# reperiendi

## Quantum lambda calculus, symmetric monoidal closed categories, and TQFTs

Posted in Category theory, Math, Programming, Quantum by Mike Stay on 2006 August 22

The last post was all about stuff that’s already known. I’ll be working in my thesis on describing the syntax of what I’ll call simply-typed quantum lambda calculus. Symmetric monoidal closed categories (SMCCs) are a generalization of CCCs; they have tensor products instead of products. One of the immediate effects is the lack of built-in projection morphisms $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ for extracting the first and second element of a pair. And without these, there’s no duplication morphism $\Delta: A\to A\otimes A$; morphisms of this type can exist, but there’s no way to express the notion that it should make a copy of the input! The no-cloning theorem is built in.

The typical CCC in which models of a lambda theory are interpreted is Set. The typical SMCC in which models of a quantum lambda theory will be interpreted is Hilb, the category of Hilbert spaces and linear transformations between them. Models of lambda theories correspond to functors from the CCC arising from the theory into Set. Similarly, models of a quantum lambda theory should be functors from a SMCC to Hilb.

Two-dimensional topological quantum field theories (TQFTs) are close to being a model of a quantum lambda theory, but not quite.

There’s a simpler syntax than the simply-typed lambda calculus, called universal algebra, in which one writes algebraic theories. These give rise to categories with finite products (no exponentials) , and functors from these categories to Set pick out sets with the given structure. There’s an algebraic theory of groups, and the functors pick out sets with functions that behave like unit, inverse, and multiplication. So our “programs” consist solely of operations on our data type.

TQFTs are functors from 2Cob, the theory of a commutative Frobenius algebra, to Hilb. We can look at 2Cob as defining a data type and a TQFT as a quantum implementation of the type. When we take the free SMCC over 2Cob, we ought to get a full-fledged quantum programming language with a commutative Frobenius algebra data type. A TQFT would be part of the implementation of the language.

## CCCs and lambda calculus

Posted in Category theory, Math, Programming, Quantum by Mike Stay on 2006 August 22

I finally got it through my thick skull what the connection is between lambda theories and cartesian closed categories.

The lambda theory of a set has a single type, with no extra terms or axioms. This gives rise to a CCC where the objects are generated by products and exponentials of a distinguished object, the free CCC on one object. For example, from a type $X$ we generate objects $1, X, XX, (X^X)^{(X^X)} = X^{XX^X},$ etc. The morphisms are reduction-equivalence classes of all the programs we can make out of the appropriately-typed S and K combinators. A product-exponential-preserving functor from this CCC to the category Set (which is also a CCC) picks out a set $S_X$ for $X,$ and because it preserves the structure, maps the product $AB$ to $S_A \times S_B$ and the exponential $A^B$ to ${S_A}^{S_B}.$

The functor itself, however, can be uncomputable: one could, for example, have $S_X$ be the set of halting programs for some universal Turing machine. This set is only computably enumerable, not computable.

When we have types and axioms involved, then we add structure to the set, constraints that the sets and functions on them have to satisfy. For instance, in the lambda theory of groups, we have:

• a type $G$
• terms
• $m:XX \to X$
• $inv:X\to X$
• $e:1 \to X$
• axioms for right- and left-unit laws, right-and left-inverses, and associativity

The CCC arising from this theory has all the morphisms from the free CCC on one object and extra morphisms arising from products and compositions of the terms. A structure-preserving functor to Set assigns $G$ to a set and $m, inv,$ and $e$ to functions satisfying the axioms. These functions needn’t be computable, eitherâ€”they only have to satisfy the group axioms.

So in terminology programmers are more familiar with, the terms and axioms define an abstract data type, an interface. The functor gives a class implementing the interface. But this implementation doesn’t need to be computable! Here’s another example: we start with a lambda theory with a data type $\mathbb{N},$ along with a term $succ:\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{N}$ and the axioms of Peano arithmetic; a functor from this lambda theory to Set will give us an implementation of natural numbers. Now we add a term $f:\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$ to the theory, with no other constraints. One model of this theory is Peano arithmetic with an oracle to $\Omega:$ it assigns $f$ to the function that returns the $n$th bit of the Omega number for a universal prefix-free Turing machine.

I think that in order to get a computable model, we have to use a “computability functor” (my term). If I’m right, this means that instead of taking a functor directly into Set, we have to take a functor into a CCC with no extra terms to get a “computable theory” (again, my term), and then another from there into Set. This way, since all the morphisms in the category arising from the computable theory are built out of S and K combinators, the functor has to pick an explicit program for the implementation, not just an arbitrary function. From there, whether the implementation of the S and K combinators is computable or not really doesn’t matter; we can’t get at anything uncomputable from within the language.

Now, changing gears and looking at the “programs as proofs” aspect of all this: morphisms in the free CCC on one object are proofs in a minimal intuitionistic logic, where $\to$ now means implication rather than exponentiation. The only two axioms are the ones from S and K. Adding a term of a given type to the theory adds a new axiom to the logic, while adding an axiom to the theory defines an equivalence of proofs in the logic.

A computable theory wouldn’t add any axioms, just assign names to proofs so they can be used as subproofs. And because the programs already satisfy the axioms of the computable theory, asserting the equivalence of two proofs is redundant: they’re already equivalent.