Skip to content
Field II · ★ Primary Target: UvA QCS

Quantum Computing

Qubits are the universe's way of saying "yes and no" at the same time. Over five phases — fourteen weeks, two spine texts, one proof per week — you will learn to speak that language, and to prove exactly why it is more powerful than ours.

read Feynman twice; believe him the second time
If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.
— Richard Feynman
de Wolf is the voice of QuSoft — study his phrasing, not just his theorems
Prerequisites
Linear algebra — vectors, matrices, eigenvalues Probability basics Complex numbers Physics intuition (helpful)
Core Texts

Quantum Computation & Quantum Information

Nielsen & Chuang · Cambridge 2010

The bible of the field — comprehensive and rigorous. Your spine text: §1–2 for foundations, Ch. 4–6 for circuits and algorithms, Ch. 8–12 for information, Ch. 10 for codes.

Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes

Ronald de Wolf · CWI / QuSoft

Sharp, modern, free — by an ILLC / QuSoft professor. Ch. 1–7 carry the entire algorithms phase. The algorithmic voice of the program you want.

Quantum Mechanics (Ph219)

John Preskill · Caltech

Selective chapters, for physical intuition where N&C stays formal — density operators and error correction especially.

Qiskit Textbook

IBM · Hands-on

Turn the math into circuits you can actually run. One lab notebook per phase, no exceptions.

the QFT is where the magic hides linearity forbids the copy — that one line is the whole proof
Track Breakdown · 5 Phases · Weeks 1–14
1Weeks 1–2

Qubits & Superposition

Two weeks to internalize the four sentences the entire field rests on. Every algorithm, every code, every bound in the next twelve weeks is a corollary of the postulates — so here you build the vocabulary (Dirac notation), the geography (the Bloch sphere), and the one genuinely alien ingredient (entanglement) until they are reflexes, not references.

The Four Postulates
N&C §2.2 · de Wolf Ch. 1

Quantum mechanics is four axioms: a closed system is a unit vector in a Hilbert space; it evolves by unitary operators; measurement is a family of operators whose outcome statistics obey the Born rule; and composite systems combine by tensor product. That is the entire rulebook — no interpretation required, and none of it negotiable. The discipline of this phase is learning to see every protocol in the course as a sequence of moves, each licensed by exactly one postulate.

You must be able to:
  • State all four postulates precisely, closed-book
  • Point at any line of a protocol and name the postulate that licenses it
  • Explain why evolution must be unitary — norm preservation is probability preservation
Dirac Notation as Fluency
N&C §2.1 · de Wolf Ch. 1

Bras, kets, inner and outer products, the completeness relation Σᵢ|i⟩⟨i| = I, and the spectral theorem for normal operators — the shorthand the whole literature is written in, and it must become as automatic as arithmetic. The notation is not decoration: outer products let you assemble operators from vectors, and spectral decomposition lets you take functions of them — e^{iA} is how Hamiltonians become gates. Two weeks of deliberate drill here buys you five phases of never stopping to translate.

You must be able to:
  • Translate freely between matrix and Dirac forms; evaluate ⟨ψ|A|φ⟩ by hand
  • Expand any normal operator in its eigenbasis and compute functions of it
  • Deploy the completeness relation to change basis mid-derivation without pausing
The Bloch Sphere
N&C §1.2, Ex. 2.72 · de Wolf Ch. 1

Normalization spends one real degree of freedom and global phase is unobservable — it multiplies every amplitude equally, so no Born-rule probability can ever detect it — which leaves exactly two: |ψ⟩ = cos(θ/2)|0⟩ + e^{iφ}sin(θ/2)|1⟩, a point on the unit sphere. The half-angle is the tell: orthogonal states sit at antipodes, not at right angles, and single-qubit gates become literal rotations of the sphere. This picture is how you will reason about every gate in Phase 2 without touching a matrix.

You must be able to:
  • Derive the cos(θ/2), e^{iφ}sin(θ/2) parametrization from normalization + global phase, closed-book
  • Explain precisely why global phase drops out of every measurement statistic
  • Place |0⟩, |1⟩, |±⟩, |±i⟩ on the sphere and read gates off as rotations
Measurement & the Born Rule
N&C §2.2.3–2.2.6 · de Wolf Ch. 1

Measurement operators {Mₘ} give p(m) = ⟨ψ|Mₘ†Mₘ|ψ⟩ and a renormalized post-measurement state — the single bridge between quantum amplitudes and classical data. Projective measurements are the special case you will use daily; POVMs are the general one, and they matter whenever you care about outcome statistics rather than what survives. This is also where irreversibility enters the theory: measurement is the one non-unitary move in the game.

You must be able to:
  • Compute outcome distributions and post-measurement states in any basis
  • Measure in the |±⟩ basis by rotating with H first — and prove that's equivalent
  • Distinguish projective measurements from POVMs and give one use of each
Tensor Products & Entanglement
N&C §2.1.7, §1.3.6 · de Wolf Ch. 1

Composite systems live in the tensor product — which is why n qubits carry 2ⁿ amplitudes, and why some joint states, the entangled ones, refuse to factor into anything the parts own separately. Prove it on |Φ⁺⟩ = (|00⟩+|11⟩)/√2: a product state (α|0⟩+β|1⟩)⊗(γ|0⟩+δ|1⟩) would need αγ and βδ nonzero while αδ = βγ = 0 — contradiction. The four Bell states are the currency of Phases 2 and 4 (teleportation, superdense coding, purification); learn to mint them with one H and one CNOT.

You must be able to:
  • Compute tensor products of states and operators without hesitation
  • Prove |Φ⁺⟩ admits no product decomposition, closed-book
  • Prepare all four Bell states by circuit and predict their measurement correlations
The Weeks
WK 1
N&C §1.1–1.3 + §2.1 · de Wolf Ch. 1 · Ex. 2.2, 2.6, 2.11, 2.16, 2.17, 2.20
Due: LaTeX — Dirac-notation drill set + spectral-theorem exercises; Qiskit lab — prepare |+⟩, measure 1,024 shots in two bases
WK 2
N&C §2.2 (the four postulates) · Ex. 2.24, 2.26, 2.28, 2.33–2.35, 2.72
Due: LaTeX — full Bloch-sphere derivation (vault); Qiskit lab — prepare & measure all four Bell states
Vault target Full derivation of the Bloch sphere representation from the postulates.
Requires: linear algebra, complex numbers

You're learning to speak the language the universe uses to say "yes and no" at once. Read the postulates slowly. Everything that follows is commentary.

2Weeks 3–4

Quantum Gates & Circuits

Two weeks to learn that every quantum computation is choreography — a finite sequence of rotations of very high-dimensional spheres. You will prove that a shockingly small repertoire suffices for everything, learn the rewrite rules that make circuits legible, and run your first real protocols: teleportation and superdense coding, entanglement spent two opposite ways.

Pauli Algebra & Single-Qubit Rotations
N&C §4.2 · de Wolf Ch. 2

X, Y, Z square to the identity, anticommute in pairs, and multiply by the cyclic rule XY = iZ — a four-element algebra you should compute in without ever writing a matrix. Exponentiating them yields the rotation gates R(θ) = e^{−iθ n̂·σ/2}, and the Z–Y decomposition U = e^{iα}Rz(β)Ry(γ)Rz(δ) says every single-qubit unitary is three rotations and a phase. After this week H, S and T stop being symbols and become specific turns of the Bloch sphere from Phase 1.

You must be able to:
  • Simplify arbitrary Pauli products by the algebra alone — no matrices
  • Derive R(θ) by exponentiating n̂·σ, and put a given U into Z–Y form
  • Say which Bloch rotation each of H, S, T performs — and why T is "π/8"
Universality of {CNOT + Single-Qubit Gates} & Solovay–Kitaev
N&C §4.5 · de Wolf Ch. 2

The universality proof is a chain of three reductions: any d-dimensional unitary factors into two-level unitaries; any two-level unitary is built from CNOTs plus single-qubit gates (Gray codes route the two levels together); and single-qubit gates come from the continuous set. Then the Solovay–Kitaev theorem makes it practical: a finite set like {H, T, CNOT} approximates any unitary to precision ε with only O(log^c(1/ε)) gates. This theorem is why "quantum computer" is one well-defined notion rather than a zoo of incomparable machines.

You must be able to:
  • Reproduce the three-step decomposition chain, closed-book
  • State Solovay–Kitaev precisely and sketch the group-commutator recursion behind it
  • Explain why Clifford gates alone are not universal, and exactly what T adds
Circuit Identities
N&C §4.3, Ex. 4.13 & 4.20 · de Wolf Ch. 2

HXH = Z, HZH = X, Hadamards on both wires flip a CNOT's control and target, and the Pauli-propagation rules tell you how errors move through circuits — a small algebra of rewrites that makes circuit reasoning fast instead of forensic. Add the two structural principles: deferred measurement (measurements commute to the end of a circuit) and implicit measurement (unterminated wires may be assumed measured). These identities are the difference between reading circuits and re-deriving them, and they return in force in the stabilizer formalism of Phase 5.

You must be able to:
  • Verify each identity algebraically and use it to simplify a given circuit
  • Push Paulis through H, S and CNOT correctly — the error-propagation rules
  • State the deferred-measurement principle and justify it
Teleportation & Superdense Coding
N&C §1.3.7 & §2.3 · de Wolf Ch. 1

One shared Bell pair, spent two opposite ways: teleportation moves an unknown qubit using two classical bits, and superdense coding moves two classical bits using one qubit — dual protocols that fix the exchange rate between ebits, qubits and bits. Track the algebra honestly and you will see that teleportation neither clones (measurement destroys the original) nor signals faster than light (nothing is readable until the classical bits arrive). These ten lines of algebra are the "hello, world" of quantum information — and your first nontrivial Qiskit run.

You must be able to:
  • Write both circuits from memory and track the state through every step
  • Explain why no-cloning and relativistic causality both survive teleportation
  • State the resource dualities: 1 ebit + 2 cbits ⇒ 1 qubit; 1 ebit + 1 qubit ⇒ 2 cbits
The Weeks
WK 3
N&C §4.1–4.3 · de Wolf Ch. 2 · Ex. 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.13, 4.16
Due: LaTeX — Z–Y decomposition theorem, full proof; Qiskit lab — verify five circuit identities by tomography
WK 4
N&C §4.4–4.5 + §1.3.7, §2.3 · Ex. 4.20, 4.23, 4.25, 4.31, 4.36, 4.41 · de Wolf Ch. 2 set, all
Due: LaTeX — universality of CNOT + single-qubit gates (vault); Qiskit lab — teleportation circuit run on simulator
Vault target Two-level decomposition ⇒ universality of CNOT + single-qubit gates; Solovay–Kitaev statement with proof sketch.
Requires: Phase 1

Every computation is a rotation. Learn to choreograph the dance — and to prove that four moves suffice for all of them.

3Weeks 5–8

Quantum Algorithms

Four weeks, five algorithms, and the two ideas — Fourier sampling and amplitude amplification — behind every known quantum speedup. The arc is deliberate: toy separations (Deutsch–Jozsa) grow into an exponential one (Simon), Simon's structure mutates into Shor, and Grover closes the phase with the rare pleasure of an algorithm proved exactly optimal.

The Query Model & Oracles
de Wolf Ch. 3 · N&C §6.1 (setup)

The function you interrogate is packaged as a reversible unitary Of|x⟩|b⟩ = |x⟩|b ⊕ f(x)⟩, and cost is counted in queries, not gates. The model matters because it is where quantum advantage can actually be proven: nobody can yet prove P ≠ BQP, but exact query separations are theorems — polynomial for Grover, exponential for Simon. Every algorithm in this phase, and both lower bounds, lives inside this frame; get its rules straight before trusting any speedup claim.

You must be able to:
  • Define Of and show it is unitary (and its own inverse)
  • Explain why lower bounds are provable in the query model but not (yet) for raw circuit time
  • Query in superposition and say honestly what you do not get — you cannot read all 2ⁿ values
Phase Kickback
N&C §1.4.3 · de Wolf Ch. 3

Feed the oracle a target qubit in |−⟩ and the answer never lands in the register at all — it lands in the sign: Of|x⟩|−⟩ = (−1)^{f(x)}|x⟩|−⟩. Data becomes phase, and phase is exactly what interference can act on; that one-line identity is the mechanism inside Deutsch–Jozsa, Bernstein–Vazirani, Grover's oracle, and — in its controlled-U, eigenvalue form — phase estimation. Learn it as a lemma and cite it as a lemma; half the derivations this month collapse to it.

You must be able to:
  • Derive the kickback identity in two lines
  • Point to the kickback step inside Deutsch–Jozsa and inside phase estimation
  • State the eigenvalue version: controlled-U on an eigenstate kicks e^{2πiφ} onto the control
Deutsch–Jozsa
de Wolf Ch. 3 · N&C §1.4.4

Promise: f is constant or balanced. One quantum query decides which, with certainty; a deterministic classical algorithm needs 2^{n−1}+1. The whole computation is three moves — H^{⊗n}, kickback query, H^{⊗n} — and the entire answer sits in the amplitude of |0…0⟩: magnitude 1 if constant, exactly 0 if balanced. Be equally fluent in the fine print: a randomized classical algorithm does almost as well, so the promise is doing real work — knowing what a separation does not show is part of owning it.

You must be able to:
  • Compute the final amplitude of |0…0⟩ from a blank page, kickback lemma included
  • State the exact classical deterministic and randomized query costs
  • Explain what role the promise plays, and why this is not yet a "real" speedup
Simon's Algorithm
de Wolf Ch. 4 · the direct ancestor of Shor

f is 2-to-1 with a hidden XOR mask: f(x) = f(y) exactly when y = x ⊕ s. Each run of the circuit returns a uniformly random y with y·s = 0 (mod 2); after about n runs, linear algebra over 𝔽₂ recovers s — expected O(n) quantum queries against a provable classical Ω(2^{n/2}) (a birthday-collision argument). This is the first exponential separation, and it inspired Shor directly: swap XOR-period for multiplicative period, swap H^{⊗n} — the Fourier transform over ℤ₂ⁿ — for the QFT over ℤ_N, and factoring falls.

You must be able to:
  • Show that one run outputs y with y·s = 0, and that ~n runs suffice
  • Sketch the birthday-bound intuition behind the classical lower bound
  • State the Simon → Shor dictionary precisely: which structure replaces which
The Quantum Fourier Transform
de Wolf Ch. 5 · N&C §5.1

|x⟩ ↦ (1/√N) Σy e^{2πixy/N}|y⟩ — and the miracle is the product formula: the N-point transform factors into n unentangled single-qubit states, so Hadamards plus controlled phase rotations implement it in O(n²) gates, against the classical FFT's O(n2ⁿ) for the same vector. The catch that keeps this from trivializing everything: the Fourier coefficients live in amplitudes you cannot read out. The QFT is not a fast Fourier calculator — it is a periodicity detector, a subroutine whose killer application is phase estimation.

You must be able to:
  • Derive the product representation from the definition
  • Draw the O(n²) circuit for n = 3, final swaps included
  • Explain exactly why you cannot simply extract Fourier coefficients from the output state
Phase Estimation
N&C §5.2 · de Wolf Ch. 5

Given U and an eigenstate |u⟩ with U|u⟩ = e^{2πiφ}|u⟩, controlled-U^{2^j} powers kick the phases 2^jφ onto a t-qubit control register, and the inverse QFT converts that pattern into the binary expansion of φ. When φ has exactly t bits the answer is certain; in general t = n + ⌈log(2 + 1/2ε)⌉ control qubits give n-bit accuracy with probability at least 1 − ε. This is the engine of the exponential speedups: Shor is phase estimation on modular multiplication, and quantum counting is phase estimation on the Grover iterate.

You must be able to:
  • Draw the circuit and derive the exact-phase case from a blank page
  • State the accuracy / success-probability tradeoff
  • Name precisely what U and |u⟩ are in Shor's use of the machine
Shor's Algorithm
de Wolf Ch. 6 · N&C §5.3

Two classical reductions frame one quantum step. Factoring N reduces to order-finding: for random x, if the order r of x mod N is even and x^{r/2} ≢ −1 (mod N), then gcd(x^{r/2} ± 1, N) is a nontrivial factor — and number theory guarantees that good case with probability ≥ 1/2. The quantum step is phase estimation on U: |y⟩ ↦ |xy mod N⟩, whose eigenphases are the fractions s/r; the continued fractions algorithm then extracts r from the measured approximation. End to end: factoring in polynomial time, and the reason RSA carries an expiry date.

You must be able to:
  • Prove the gcd reduction, probability bound included
  • Run the continued-fractions step by hand on a measured value for N = 15
  • Account for every stage of the pipeline and its cost — no black boxes left
Grover's Search & the BBBV Lower Bound
de Wolf Ch. 7 · N&C §6.1 · BBBV 1997

Draw the plane spanned by the marked state |w⟩ and the uniform state |s⟩: the oracle is a reflection about the unmarked axis, the diffusion operator a reflection about |s⟩, and two reflections compose to a rotation by 2θ, where sin θ = 1/√N. Each iteration turns the state 2θ closer to |w⟩, so ⌊(π/4)√N⌋ iterations land almost exactly on it — and overshooting is real, which is why the count matters. Then the BBBV theorem closes the door: a hybrid argument shows any quantum algorithm needs Ω(√N) queries. Grover is optimal, and quantum brute force against NP buys a square root — no more.

You must be able to:
  • Draw the two-reflection picture and derive the 2θ rotation per iteration
  • Compute the optimal iteration count and bound the residual error
  • Reproduce the skeleton of the BBBV hybrid argument
  • State what this means — and doesn't — for quantum attacks on NP-complete problems
The Weeks
WK 5
de Wolf Ch. 3 (query model, kickback, Deutsch–Jozsa & Bernstein–Vazirani) · exercise set complete
Due: LaTeX — Deutsch–Jozsa correctness with the phase-kickback lemma (vault); Qiskit lab — DJ for n = 3
WK 6
de Wolf Ch. 4 (Simon) + Ch. 5 (QFT) · N&C §5.1 · Ex. 5.1–5.6
Due: LaTeX — Simon write-up + the Simon→Shor dictionary, one page; QFT n = 3 circuit drawn and verified (vault)
WK 7
N&C §5.2–5.3 · de Wolf Ch. 6 (Shor) · Ex. 5.7–5.14, selected
Due: LaTeX — order-finding reduction + continued fractions run on N = 15; Qiskit lab — Shor's period finding, N = 15
WK 8
de Wolf Ch. 7 (Grover) · N&C §6.1 · Ex. 6.1–6.7
Due: LaTeX — Grover derivation with the geometric picture drawn + BBBV (vault centerpiece); Qiskit lab — Grover, n = 3
Vault target Grover analysis + BBBV lower bound (the centerpiece) · QFT correctness · Deutsch–Jozsa correctness.
Requires: Phases 1–2

Shor's algorithm is why cryptographers lose sleep. Understand the order-finding reduction end to end, and you understand the stakes.

4Weeks 9–11

Quantum Information Theory

Three weeks in which the state vector gives way to the density matrix — the honest description of a qubit that is noisy, watched, or entangled with something you cannot see. This is the mathematics of imperfection, and it ends in two of the field's sharpest theorems: what a qubit can never carry (Holevo) and what no machine can ever do (clone).

Density Matrices & the Partial Trace
N&C §2.4

When you don't know which pure state you hold — or your qubit is entangled with something offstage — the density matrix ρ = Σᵢ pᵢ|ψᵢ⟩⟨ψᵢ| is the complete description: positive, unit trace, with tr(ρ²) = 1 exactly for pure states. The partial trace is the only consistent way to describe a subsystem, and it delivers the phase's first shock: each half of a Bell pair, taken alone, is I/2 — pure noise, every trace of the correlation invisible locally. And distinct ensembles producing the same ρ are physically indistinguishable, the fact that keeps quantum cryptography honest.

You must be able to:
  • Compute ρ for a given ensemble and test purity via tr(ρ²)
  • Trace out half of |Φ⁺⟩ and obtain I/2 — then say what that means
  • Exhibit two distinct ensembles with the same ρ, and locate mixed states inside the Bloch ball
Purification & the Schmidt Decomposition
N&C §2.5

Every mixed state ρA is the partial trace of some pure state |ψ⟩AB on a larger system — mixedness is never fundamental, it is entanglement with somewhere you are not looking. The tool is the Schmidt decomposition |ψ⟩ = Σᵢ √λᵢ|iA⟩|iB⟩, which hands you both reduced states at once (same spectrum!) and a clean entanglement measure for pure states. All purifications of a given ρ differ only by a unitary on the ancilla — a small theorem that does heavy lifting throughout quantum information.

You must be able to:
  • Construct a purification from a spectral decomposition
  • Compute the Schmidt coefficients of a given two-qubit state
  • Prove both reduced states of a pure bipartite state share a spectrum
Quantum Channels & Kraus Operators
N&C §8.2–8.3 · Preskill Ph219 Ch. 3

Open-system dynamics — noise — is a completely positive trace-preserving map, and the operator-sum representation makes it concrete: ε(ρ) = Σₖ EₖρEₖ† with Σₖ Eₖ†Eₖ = I. The physical picture and the algebraic one are the same theorem: couple to an environment, evolve unitarily, trace the environment out, and the Kraus operators fall out of the environment basis. Learn the three canonical channels — depolarizing, amplitude damping, phase damping — as fluently as the Paulis; they are the enemies Phase 5's codes are built to fight.

You must be able to:
  • Derive the operator-sum form from the unitary-plus-environment picture
  • Write Kraus operators for all three canonical channels and verify trace preservation
  • Describe geometrically what each channel does to the Bloch ball
Von Neumann Entropy & the Holevo Bound
N&C Ch. 11 & §12.1.1

S(ρ) = −tr(ρ log ρ): zero exactly on pure states, maximal log d on the maximally mixed state, concave, subadditive — Shannon's entropy inherited by density matrices. Its teeth show in the Holevo bound: the classical information extractable from an ensemble is at most χ = S(ρ) − Σᵢ pᵢS(ρᵢ), hence n qubits carry at most n classical bits, however cleverly you encode. A continuum of amplitudes, one retrievable bit per qubit — the theorem that disciplines every breathless headline about quantum bandwidth.

You must be able to:
  • Compute S(ρ) for arbitrary qubit states and verify the extremes
  • State and use subadditivity and concavity
  • State Holevo exactly, derive the n-bit consequence, and reconcile it with superdense coding — the ebit pays the difference
The No-Cloning Theorem
N&C Box 12.1 · Wootters & Zurek 1982

Suppose a unitary copies: U|ψ⟩|0⟩ = |ψ⟩|ψ⟩ for all |ψ⟩. Apply it to two states and take inner products — ⟨ψ|φ⟩ = ⟨ψ|φ⟩², so ⟨ψ|φ⟩ ∈ {0, 1}: cloning works only for states you could have distinguished classically anyway. Equivalently, cloning is quadratic in |ψ⟩ while unitaries are linear — contradiction in three lines, and consequences everywhere: quantum key distribution is secure, teleportation must destroy its input, unknown states cannot be amplified, and Phase 5's error correction must protect a state it is forbidden to copy.

You must be able to:
  • Reproduce both proofs — inner-product and linearity — closed-book
  • Explain why orthogonal states escape the theorem
  • Trace two protocol-level consequences (QKD, teleportation) in detail
The Weeks
WK 9
N&C §2.4–2.5 (density operators, purification, Schmidt) · Ex. 2.71–2.82
Due: LaTeX proof of no-cloning (vault) + partial-trace worksheet
WK 10
N&C Ch. 8 (noise & operations) · Preskill Ch. 3 · Ex. 8.1–8.11, selected
Due: LaTeX — Kraus representation derived from the environment picture; Qiskit lab — simulate depolarizing & amplitude-damping channels, plot entropy under noise
WK 11
N&C Ch. 11 + §12.1.1 (entropy; Holevo) · Ch. 9 distance measures, skimmed · Ex. 11.1–11.8, selected
Due: LaTeX — Holevo bound, statement + worked superdense-coding application (vault)
Vault target No-cloning theorem, full proof · Holevo bound, statement + one worked application.
Requires: Phases 1–3

Information is physical. Here you learn exactly how much — and exactly what you are forbidden to copy.

5Weeks 12–14

Quantum Error Correction

Three weeks against the strongest objection to the whole enterprise: real qubits decohere, and you may neither copy them nor look at them. The escape route runs from a three-qubit toy to Shor's nine, through the stabilizer language that modern hardware speaks, and ends at the threshold theorem — the result that turned quantum computing from a thought experiment into an engineering program.

Why Quantum Errors Are Harder — & the 3-Qubit Codes
N&C §10.1 · Preskill Ph219 Ch. 7

Classical error correction copies; quantum cannot (no-cloning). Classical errors are discrete flips; quantum errors are continuous rotations. And you may not even look — measurement destroys the state you are protecting. The 3-qubit bit-flip code threads all three needles at once: encode α|0⟩+β|1⟩ as α|000⟩+β|111⟩, then measure only the parities Z₁Z₂ and Z₂Z₃ — the syndrome names the error while revealing nothing about α and β. Conjugating by Hadamards turns the same construction against phase flips.

You must be able to:
  • Build both 3-qubit codes and write their syndrome tables
  • Show the syndrome measurement leaves the logical state untouched
  • Explain why measuring parities is allowed when measuring qubits is not
The 9-Qubit Shor Code & the Discretization of Errors
N&C §10.2–10.3

Concatenate: guard against phase flips with the 3-qubit phase code, then guard each of its qubits against bit flips — nine qubits that correct any single-qubit X, Z, or Y = iXZ. Then the theorem that makes QEC possible at all: an arbitrary error — any rotation, any environmental coupling, even partial decoherence — is a linear combination of {I, X, Y, Z}, and the syndrome measurement projects onto exactly one of those discrete cases. You correct a continuum by correcting four things; the measurement itself discretizes the error.

You must be able to:
  • Write the Shor code words and correct a Y error step by step
  • Prove the discretization argument in full
  • State the Knill–Laflamme conditions and check them for the 3-qubit code
The Stabilizer Formalism
N&C §10.5

Stop tracking 2ⁿ amplitudes; track symmetries instead. A stabilizer code is the joint +1 eigenspace of an abelian subgroup of the Pauli group: n − k independent generators fix a 2^k-dimensional code space, and an error is detected exactly when it anticommutes with some generator — the syndrome is just that pattern of anticommutations. The formalism turns Phase 2's circuit identities into a decoding machine, and the Gottesman–Knill theorem adds a sharp philosophical lesson: stabilizer circuits are classically simulable, so quantum power does not live where you'd first guess.

You must be able to:
  • Give stabilizer generators for the 3-qubit, Shor, and Steane codes
  • Compute a syndrome purely from commutation relations
  • Count logical qubits from the number of independent generators
CSS Codes & the Steane Code
N&C §10.4

Calderbank–Shor–Steane: take classical codes C₂ ⊂ C₁ with the right dual-containment, and you inherit a quantum code — X errors are caught by one classical parity check, Z errors by the other, because Hadamard swaps the two pictures. The showpiece is Steane's [[7,1,3]] code, built from the classical [7,4] Hamming code, correcting an arbitrary single-qubit error with two fewer qubits than Shor's nine. CSS is the bridge that imports fifty years of classical coding theory into the quantum world — and the ancestor of the surface codes real hardware runs today.

You must be able to:
  • State the CSS construction and why dual-containment is required
  • Build the Steane code from the Hamming code, generators and all
  • Explain how X- and Z-correction decouple into two classical decodings
Fault Tolerance & the Threshold Theorem
N&C §10.6

Codes assume perfect machinery — but the correction circuitry is itself noisy, and a careless syndrome extraction spreads errors faster than it heals them. Fault tolerance is the discipline of transversal gates and verified ancillas that keeps one fault one fault; concatenation then maps error rate p to cp², and each level squares the improvement. The result is the threshold theorem: below a constant physical error rate pth, arbitrarily long quantum computation is possible at polylogarithmic overhead. This statement — not any algorithm — is why the field is an engineering program rather than a bet.

You must be able to:
  • State the threshold theorem precisely
  • Derive the p → cp² recursion and its doubly-exponential payoff
  • Define transversal and explain why transversality blocks error spread
The Weeks
WK 12
N&C §10.1–10.3 · Preskill Ch. 7 · Ex. 10.1–10.8
Due: LaTeX — 3-qubit code corrects an arbitrary single-qubit error (vault); Qiskit lab — build the 3-qubit code, inject errors, decode by syndrome
WK 13
N&C §10.4–10.5 · Ex. 10.9–10.16 · stabilizer generators for Shor & Steane, by hand
Due: LaTeX — discretization of errors + Knill–Laflamme (statement); stabilizer tables for all three codes
WK 14
N&C §10.6 (fault tolerance) · full-track review
Due: LaTeX — threshold theorem statement + concatenation sketch; closed-book rewrite of the two starred vault proofs
Vault target Proof that the 3-qubit code corrects an arbitrary single-qubit error — continuous errors included.
Requires: Phases 1–4

To protect a fragile thing, you must first understand exactly how it breaks. This is where quantum computing stops being a thought experiment.

nulla dies sine linea
Proof Vault — Quantum Track Checklist
Weekly Cadence

Every week ships three artifacts, without exception: one problem set (~10–12 exercises from the current phase's assigned ranges), one LaTeX proof write-up destined for the vault, and one Qiskit lab notebook that turns the week's mathematics into a running circuit. The vault checklist above is the semester's ledger — seven entries, weeks 1–14.

Where This Fits

This is the primary path to UvA's Quantum Computing Science master's and the research at QuSoft / ILLC. De Wolf's notes aren't just a text — they're the voice of the program you're aiming at. Linear algebra feeds it; the physics track gives it a soul; the BBBV proof gives it teeth.