What are the constraints on a matrix that allow it to be “extended” into a unitary?












6












$begingroup$


DaftWulie's answer to Extending a square matrix to a Unitary matrix says that extending a matrix into a unitary cannot be done unless there's constraints on the matrix. What are the constraints?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    DaftWulie's answer to Extending a square matrix to a Unitary matrix says that extending a matrix into a unitary cannot be done unless there's constraints on the matrix. What are the constraints?










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      DaftWulie's answer to Extending a square matrix to a Unitary matrix says that extending a matrix into a unitary cannot be done unless there's constraints on the matrix. What are the constraints?










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      DaftWulie's answer to Extending a square matrix to a Unitary matrix says that extending a matrix into a unitary cannot be done unless there's constraints on the matrix. What are the constraints?







      mathematics






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Jan 10 at 12:22









      Pablo LiManniPablo LiManni

      564




      564






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an $ntimes n$ matrix $M$, you can construct a $2ntimes 2n$ unitary matrix $U$ provided the singular values of $M$ are all upper bounded by 1.



          Sufficiency



          To see this, express the singular value decomposition of $M$ as
          $$
          M=RDV
          $$

          where $D$ is diagonal and $R$, $V$ are unitary. Now define
          $$
          U=left(begin{array}{cc}
          M & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
          Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -M
          end{array}right),
          $$

          which we can only do if the singular values are no larger than 1. Let's verify that it's unitary
          begin{align*}
          UU^dagger&=left(begin{array}{cc}
          RDV & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
          Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -RDV
          end{array}right)left(begin{array}{cc}
          V^dagger DR^dagger & V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger \
          V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger & -V^dagger DR^dagger
          end{array}right) \
          &=left(begin{array}{cc}
          RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger & 0 \
          0 & RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger
          end{array}right) \
          &=mathbb{I}.
          end{align*}



          Necessity



          Imagine I have a matrix $M$ with a singular value $lambda>1$ and corresponding normalised vector $|lambdarangle$. Assume I construct a unitary
          $$
          U=left(begin{array}{cc} M & A \ B & C end{array}right).
          $$

          Let's act $U$ on the state $left(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)$. We get
          $$
          Uleft(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)=left(begin{array}{c} M|lambdarangle \ B|lambdarangle end{array}right).
          $$

          This output state must have a norm that is at least the norm of $M|lambdarangle$, i.e. $lambda>1$. But if $U$ is a unitary, the norm must be 1. So it must be impossible to perform such a construction if there exists a singular value $lambda>1$.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
            $endgroup$
            – Pablo LiManni
            Jan 10 at 17:54






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Jan 10 at 18:24










          • $begingroup$
            "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
            $endgroup$
            – Acccumulation
            Jan 10 at 19:31










          • $begingroup$
            @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
            $endgroup$
            – glS
            Jan 11 at 9:42










          • $begingroup$
            @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Jan 11 at 9:56



















          2












          $begingroup$

          $newcommand{bs}[1]{boldsymbol{#1}}$Here is a slightly different way to prove what the other excellent answer did.



          Note that a matrix $U$ is unitary if and only if it sends orthonormal bases into orthonormal bases.
          This, in particular, means that if $U$ is unitary then $|Ubs v|=1$ for any $bs v$ with $|bs v|=1$.



          Let us write the SVD of $M$ as $Mbs u_k=s_kbs v_k$, where $s_kge0$ are the singular values of $M$.



          Note that if $U$ is an extension of $M$, then $Ubs u_k=s_k bs v_k+bs w_k$ for some $bs w_k$ orthogonal to $bs v_k$ (and more generally to the whole range of $M$).



          If follows that if, for any $k$, $s_k>1$, then $|Ubs u_k|>1$, and thus $U$ is not unitary.



          On the other hand, if $s_kle1$ for all $k$, let us show how can always construct a unitary $U$ that contains $M$ as a submatrix.
          Let us denote with $bs voplus bs 0$ the vectors in the extended $2n$-dimensional space that are built by appending zeros to the $n$-dimensional vector $bs v$, and with $bs 0oplusbs v$ the vectors that are equal to $bs v$ in the last $n$ dimensions by zero in the first $n$ ones.
          Being ${bs u_k}_k$ a basis for the original space, it follows that ${bs u_koplus bs 0,bs0oplusbs u_k}_k$ is a basis for the extended space.



          We will define $U$ through its action on the vectors $u_koplus bs 0$ and $bs0oplus u_k$ as follows:
          begin{align}
          U(bs u_koplus bs 0)&=s_k(bs v_koplusbs 0)+sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs 0oplus bs v_k) \
          U(bs0 oplus bs u_k)&=sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs v_koplusbs 0)-s_k(bs 0oplus bs v_k).
          end{align}



          One can then check that all of these output vectors form an orthonormal system in the extended space, and thus $U$ is unitary.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "694"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5167%2fwhat-are-the-constraints-on-a-matrix-that-allow-it-to-be-extended-into-a-unita%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7












            $begingroup$

            A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an $ntimes n$ matrix $M$, you can construct a $2ntimes 2n$ unitary matrix $U$ provided the singular values of $M$ are all upper bounded by 1.



            Sufficiency



            To see this, express the singular value decomposition of $M$ as
            $$
            M=RDV
            $$

            where $D$ is diagonal and $R$, $V$ are unitary. Now define
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc}
            M & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -M
            end{array}right),
            $$

            which we can only do if the singular values are no larger than 1. Let's verify that it's unitary
            begin{align*}
            UU^dagger&=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RDV & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -RDV
            end{array}right)left(begin{array}{cc}
            V^dagger DR^dagger & V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger \
            V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger & -V^dagger DR^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger & 0 \
            0 & RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=mathbb{I}.
            end{align*}



            Necessity



            Imagine I have a matrix $M$ with a singular value $lambda>1$ and corresponding normalised vector $|lambdarangle$. Assume I construct a unitary
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc} M & A \ B & C end{array}right).
            $$

            Let's act $U$ on the state $left(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)$. We get
            $$
            Uleft(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)=left(begin{array}{c} M|lambdarangle \ B|lambdarangle end{array}right).
            $$

            This output state must have a norm that is at least the norm of $M|lambdarangle$, i.e. $lambda>1$. But if $U$ is a unitary, the norm must be 1. So it must be impossible to perform such a construction if there exists a singular value $lambda>1$.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
              $endgroup$
              – Pablo LiManni
              Jan 10 at 17:54






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 10 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
              $endgroup$
              – Acccumulation
              Jan 10 at 19:31










            • $begingroup$
              @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
              $endgroup$
              – glS
              Jan 11 at 9:42










            • $begingroup$
              @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 11 at 9:56
















            7












            $begingroup$

            A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an $ntimes n$ matrix $M$, you can construct a $2ntimes 2n$ unitary matrix $U$ provided the singular values of $M$ are all upper bounded by 1.



            Sufficiency



            To see this, express the singular value decomposition of $M$ as
            $$
            M=RDV
            $$

            where $D$ is diagonal and $R$, $V$ are unitary. Now define
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc}
            M & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -M
            end{array}right),
            $$

            which we can only do if the singular values are no larger than 1. Let's verify that it's unitary
            begin{align*}
            UU^dagger&=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RDV & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -RDV
            end{array}right)left(begin{array}{cc}
            V^dagger DR^dagger & V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger \
            V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger & -V^dagger DR^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger & 0 \
            0 & RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=mathbb{I}.
            end{align*}



            Necessity



            Imagine I have a matrix $M$ with a singular value $lambda>1$ and corresponding normalised vector $|lambdarangle$. Assume I construct a unitary
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc} M & A \ B & C end{array}right).
            $$

            Let's act $U$ on the state $left(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)$. We get
            $$
            Uleft(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)=left(begin{array}{c} M|lambdarangle \ B|lambdarangle end{array}right).
            $$

            This output state must have a norm that is at least the norm of $M|lambdarangle$, i.e. $lambda>1$. But if $U$ is a unitary, the norm must be 1. So it must be impossible to perform such a construction if there exists a singular value $lambda>1$.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
              $endgroup$
              – Pablo LiManni
              Jan 10 at 17:54






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 10 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
              $endgroup$
              – Acccumulation
              Jan 10 at 19:31










            • $begingroup$
              @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
              $endgroup$
              – glS
              Jan 11 at 9:42










            • $begingroup$
              @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 11 at 9:56














            7












            7








            7





            $begingroup$

            A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an $ntimes n$ matrix $M$, you can construct a $2ntimes 2n$ unitary matrix $U$ provided the singular values of $M$ are all upper bounded by 1.



            Sufficiency



            To see this, express the singular value decomposition of $M$ as
            $$
            M=RDV
            $$

            where $D$ is diagonal and $R$, $V$ are unitary. Now define
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc}
            M & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -M
            end{array}right),
            $$

            which we can only do if the singular values are no larger than 1. Let's verify that it's unitary
            begin{align*}
            UU^dagger&=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RDV & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -RDV
            end{array}right)left(begin{array}{cc}
            V^dagger DR^dagger & V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger \
            V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger & -V^dagger DR^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger & 0 \
            0 & RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=mathbb{I}.
            end{align*}



            Necessity



            Imagine I have a matrix $M$ with a singular value $lambda>1$ and corresponding normalised vector $|lambdarangle$. Assume I construct a unitary
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc} M & A \ B & C end{array}right).
            $$

            Let's act $U$ on the state $left(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)$. We get
            $$
            Uleft(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)=left(begin{array}{c} M|lambdarangle \ B|lambdarangle end{array}right).
            $$

            This output state must have a norm that is at least the norm of $M|lambdarangle$, i.e. $lambda>1$. But if $U$ is a unitary, the norm must be 1. So it must be impossible to perform such a construction if there exists a singular value $lambda>1$.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an $ntimes n$ matrix $M$, you can construct a $2ntimes 2n$ unitary matrix $U$ provided the singular values of $M$ are all upper bounded by 1.



            Sufficiency



            To see this, express the singular value decomposition of $M$ as
            $$
            M=RDV
            $$

            where $D$ is diagonal and $R$, $V$ are unitary. Now define
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc}
            M & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -M
            end{array}right),
            $$

            which we can only do if the singular values are no larger than 1. Let's verify that it's unitary
            begin{align*}
            UU^dagger&=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RDV & Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V \
            Rsqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}V & -RDV
            end{array}right)left(begin{array}{cc}
            V^dagger DR^dagger & V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger \
            V^daggersqrt{mathbb{I}-D^2}R^dagger & -V^dagger DR^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=left(begin{array}{cc}
            RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger & 0 \
            0 & RD^2R^dagger+R(mathbb{I}-D^2)R^dagger
            end{array}right) \
            &=mathbb{I}.
            end{align*}



            Necessity



            Imagine I have a matrix $M$ with a singular value $lambda>1$ and corresponding normalised vector $|lambdarangle$. Assume I construct a unitary
            $$
            U=left(begin{array}{cc} M & A \ B & C end{array}right).
            $$

            Let's act $U$ on the state $left(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)$. We get
            $$
            Uleft(begin{array}{c} |lambdarangle \ 0 end{array}right)=left(begin{array}{c} M|lambdarangle \ B|lambdarangle end{array}right).
            $$

            This output state must have a norm that is at least the norm of $M|lambdarangle$, i.e. $lambda>1$. But if $U$ is a unitary, the norm must be 1. So it must be impossible to perform such a construction if there exists a singular value $lambda>1$.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jan 10 at 14:20









            DaftWullieDaftWullie

            12.9k1539




            12.9k1539








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
              $endgroup$
              – Pablo LiManni
              Jan 10 at 17:54






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 10 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
              $endgroup$
              – Acccumulation
              Jan 10 at 19:31










            • $begingroup$
              @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
              $endgroup$
              – glS
              Jan 11 at 9:42










            • $begingroup$
              @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 11 at 9:56














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
              $endgroup$
              – Pablo LiManni
              Jan 10 at 17:54






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 10 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
              $endgroup$
              – Acccumulation
              Jan 10 at 19:31










            • $begingroup$
              @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
              $endgroup$
              – glS
              Jan 11 at 9:42










            • $begingroup$
              @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
              $endgroup$
              – DaftWullie
              Jan 11 at 9:56








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
            $endgroup$
            – Pablo LiManni
            Jan 10 at 17:54




            $begingroup$
            @DaftWulie: This is "a" necessary and sufficient condition. Is it the only one?
            $endgroup$
            – Pablo LiManni
            Jan 10 at 17:54




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Jan 10 at 18:24




            $begingroup$
            You might be able to phrase the condition in another way, but it would be materially equivalent. That’s the point of necessary and sufficient - it is the precise categorisation of what is required.
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Jan 10 at 18:24












            $begingroup$
            "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
            $endgroup$
            – Acccumulation
            Jan 10 at 19:31




            $begingroup$
            "A necessary and sufficient condition is that, given an n×n matrix M, you can construct a 2n×2n unitary matrix U provided the singular values of M are all upper bounded by 1." If I'm reading this correctly (and I am far from sure I am), it seems that this can be rewritten as "Given a matrix $M$, a necessary and sufficient condition for being able to extend $M$ to a 2n×2n unitary matrix is that the singular values of $M$ all be less than or equal to $1$."
            $endgroup$
            – Acccumulation
            Jan 10 at 19:31












            $begingroup$
            @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
            $endgroup$
            – glS
            Jan 11 at 9:42




            $begingroup$
            @DaftWullie it is definitely possible to do this with less then doubling the space though. As a trivial example, any matrix obtained by removing one row and column from a unitary matrix can be extended to a unitary matrix by adding a single dimension. Do you have any idea on how one could estimate the minimum number of dimensions that have to be added to a given matrix to make it into a unitary?
            $endgroup$
            – glS
            Jan 11 at 9:42












            $begingroup$
            @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Jan 11 at 9:56




            $begingroup$
            @glS Well, I know what I'd do, which is perform a Gram-Schmidt-like procedure, extending one row at a time, ensuring orthonormality with all previous rows. I don't know ho to succinctly write down the dimension number based on properties of $M$ - I've never thought about it. I guess a starting point is by counting the number of singular values equal to 1, and reducing the size of the extension by that much?
            $endgroup$
            – DaftWullie
            Jan 11 at 9:56













            2












            $begingroup$

            $newcommand{bs}[1]{boldsymbol{#1}}$Here is a slightly different way to prove what the other excellent answer did.



            Note that a matrix $U$ is unitary if and only if it sends orthonormal bases into orthonormal bases.
            This, in particular, means that if $U$ is unitary then $|Ubs v|=1$ for any $bs v$ with $|bs v|=1$.



            Let us write the SVD of $M$ as $Mbs u_k=s_kbs v_k$, where $s_kge0$ are the singular values of $M$.



            Note that if $U$ is an extension of $M$, then $Ubs u_k=s_k bs v_k+bs w_k$ for some $bs w_k$ orthogonal to $bs v_k$ (and more generally to the whole range of $M$).



            If follows that if, for any $k$, $s_k>1$, then $|Ubs u_k|>1$, and thus $U$ is not unitary.



            On the other hand, if $s_kle1$ for all $k$, let us show how can always construct a unitary $U$ that contains $M$ as a submatrix.
            Let us denote with $bs voplus bs 0$ the vectors in the extended $2n$-dimensional space that are built by appending zeros to the $n$-dimensional vector $bs v$, and with $bs 0oplusbs v$ the vectors that are equal to $bs v$ in the last $n$ dimensions by zero in the first $n$ ones.
            Being ${bs u_k}_k$ a basis for the original space, it follows that ${bs u_koplus bs 0,bs0oplusbs u_k}_k$ is a basis for the extended space.



            We will define $U$ through its action on the vectors $u_koplus bs 0$ and $bs0oplus u_k$ as follows:
            begin{align}
            U(bs u_koplus bs 0)&=s_k(bs v_koplusbs 0)+sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs 0oplus bs v_k) \
            U(bs0 oplus bs u_k)&=sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs v_koplusbs 0)-s_k(bs 0oplus bs v_k).
            end{align}



            One can then check that all of these output vectors form an orthonormal system in the extended space, and thus $U$ is unitary.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              2












              $begingroup$

              $newcommand{bs}[1]{boldsymbol{#1}}$Here is a slightly different way to prove what the other excellent answer did.



              Note that a matrix $U$ is unitary if and only if it sends orthonormal bases into orthonormal bases.
              This, in particular, means that if $U$ is unitary then $|Ubs v|=1$ for any $bs v$ with $|bs v|=1$.



              Let us write the SVD of $M$ as $Mbs u_k=s_kbs v_k$, where $s_kge0$ are the singular values of $M$.



              Note that if $U$ is an extension of $M$, then $Ubs u_k=s_k bs v_k+bs w_k$ for some $bs w_k$ orthogonal to $bs v_k$ (and more generally to the whole range of $M$).



              If follows that if, for any $k$, $s_k>1$, then $|Ubs u_k|>1$, and thus $U$ is not unitary.



              On the other hand, if $s_kle1$ for all $k$, let us show how can always construct a unitary $U$ that contains $M$ as a submatrix.
              Let us denote with $bs voplus bs 0$ the vectors in the extended $2n$-dimensional space that are built by appending zeros to the $n$-dimensional vector $bs v$, and with $bs 0oplusbs v$ the vectors that are equal to $bs v$ in the last $n$ dimensions by zero in the first $n$ ones.
              Being ${bs u_k}_k$ a basis for the original space, it follows that ${bs u_koplus bs 0,bs0oplusbs u_k}_k$ is a basis for the extended space.



              We will define $U$ through its action on the vectors $u_koplus bs 0$ and $bs0oplus u_k$ as follows:
              begin{align}
              U(bs u_koplus bs 0)&=s_k(bs v_koplusbs 0)+sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs 0oplus bs v_k) \
              U(bs0 oplus bs u_k)&=sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs v_koplusbs 0)-s_k(bs 0oplus bs v_k).
              end{align}



              One can then check that all of these output vectors form an orthonormal system in the extended space, and thus $U$ is unitary.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                $newcommand{bs}[1]{boldsymbol{#1}}$Here is a slightly different way to prove what the other excellent answer did.



                Note that a matrix $U$ is unitary if and only if it sends orthonormal bases into orthonormal bases.
                This, in particular, means that if $U$ is unitary then $|Ubs v|=1$ for any $bs v$ with $|bs v|=1$.



                Let us write the SVD of $M$ as $Mbs u_k=s_kbs v_k$, where $s_kge0$ are the singular values of $M$.



                Note that if $U$ is an extension of $M$, then $Ubs u_k=s_k bs v_k+bs w_k$ for some $bs w_k$ orthogonal to $bs v_k$ (and more generally to the whole range of $M$).



                If follows that if, for any $k$, $s_k>1$, then $|Ubs u_k|>1$, and thus $U$ is not unitary.



                On the other hand, if $s_kle1$ for all $k$, let us show how can always construct a unitary $U$ that contains $M$ as a submatrix.
                Let us denote with $bs voplus bs 0$ the vectors in the extended $2n$-dimensional space that are built by appending zeros to the $n$-dimensional vector $bs v$, and with $bs 0oplusbs v$ the vectors that are equal to $bs v$ in the last $n$ dimensions by zero in the first $n$ ones.
                Being ${bs u_k}_k$ a basis for the original space, it follows that ${bs u_koplus bs 0,bs0oplusbs u_k}_k$ is a basis for the extended space.



                We will define $U$ through its action on the vectors $u_koplus bs 0$ and $bs0oplus u_k$ as follows:
                begin{align}
                U(bs u_koplus bs 0)&=s_k(bs v_koplusbs 0)+sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs 0oplus bs v_k) \
                U(bs0 oplus bs u_k)&=sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs v_koplusbs 0)-s_k(bs 0oplus bs v_k).
                end{align}



                One can then check that all of these output vectors form an orthonormal system in the extended space, and thus $U$ is unitary.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                $newcommand{bs}[1]{boldsymbol{#1}}$Here is a slightly different way to prove what the other excellent answer did.



                Note that a matrix $U$ is unitary if and only if it sends orthonormal bases into orthonormal bases.
                This, in particular, means that if $U$ is unitary then $|Ubs v|=1$ for any $bs v$ with $|bs v|=1$.



                Let us write the SVD of $M$ as $Mbs u_k=s_kbs v_k$, where $s_kge0$ are the singular values of $M$.



                Note that if $U$ is an extension of $M$, then $Ubs u_k=s_k bs v_k+bs w_k$ for some $bs w_k$ orthogonal to $bs v_k$ (and more generally to the whole range of $M$).



                If follows that if, for any $k$, $s_k>1$, then $|Ubs u_k|>1$, and thus $U$ is not unitary.



                On the other hand, if $s_kle1$ for all $k$, let us show how can always construct a unitary $U$ that contains $M$ as a submatrix.
                Let us denote with $bs voplus bs 0$ the vectors in the extended $2n$-dimensional space that are built by appending zeros to the $n$-dimensional vector $bs v$, and with $bs 0oplusbs v$ the vectors that are equal to $bs v$ in the last $n$ dimensions by zero in the first $n$ ones.
                Being ${bs u_k}_k$ a basis for the original space, it follows that ${bs u_koplus bs 0,bs0oplusbs u_k}_k$ is a basis for the extended space.



                We will define $U$ through its action on the vectors $u_koplus bs 0$ and $bs0oplus u_k$ as follows:
                begin{align}
                U(bs u_koplus bs 0)&=s_k(bs v_koplusbs 0)+sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs 0oplus bs v_k) \
                U(bs0 oplus bs u_k)&=sqrt{1-s_k^2}(bs v_koplusbs 0)-s_k(bs 0oplus bs v_k).
                end{align}



                One can then check that all of these output vectors form an orthonormal system in the extended space, and thus $U$ is unitary.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jan 10 at 15:45









                glSglS

                3,860638




                3,860638






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Quantum Computing Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f5167%2fwhat-are-the-constraints-on-a-matrix-that-allow-it-to-be-extended-into-a-unita%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Human spaceflight

                    Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                    張江高科駅