H, |〈x|y〉| ≤ ‖x‖ ‖y‖.
We now consider the situation of operators (i.e. linear maps) H → H on a Hilbert spaceH.
Definition 1.24. A linear mapf : A → B between Banach spaces is a bounded operator if there exists
ak > 0 such that‖f(a)‖B ≤ k · ‖a‖A for everya of A.
The collection of all bounded operators between two HilbertspacesH1 andH2 is denotedB(H1,H2).
For every Hilbert spaceH, we denote byB(H) the collectionB(H,H).
The set of effectsEf(H) on a Hilbert spaceH is the set of positive bounded operators below the
unit, i.e.Ef(H) = {T ∈ B(H) | 0 ≤ T ≤ 1}.
Definition 1.25. Let H be a Hilbert space. For every bounded operatorT ∈ B(H), we define the
following sets:
Kernel: kerT = {x ∈ H | Tx = 0} Range: ranT = {y ∈ H | ∃x ∈ H, y = Tx}
For every Hilbert spaceH, it is known thatB(H) is a Banach space and therefore a C*-algebra.
Self-adjoint and positive elements ofB(H) can be defined alternatively through the inner product ofH,
as shown by the two following theorems1, taken from [Con07]:
Theorem 1.26.LetH be a Hilbert space andT ∈ B(H).
ThenT is self-adjoint if and only if∀x ∈ H, 〈Tx|x〉 ∈ R.
Theorem 1.27.LetH be a Hilbert space andT ∈ B(H).
ThenT is positive if and only ifT is self-adjoint and∀x ∈ H, 〈Tx|x〉 ≥ 0.
1.5 W*-algebras
In this section, we investigate some topological structures of bounded operators on Hilbert spaces, in
order to define a special class of C*-algebras, known as W*-algebras (or von Neumann algebras), that
were introduced in the 1930s and 1940s in a series of papers byMurray and von Neumann [MvN36-43],
and latter used by Girard for his Geometry of Interaction [Gir11].
There are several standard topologies that one can define onB(H) (see [Tak02, Bla06] for an
overview).
Definition 1.28. The operator norm‖T‖ is defined for every bounded operatorT in B(H) by:
‖T‖ = sup {‖T (x)‖ | x ∈ H, ‖x‖ ≤ 1} .
1We will deliberately admit these standard theorems, as their proofs involve arguments coming from spectral theory, whichis totally out of our scope. For more details, we refer the reader to [Con07, II.2.12,VIII.3.8].
7
The norm topology (or uniform topology) is the topology induced by the operator norm onB(H).
A subbase for this topology is given by the sets{B ∈ B(H) | ‖A−B‖ < ǫ} whereA ∈ B(H) and
ǫ > 0.
A sequence of bounded operators(Tn) converges to a bounded operatorT in this topology if and
only if ‖Tn − T‖ −→n→∞
0.
Definition 1.29. The strong operator topology (or SOT) onB(H) is the topology of pointwise conver-
gence in the norm ofH: a net of bounded operators(Tλ)λ∈Λ converges to a bounded operatorT in
this topology if and only if‖(Tλ − T )x‖ −→ 0 for eachx ∈ H. In that case,T is said to be strongly
continuous (or SOT-continuous).
A subbase for this topology is given by the sets{B ∈ B(H) | ‖(A−B)x‖ < ǫ} wherex ∈ H,
A ∈ B(H) andǫ > 0.
Definition 1.30. The weak operator topology (or WOT) onB(H) is the topology of pointwise weak
convergence in the norm ofH: a net of bounded operators(Tλ)λ∈Λ converges to a bounded operatorT
in this topology if and only if〈(Tλ − T )x|y〉 −→ 0 for x, y ∈ H. In that case,T is said to be weakly
continuous (or WOT-continuous).
A subbase for this topology is given by the sets{B ∈ B(H) | 〈(A−B)x|y〉 < ǫ} wherex, y ∈ H,
A ∈ B(H) andǫ > 0.
The word "operator" is often omitted.
Proposition 1.31. LetH be a Hilbert space. The weak operator topology onB(H) is weaker than the
strong operator topology onB(H).
Proof. Let (Tλ)λ∈Λ be a net of bounded operators inB(H). Suppose that(Tλ)λ∈Λ converges strongly
to a bounded operatorT ∈ B(H). Then,‖(Tλ − T )x‖ −→ 0 for everyx ∈ H.
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we observe that|〈(Tλ − T )x|y〉| ≤ ‖(Tλ − T )x‖ ‖y‖ for every
x, y ∈ H. Thus,〈(Tλ − T )x|y〉 −→ 0 for everyx, y ∈ H and therefore,(Tλ)λ∈Λ converges weakly to
T .
Proposition 1.32. LetH be a Hilbert space. The strong operator topology onB(H) is weaker than the
norm topology onB(H).
Proof. Let (Tλ)λ∈Λ be a net of bounded operators inB(H). Suppose that(Tλ)λ∈Λ converges in the
norm topology to a bounded operatorT ∈ B(H).
Then,‖Tλ − T‖ = sup {‖(Tλ − T )(x)‖ | x ∈ H, ‖x‖ ≤ 1} −→ 0 and therefore, for everyx ∈ H,
‖(Tλ − T )x‖ −→ 0. Thus,(Tλ)λ∈Λ converges strongly toT .
It is known that for every finite-dimensional Hilbert spaceH, the weak topology, the strong topology
and the norm topology coincide. Moreover, for the strong andthe weak operator topologies, the use of
nets instead of sequences should not be considered trivial:it is known that, for an arbitrary Hilbert space
H, the norm topology is first-countable whereas the other topologies are not necessarily first-countable,
see [Tak02, Chapter II.2] and [Bla06, I.3.1].
8
Definition 1.33. LetH be a Hilbert space andA ⊂ B(H).
The commutant ofA is the setA′ of all bounded operators that commutes with those ofA:
A′ = {T ∈ B(H) | ∀S ∈ A,TS = ST}
The bicommutant ofA is the commutant ofA′. We denote it byA′′.
Theorem 1.34(von Neumann bicommutant theorem). LetA be a unital *-subalgebra ofB(H) for some
Hilbert spaceH. The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) A = A′′.
(ii) A is closed in the weak topology ofB(H).
(iii) A is closed in the strong topology ofB(H).
This theorem is a fundamental result in operator theory as itremarkably relates a topological property
(being closed in two operator topologies) to an algebraic property (being its own bicommutant).
Definition 1.35. A W*-algebra (or von Neumann algebra) is a C*-algebra which satifies one (hence all)
of the conditions of the von Neumann bicommutant theorem.
It follows that the collections of bounded operators on Hilbert spaces are the most trivial examples
of W*-algebras.
Definition 1.36. LetA andB be two C*-algebras.
A positive mapφ : A → B is normal if every increasing net(xλ)λ∈Λ in A+ with least upper bound∨
xλ ∈ A+ is such that the net(φ(xλ))λ∈Λ is an increasing net inB+ with least upper bound
∨
φ(xλ) = φ(∨
xλ).
It is important to note that the notion of normal map (defined in [Bla06, III.2.2.1] or [Dix69, Theorem
1, pp.57]) relates to the notion of positive Scott-continuous map, although it is in general not the case
thatA+ andB+ are dcpos whenφ : A → B is a positive map between C*-algebras (see Example 3.2).
This observation paves the way to interesting connections between operator theory and domain theory,
that we will study later.
Moreover, by [Bla06, III.2.2.2], we know that normal maps and positive weak-continuous maps
coincide. Thus, the W*-algebras and the normal sub-unital maps (or NsU-maps) between them give rise
to a categoryWStarNsU, which turns out to be a subcategory of the category of C*-algebrasCStarPsU.
2 Effect modules and the subdistribution monad
In this section, we introduce effect algebras, which are structures that have been introduced in mathemat-
ical physics to study quantum probability and quantum logicin the same setting [DS00]. The relation
between effect algebras and the distribution monad as already been studied in [Jac12a]. We will now
investigate the relationship between effect algebras and the subdistribution monad, in order to study
non-terminating probabilistic programs.
9
2.1 Effect algebras and effect modules
Definition 2.1. A partial commutative monoid (PCM) is a setM equipped with a zero element0 ∈ M
and a partial binary operation> : M ×M → M satisfying the following properties (wherex ⊥ y is a
notation for "x > y is defined")
Commutativity x ⊥ y impliesy ⊥ x andx > y = y > x.
Associativity y ⊥ z andx ⊥ (y>z) impliesx ⊥ y and(x>y) ⊥ z and alsox>(y>z) = (x>y)>z.
Zero 0 ⊥ x and0 > x = x.
When writingx > y, we shall now implicitly assume thatx ⊥ y.
Definition 2.2. An effect algebra(E, 0,>, (−)⊥) is a PCM(E, 0,>) together with an unary operation
(−)⊥ : E → E satisfying
(i) x⊥ ∈ E is the unique element inE such thatx ⊥ x⊥ andx > x⊥ = 1, where1 = 0⊥;
(ii) x ⊥ 1 =⇒ x = 0.
A homomorphism of effect algebras is a functionf : E → F between the underlying sets satisfying
f(1) = 1, and ifx ⊥ x′ in E, thenf(x) ⊥ f(x′) in F andf(x > x′) = f(x) > f(x′).
We writeEA for the category of effect algebras together with such homomorphisms.
Definition 2.3. A generalized effect algebra is a PCM(E, 0,>) satisfying the following properties:
Cancellation law If x > y = x > z theny = z.
Positivity law If x > y = 0 thenx = y = 0.
A homomorphism of generalized effect algebras is a functionf : E → F between the underlying
sets satisfyingf(0) = 0, and ifx ⊥ x′ in E, thenf(x) ⊥ f(x′) in F andf(x > x′) = f(x) > f(x′).
We writeGEA for the category of generalized effect algebras together with such homomorphisms.
Definition 2.4. Let (E, 0,>, (−)⊥) be an effect algebra.
The dual operation? of the partial sum> is defined byx ? y = (x⊥ > y⊥)⊥ (x, y ∈ E).
The difference operation⊖ is defined byy ⊖ x = z ⇔ y = x > z (x, y, z ∈ E).
Furthermore, for every effect algebraE, one can define a partial order with1 as top and0 as bottom:
x ≤ y if and only if ∃z.x > z = y [Jac12a, Lemma 5].
It was shown in [DS00, Section 1.2] that, for every generalized effect algebraE, one can define the
same partial order≤ with 0 as bottom, and a top1 if and only if E is an effect algebra. In other words,
an effect algebra is a generalized effect algebra with a top.
Lemma 2.5. If f : E → F is a homomorphism of effect algebras, thenf(x⊥) = f(x)⊥ and thus
f(0) = 0.
If f : E → F is a homomorphism of generalized effect algebras, thenx ≤E x′ =⇒ f(x) ≤F f(x′)
10
Proof. Suppose thatf ∈ EA(E,F ). Letx be an element ofE. Then,x ⊥ x⊥ andx > x⊥ = 1. Since
f preserves the sum and the unit, we obtain thatf(x) ⊥ f(x⊥) andf(x) > f(x⊥) = f(x > x⊥) =
f(1) = 1. It follows thatf(x⊥) = f(x)⊥ by uniqueness of the orthocomplement off(x). In particular,
whenx = 0, f(0) = f(1⊥) = f(1)⊥ = 1⊥ = 0.
Suppose thatf ∈ GEA(E,F ). Letx andy be two elements ofE. If x ≤E y, then there is az ∈ E
such thatx > z = y. We obtain thatf(x) > f(z) = f(x > z) = f(y) wheref(z) ∈ F . That is to say
f(x) ≤F f(y).
It should be noted that homomorphisms of generalized effectalgebras do not necessarily preserve
the orthocomplement. For example, for the mapf : [0, 1]R → [0, 1]R defined byf(x) =1
2x, it turns
out thatf(x> y) =1
2(x > y) =
1
2x>
1
2y = f(x)> f(y) andf(0) = 0 but f(1)⊥ = 1⊖ f(1) =
1
26=
0 = f(0) = f(1⊥).
Definition 2.6. For every effect algebraE and everyt ∈ E, we define the downset
↓t = {x ∈ E | 0 ≤ x ≤ t}
Proposition 2.7. Let (E,>, 0, (−)⊥) be an effect algebra andt ∈ E.
The downset↓t is an effect algebra with the sum> restricted to↓t, the elementt as top, the ortho-
complement defined byx⊥ = t ⊖ x for every elementx ∈ ↓t, and finallyx ⊥ y if and only ifx ⊥E y
andx > y ≤ t (x, y ∈ ↓t).
Proof. Let x, y, z ∈ ↓t.
Commutativity: If x ⊥ y, thenx ⊥E y andx>y ≤ t. It follows thaty ⊥E x andy>x = x>y ≤ t.
That is to sayy ⊥ x.
Associativity: Suppose thaty ⊥ z andx ⊥ (y > z). Theny ⊥E z andy > z ≤ t andx ⊥E (y > z)
and alsox> (y > z) ≤ t. Thus,x ⊥E y, (x> y) ⊥E z andx> y ≤ (x> y)> z = x> (y > z) ≤ t. It
follows thatx ⊥ y and(x > y) ⊥ z.
Zero: Fromx ∈ ↓t ⊆ E, we obtain that0 ⊥E x and0 > x = x ≤ t. That is to say0 ⊥ x.
Hence,↓t is a PCM. We now consider an orthocomplement for↓t:
By [Jac12a, Lemma 6(vii)],x ≤ t impliest⊖ (t⊖ x) = x and thus, by Definition 2.4,x > (t⊖ x) = t.
We obtain thatx⊥ = t ⊖ x by unicity of the orthocomplement. Moreover,x ⊥ t implies thatx ⊥E t
andx > t ≤ t, and thusx ≤ t ⊖ t = 0 by [Jac12a, Lemma 6(iv)]. Then,x ≤ 0, which implies that
x = 0.
Proposition 2.8. Letf : E → F be a function between two effect algebrasE andF .
Let f̃ : E → f(E) = ↓f(1) := {x ∈ F | 0 ≤ x ≤ f(1)} be the function defined pointwise by
f̃(x) = f(x).
Thenf is a homomorphism ofGEA (i.e. f ∈ GEA(E,F )) if and only if f̃ is a homomorphism of
EA (i.e. f̃ ∈ EA(E, ↓f(1)))
Proof. Let x, y ∈ E.
11
Suppose thatf ∈ GEA(E,F ) and thatx ⊥E y. Thenf preserves the sum and thus̃f(x) =
2A set of functionsF from a setX to a setY separates the points ofX if for every pair of distinct elements(x, y) ∈ X×X,there exists a functionf ∈ F such thatf(x) 6= f(y).
19
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Bart Jacobs, Robert Furber, Bas Spitters, Bas Westerbaan, Jorik Mande-
maker and Prakash Panangaden for helpful discussions.
20
A Correspondence between operator theory and order theory
In this section, we will provide the following correspondence table between operator theory and order
theory, whereA andB are C*-algebras.
Operator Theory Order theory Reference
A monotone-closed [0, 1]A directed-complete A.2
f : A → B NsU-map f : [0, 1]A → [0, 1]B Scott-continuous PsU-map A.3
A W*-algebra [0, 1]A dcpo with a separating set of normal states A.4
In the litterature [Bla06, Dix69, Tak02], monotone-closedC*-algebras and normal maps are defined
as follow.
Definition A.1. A C*-algebraA is monotone-closed (or monotone-complete) if every bounded increas-
ing net of positive elements ofA has a least upper bound inA+.
A positive mapφ : A → B between C*-algebras is normal if every increasing net(xλ)λ∈Λ in A+
with a least upper bound∨
xλ ∈ A+ is such that the net(φ(xλ))λ∈Λ is an increasing net inB+ with
least upper bound∨
φ(xλ) = φ(∨
xλ).
In the standard definition of the notion of monotone-closedness, the increasing nets are not required
to be bounded by the unit, like in the definitions we used in this thesis. We will now show that we can
assume that the upper bound is the unit, without loss of generality.
Proposition A.2. A C*-algebraA is monotone-closed if and only if the poset([0, 1]A,≤) is directed-
complete.
Proof. LetA be a C*-algebra.
If A is monotone-closed, then, by definition every increasing net of positive elements bounded by1
has a least upper bound in[0, 1]A and therefore, the poset([0, 1]A,≤) is directed-complete.
Conversely, suppose that[0, 1]A is directed-complete. We now consider an increasing net of positive
elements(aλ)λ∈Λ in A+, bounded by a nonzero positive elementb ∈ A+. Then, it restricts to an
increasing net(aλ‖b‖
)λ∈Λ in [0, 1]A sinceb ≤ ‖b‖ • 1. By assumption, the increasing net(aλ‖b‖
)λ∈Λ has
a least upper bound∨
λ∈Λ
aλ‖b‖
∈ [0, 1]A and thus‖b‖∨
λ∈Λ
aλ‖b‖
is an upper bound for(aλ)λ∈Λ.
Let c ∈ A+ be an upper bound for the increasing net(aλ)λ∈Λ such thatc ≤ b. For everyλ′ ∈ Λ,
aλ′ ≤ c ≤ b ≤ ‖b‖ • 1 and thusc
‖b‖is an upper bound for the increasing net(
aλ‖b‖
)λ∈Λ. It follows
that∨
λ∈Λ
aλ‖b‖
≤c
‖b‖and therefore,‖b‖
∨
λ∈Λ
aλ‖b‖
≤ c. Thus,‖b‖∨
λ∈Λ
aλ‖b‖
is the least upper bound of the
increasing net(aλ)λ∈Λ bounded byb and we can conclude thatA is monotone-closed.
In this thesis, we have chosen to use the standard definition of normal maps. However, one can say
that a PsU-map is normal if its restrictionf : [0, 1]A → [0, 1]B is Scott-continuous.
Proposition A.3. A PsU-mapf : A → B between C*-algebras is normal if and only if its restriction
f : [0, 1]A → [0, 1]B is Scott-continuous.
21
Proof. Let f : A → B be a positive map between two C*-algebrasA andB.
If f is normal, then by definition every increasing net(xλ)λ∈Λ in [0, 1]A ⊆ A+ with least upper
bound∨
xλ ∈ [0, 1]A is such that the net(f(xλ))λ∈Λ is an increasing net in[0, 1]B ⊆ B+ with least
upper bound∨
f(xλ) = f(∨
xλ) ∈ [0, 1]B . That is to say, the restrictionf : [0, 1]A → [0, 1]B is
Scott-continuous.
Conversely, suppose that the restrictionf : [0, 1]A → [0, 1]B is Scott-continuous. Let(xλ)λ∈Λ be
an increasing net inA+ with a nonzero least upper boundy ∈ A+. Sincey ≤ ‖y‖ • 1, it restricts
to an increasing net(xλ‖y‖
)λ∈Λ in [0, 1]A with a least upper boundy
‖y‖. From the Scott-continuity of
f : [0, 1]A → [0, 1]B , we deduce that the net(f(xλ‖y‖
))λ∈Λ is an increasing net in[0, 1]B with least
upper bound∨
f(xλ‖y‖
) = f(y
‖y‖) ∈ [0, 1]B . It follows that the net(f(xλ))λ∈Λ, which is equal
to (‖y‖ f(xλ‖y‖
))λ∈Λ by linearity, is an increasing net inB+ with an upper bound‖y‖∨
f(xλ‖y‖
) =
f(‖y‖y
‖y‖) = f(y) ∈ B+.
Suppose thatz ∈ B+ is an upper bound for the increasing net(f(xλ))λ∈Λ. From the fact that
f(xλ′) ≤ z and thereforef(xλ′
‖y‖) =
f(xλ′)
‖y‖≤
z
‖y‖for everyλ′ ∈ Λ, we obtain thatf(
y
‖y‖) ≤
z
‖y‖and thusf(y) ≤ z. It follows that f(y) is the least upper bound of the increasing net(f(xλ))λ∈Λ.
Hence, we can conclude that the mapf is normal.
It is known that a C*-algebraA is a W*-algebra if and only if it is monotone-complete and ad-
mits sufficiently many normal states, i.e. the set of normal states ofA separates the points ofA, see
[Tak02, Theorem 3.16]. By combining this fact and Proposition A.2, one can provide an order-theoretic
characterization of W*-algebras, as in the following theorem.
Theorem A.4. LetA be a C*-algebra.
ThenA is a W*-algebra if and only if its set of effects[0, 1]A is directed-complete with a separating
set of normal states (i.e.∀x ∈ A,∃f ∈ WStarNsU(A, [0, 1]C), f(x) 6= 0).
It is natural to ask which role is played by normal states in this theorem. The existence of a separating
set of normal states for every W*-algebra will be seen later in the proof of Lemma C.4. For every C*-
algebraA, it is known that normal states induce a representationπ of A, i.e. a *-homomorphism from
A to B(H), for some Hilbert spaceH, see [Tak02, I.9]. It can be shown that, when the C*-algebraA
admits a separating set of normal states, the representation π of A induced by the normal states ofA
is faithful (i.e. injective) and that, whenA is monotone-closed, the imageπ(A) of A by the faithful
representationπ : A → B(H) is a strongly-closed *-subalgebra ofB(H), which is an alternative
definition of W*-algebras, see [Tak02, III.3] for a more detailed proof.
It is important to note that, in one of the very first articles about W*-algebras [Kad55], Kadison de-
fined W*-algebras as monotone-closed C*-algebras which separates the points. However, to our knowl-
edge, this definition never became standard.
22
B A state-and-effect triangle for discrete subprobabilistic computation
In this appendix, we will provide an adjunction between the category of generalized effect modules and
the category of subconvex sets. Then, we will use this adjunction to express a weakest precondition
calculus in terms of bijective correspondences, as seen in Section 4.
Lemma B.1. For every subconvex setX, the homsetSubConv(X, [0, 1]) is a generalized effect mod-
ule.
Therefore, there is a functorSubConv(−, [0, 1]) : SubConvop → GEMod.
Proof. Let X be a subconvex set. We define pointwise a generalized effect module structure on the
homsetSubConv(X, [0, 1]).
We take the mapx 7→ 0 as zero element.
The sum is defined pointwise for everyx ∈ X by (f >g)(x) = f(x)+g(x) whenf(x)+g(x) ≤ 1.
Clearly,f > g is again an affine map of subconvex sets:
(f > g)(∑
i
rixi) = f(∑
i
rixi) + g(∑
i
rixi)
=∑
i
rif(xi) +∑
i
rig(xi)
=∑
i
ri(f(xi) + g(xi))
=∑
i
ri(f > g)(xi)
where∑
i
rixi ∈ X.
We now need to check that the homsetSubConv(X, [0, 1]) satisfies the cancellative law and the
positivity law of generalized effect algebras. Letf, g, h ∈ SubConv(X, [0, 1]).
Cancellative law: Suppose thatf > g = f > h. From the fact thatf(x) + g(x) = (f > g)(x) =
(f > h)(x) = f(x) + h(x) for everyx ∈ X, we deduce thatg(x) = h(x) for everyx ∈ X and thus
g = h.
Positivity law: Suppose thatf > g = 0. It follows thatf(x) + g(x) = (f > g)(x) = 0 for every
x ∈ X. Since the effect algebra[0, 1] is therefore a generalized effect algebra, it must satisfy the
positive law and thusf(x) = g(x) = 0 for everyx ∈ X. Hence,f = g = 0.
The scalar product is also defined pointwise byr • f = λx ∈ X.r · f(x), which is again an affine map
23
of subconvex sets:
(r • f)(∑
i
rixi) = r · f(∑
i
rixi)
= r · (∑
i
rif(xi))
=∑
i
ri · r · f(xi)
=∑
i
ri(r • f)(xi)
where∑
i
rixi ∈ X andr ∈ [0, 1].
Thus, the mappingX 7→ SubConv(X, [0, 1]) gives a contravariant functor: by precomposition,
we obtain a map of generalized effect modules(−) ◦ f : SubConv(Y, [0, 1]) → SubConv(X, [0, 1])
for every affine mapf : X → Y of subconvex sets.
• For every affine mapf : X → Y of subconvex sets,