quantum-gate-three-qubit
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| quantum-gate-three-qubit [August 26, 2026 at 17:46] – removed Ivan Janevski | quantum-gate-three-qubit [August 26, 2026 at 17:49] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | # Three-qubit gates | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Three-qubit gates** are unitary operations that act on a triple of qubits. They are represented by $8 \times 8$ unitary matrices and form the Lie group $\mathrm{SU}(8)$. Beyond what two-qubit gates offer, three-qubit gates expose genuinely tripartite entanglement, | ||
| + | |||
| + | A three-qubit gate is applied to a joint state $|\psi\rangle \in \mathbb{C}^8$ to produce $U|\psi\rangle$. Most three-qubit gates used in practice are doubly-controlled versions of single-qubit gates (CCX, CCY, CCZ, CCRx, CCRy, CCRz, CCP) or controlled two-qubit gates (CSWAP, CiSWAP): two control qubits or one control plus a two-qubit operation, rather than an arbitrary point in $\mathrm{SU}(8)$. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nearly all of them decompose into CNOT and single-qubit gates and none are native on current hardware; they exist as circuit-level building blocks rather than physical operations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## List of gates | ||
| + | |||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccx|CCX (Toffoli)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccy|CCY (Controlled-Controlled-Y)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccz|CCZ (Controlled-Controlled-Z)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-cswap|CSWAP (Fredkin)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ciswap|CiSWAP (Controlled-iSWAP)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccp|CCP (Controlled-Controlled-Phase)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccrx|CCRx (Controlled-Controlled-RX)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccry|CCRy (Controlled-Controlled-RY)]] | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccrz|CCRz (Controlled-Controlled-RZ)]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Genuine tripartite entanglement | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two-qubit entanglement is a single number: concurrence, | ||
| + | |||
| + | $\mathrm{GHZ} = \frac{|000\rangle + |111\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **GHZ-class** states, produced by a Hadamard followed by CCZ-style correlation (e.g. $H \otimes I \otimes I$ then CCX-chained), | ||
| + | |||
| + | The three-tangle extends concurrence to detect GHZ-type correlation specifically; | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Matrix representations | ||
| + | |||
| + | **CC-Pauli family** (controls on qubits 1,2, target on qubit 3), all identity except the $|11\rangle$-target block: | ||
| + | |||
| + | $$\text{CCX} = \begin{pmatrix} I_6 & 0 \\ 0 & X \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{CCY} = \begin{pmatrix} I_6 & 0 \\ 0 & Y \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{CCZ} = \begin{pmatrix} I_6 & 0 \\ 0 & Z \end{pmatrix}$$ | ||
| + | |||
| + | where $I_6$ is the $6\times6$ identity on the subspace where at least one control is $|0\rangle$, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Controlled two-qubit gates** (control on qubit 1, SWAP/iSWAP on qubits 2,3): | ||
| + | |||
| + | $$\text{CSWAP} = \begin{pmatrix} I_4 & 0 \\ 0 & \mathrm{SWAP} \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{CiSWAP} = \begin{pmatrix} I_4 & 0 \\ 0 & \mathrm{iSWAP} \end{pmatrix}$$ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Universality for reversible classical computation | ||
| + | |||
| + | CCX and CSWAP are each, on their own, universal for classical reversible computation: | ||
| + | |||
| + | $\text{CCX}(|1\rangle, | ||
| + | |||
| + | No single- or two-qubit gate has this property, since a $2\times2$ or $4\times4$ unitary can't implement a genuinely irreversible-looking classical function like AND without an extra output qubit to preserve unitarity. This is why Toffoli and Fredkin appear throughout reversible and quantum arithmetic circuits: they let a quantum computer host ordinary classical logic without discarding information. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Group structure | ||
| + | |||
| + | Three-qubit gates form $\mathrm{SU}(8)$, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Classification instead falls back on the coarser GHZ/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Decomposition and circuit cost | ||
| + | |||
| + | CCX costs about 6 CNOTs plus single-qubit gates; CSWAP and CiSWAP are comparably expensive. This generalizes to arbitrary $n$-controlled gates via the ancilla-based construction (Barenco et al.): an $n$-control Toffoli decomposes into $O(n)$ ordinary Toffolis using one borrowed ancilla qubit, or $O(n^2)$ without ancilla. Three-qubit gates are therefore the first rung of a ladder: they' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Uses | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **Quantum arithmetic**: | ||
| + | - **Grover' | ||
| + | - **Error correction**: | ||
| + | - **Entanglement benchmarking**: | ||
| + | - **Reversible computing**: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Implementation | ||
| + | |||
| + | Three-qubit gates are essentially never physically native; every platform compiles them down to single- and two-qubit primitives. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **Superconducting**: | ||
| + | - **Trapped ions**: decomposed via chains of native $\text{XX}(\theta)$-type gates; some proposals for direct multi-ion Mølmer-Sørensen gates remain experimental | ||
| + | - **Photonic**: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ## Relations | ||
| + | |||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccx|CCX]], | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccy|CCY]], | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ciswap|CiSWAP]]: | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-ccp|CCP]], | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-two-qubit|Two-qubit gates]]: three-qubit gates decompose into chains of these | ||
| + | - [[quantum-gate-multiqubit|Multi-qubit gates]]: general $n$-qubit generalization, | ||
| + | - $\mathrm{SU}(8)$: | ||
| + | - GHZ state, W state: the two inequivalent classes of genuine tripartite entanglement | ||
quantum-gate-three-qubit.md · Last modified: by 127.0.0.1
