I just finished the proof for both the classical case and the entangled case of the quantum prisoner's dilemma.

@Yijun He Can you open a pull request ?

I will review it as soon as possible once I'm done with the review of Deutsch-Jozsa.

I opened a pull request just now.

I opened a pull request just now.

I'm going to start the review of your PR.

I closed the old pull request and opened a new one with only `Quantum_Prisoners_Dilemma.thy`

.

@Yijun He what is the main reference you used for your formalization ?

Sorry, I forgot to give you the link. It's exercise 4 there. Unfortunately, it seems there is no solution available on their webpage. At least, they give a link.

I referred to this paper in the link you gave me: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9806088

I added a bibliography.

By the way, do not forget to update your branch, you're many commits behind, otherwise there will be incompabilities.

I used the paper above and this:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301042.pdf

Although I am not sure if its relevant anymore

@Hanna Lachnitt Regarding your second comment in the theory, the computation of $\hat{\mathcal{J}}=\exp \{i y \hat{D} \otimes \hat{D} / 2\}$ gives indeed

@Anthony Bordg

I left this comment. Thank you, I was not sure since I read several papers which were a bit unclear about it (mostly didn't said what $\hat{D}$ was) and none gave an explicit representation so I calculated this myself.

To illustrate my point about nested proofs *à la* Lamport, I prefer the second proof to the first one in the following:

lemma (in prisoner) shows "J*|unit_vec 4 0⟩ = ψ⇩1" proof fix i j assume "i < dim_row ψ⇩1" and "j < dim_col ψ⇩1" then have f0: "i∈{0,1,2,3} ∧ j=0" using mat_of_cols_list_def by auto then have "(J*|unit_vec 4 0⟩) $$ (i,j) = (∑k<4. (J $$ (i,k)) * ( |unit_vec 4 0⟩ $$ (k,j)))" using mat_of_cols_list_def ket_vec_def by auto also have "... = (∑k∈{0,1,2,3}. (J $$ (i,k)) * ( |unit_vec 4 0⟩ $$ (k,j)))" using set_4 atLeast0LessThan by auto also have "... = ψ⇩1 $$(i,j)" using mat_of_cols_list_def f0 by auto finally show "(J*|unit_vec 4 0⟩) $$ (i,j) = ψ⇩1 $$(i,j)" by blast next show "dim_row (J*|unit_vec 4 0⟩) = dim_row ψ⇩1" using mat_of_cols_list_def by simp next show "dim_col (J*|unit_vec 4 0⟩) = dim_col ψ⇩1" using mat_of_cols_list_def by (simp add: ket_vec_def) qed

and

lemma (in prisoner) shows "J * |unit_vec 4 0⟩ = ψ⇩1" proof fix i j assume a0:"i < dim_row ψ⇩1" and a1:"j < dim_col ψ⇩1" then have "(J * |unit_vec 4 0⟩) $$ (i,j) = (∑k<4. (J $$ (i,k)) * ( |unit_vec 4 0⟩ $$ (k,j)))" using mat_of_cols_list_def ket_vec_def by auto also have "... = (∑k∈{0,1,2,3}. (J $$ (i,k)) * ( |unit_vec 4 0⟩ $$ (k,j)))" using set_4 atLeast0LessThan by simp also have "... = ψ⇩1 $$(i,j)" proof- have "i∈{0,1,2,3} ∧ j=0" using a0 a1 mat_of_cols_list_def by auto thus ?thesis using mat_of_cols_list_def by auto qed finally show "(J * |unit_vec 4 0⟩) $$ (i,j) = ψ⇩1 $$ (i,j)" by simp next show "dim_row (J * |unit_vec 4 0⟩) = dim_row ψ⇩1" using mat_of_cols_list_def by simp next show "dim_col (J*|unit_vec 4 0⟩) = dim_col ψ⇩1" using mat_of_cols_list_def by (simp add: ket_vec_def) qed

Here nested proofs don't make a big difference, since the proof is short and easy, but it allows me to illustrate my point. In longer and more intricate proofs it's nicer to introduce statements (here f0) where they are actually used. Also, if properly used the depth is an indication for the reader of the difficulty/importance of a statement, the higher the depth the more obvious/low-level is the statement.

@Yijun He @Hanna Lachnitt

There is a sign error in $U_A$ and $U_B$. Compare for instance

abbreviation (in restricted_strategic_space) U⇩A :: "complex Matrix.mat" where "U⇩A ≡ mat_of_cols_list 2 [[(exp(𝗂*ψ⇩A))*cos(θ⇩A/2), sin (θ⇩A/2)], [-sin(θ⇩A/2), (exp (-𝗂*ψ⇩A))*cos(θ⇩A/2)]]"

with (3) in the reference used.

@Yijun He

A few lemmas should be moved into `Basics.thy`

Instead of the ad hoc `J_cnj`

, one should define the conjugate of a matrix in `Quantum.thy`

.

@Yijun He What is "alice_vec" in `alice_vec_is_state`

? Where does this vector come from ?

Yijun He What is "alice_vec" in

`alice_vec_is_state`

? Where does this vector come from ?

I think I understand, this is the vector you get when you plug $\gamma = 0$, $\psi_B = 0$ and $\theta_B = \pi$ in $\psi_f$.

There is a sign error in $U_A$ and $U_B$.

@Yijun He Note however this "error" is not a problem, since you just replaced $D$ by $-D$ in (5) while $C$ is kept unchanged, but in that case $J$ as defined in (7) is still a solution of equation (6). So, it's why you was able to complete the formalization despite this discrepancy in signs.

I have expanded the introduction:

Prisoner's dilemma ceases to pose a dilemma if quantum strategies are allowed for. Indeed,

Alice and Bob both choosing to defect is no longer a Nash equilibrium. However, a new Nash

equilibrium appears which is at the same time Pareto optimal. Moreover, there exists a

quantum strategy which always gives reward if played against any classical strategy.

Below the parameter γ can be seen as a measure of the game's entanglement. The game behaves

classically if γ = 0, and for the maximally entangled case (γ = 2*$\pi$) the dilemma disappears.

@Yijun He It's a bit confusing that $\psi$ is used instead of $\phi$ as in the reference.

One could bring a little more structure into the theory by creating three sections `section <The Set-Up>`

, `section <The Separable Case>`

and `section <The Maximally Entangled Case>`

.

One could add a fourth section on the biased strategic space and the *miracle move*.

One could add formal specifications for Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimum and prove that in the maximally entangled case $D\otimes D$ is no longer a Nash equilibrium and that $Q \otimes Q$ is a Nash equilibrium and Pareto optimal.

A lot of names could be improved, since they are not currently illuminating.

What about `classical_case_DD (* both players defect*)`

instead of `classical_case`

, `classical_alice_payoff_D⇩B (* Alice's payoff in the classical case if Bob defects *)`

instead of `classical_alice_optimal`

, `quantum_case_QQ (* both players play the quantum move *)`

instead of `quantum_case`

, `quantum_alice_payoff_D⇩B (* Alice's payoff in the quantum case if Bod defects *)`

instead of `quantum_alice_optimal`

?

I also prefer the prefixes `separable_`

and `max_entangled_`

instead of `classical_`

and `quantum_`

.

Indeed, there are two ways to get the classical limit, either $\gamma = 0$ or ($\gamma = \pi/2$ and both players play $\phi = 0$). So, even in the maximally entangled case, i.e. the "quantum" case, one can retrieve the classical case as a limit.

Yijun He It's a bit confusing that $\psi$ is used instead of $\phi$ as in the reference.

changed

One could bring a little more structure into the theory by creating three sections

`section <The Set-Up>`

,`section <The Separable Case>`

and`section <The Maximally Entangled Case>`

.

sections added

A lot of names could be improved, since they are not currently illuminating.

What about`classical_case_DD (* both players defect*)`

instead of`classical_case`

,`classical_alice_payoff_D⇩B (* Alice's payoff in the classical case if Bob defects *)`

instead of`classical_alice_optimal`

,`quantum_case_QQ (* both players play the quantum move *)`

instead of`quantum_case`

,`quantum_alice_payoff_D⇩B (* Alice's payoff in the quantum case if Bod defects *)`

instead of`quantum_alice_optimal`

?

names changed

I also prefer the prefixes

`separable_`

and`max_entangled_`

instead of`classical_`

and`quantum_`

.

Indeed, there are two ways to get the classical limit, either $\gamma = 0$ or ($\gamma = \pi/2$ and both players play $\phi = 0$). So, even in the maximally entangled case, i.e. the "quantum" case, one can retrieve the classical case as a limit.

prefixes changed

PR #18 merged.

When I was working on the unfair strategy case, I found a problem with the proof: the original paper says that, when Alice plays the miracle move ($\phi = \pi/2$ and $\theta = \pi/2$) and Bob plays only classical moves ($\phi = 0$) in the maximally entangled case, the payoff of Alice should be greater than 3. However, my proof shows that this is not true: in particular, I proved a lemma saying ```
assumes "γ = pi/2"
shows "φ⇩A = pi/2 ∧ θ⇩A = pi/2 ∧ φ⇩B = 0 ∧ θ⇩B = pi/2 ⟶ alice_payoff = 1 ∧ bob_payoff = 1"
```

When I was working on the unfair strategy case, I found a problem with the proof: the original paper says that, when Alice plays the miracle move ($\phi = \pi/2$ and $\theta = \pi/2$) and Bob plays only classical moves ($\phi = 0$) in the maximally entangled case, the payoff of Alice should be greater than 3. However, my proof shows that this is not true: in particular, I proved a lemma saying

`assumes "γ = pi/2" shows "φ⇩A = pi/2 ∧ θ⇩A = pi/2 ∧ φ⇩B = 0 ∧ θ⇩B = pi/2 ⟶ alice_payoff = 1 ∧ bob_payoff = 1"`

I will have a look as soon as possible.

Did you use equation (10) to compute Alice's minimal expected payoff ?

Did you use equation (10) to compute Alice's minimal expected payoff ?

No, I just substituted in specific values of Alice's and Bob's strategies, and the result contradicts with the statement that $\$_A(\hat{M}, \hat{U}(\theta,0)) ≥ 3$ for any $θ ∈ [0,π]$

Please refer to the lemma `max_entangled_MH`

in https://github.com/MH2520/Isabelle_marries_Dirac/blob/prisoners_dilemma_only/Quantum_Prisoners_Dilemma.thy

Did you use equation (10) to compute Alice's minimal expected payoff ?

No, I just substituted in specific values of Alice's and Bob's strategies, and the result contradicts with the statement that $\$_A(\hat{M}, \hat{U}(\theta,0)) ≥ 3$ for any $θ ∈ [0,π]$

Indeed, it contradicts this statement. Are we sure that `ψ⇩f`

in the formalization is correct ?

Did you use equation (10) to compute Alice's minimal expected payoff ?

No, I just substituted in specific values of Alice's and Bob's strategies, and the result contradicts with the statement that $\$_A(\hat{M}, \hat{U}(\theta,0)) ≥ 3$ for any $θ ∈ [0,π]$

Indeed, it contradicts this statement. Are we sure that

`ψ⇩f`

in the formalization is correct ?

I am not entirely sure, but I haven't found any mistakes in the intermediate steps yet. (Such as the definitions of $J, U_A$ or $U_B$)

I'm going to check the computation (1).

I think `ψ⇩f`

is incorrect.

One should find:

https://cdn.mathpix.com/snip/images/XEhGrZmKXZ689sZDabFDKLqYmEDFrSC_PGSs2-p8834.original.fullsize.png

@Yijun He

I think the expression in the picture is mostly the same as the `ψ⇩f`

in the code, except the signs or orders of some terms are different.

The first and fourth term in the picture are exactly the same as `ψ⇩f $$ (0,0)`

and `ψ⇩f $$ (3,0)`

, and the second and third term are equal to `-ψ⇩f $$ (1,0)`

and `-ψ⇩f $$ (2,0)`

, which won't affect the resulting probability.

Can we prove equation (1) ?

Can we prove equation (1) ?

I added the lemma `equation_one`

to the theory just now. https://github.com/MH2520/Isabelle_marries_Dirac/blob/prisoners_dilemma_only/Quantum_Prisoners_Dilemma.thy

Can we prove equation (1) ?

I added the lemma

`equation_one`

to the theory just now. https://github.com/MH2520/Isabelle_marries_Dirac/blob/prisoners_dilemma_only/Quantum_Prisoners_Dilemma.thy

There is no room for doubt anymore.

@Yijun He The definition of a Pareto optimum should be something like

definition (in restricted_strategic_space) is_pareto_opt :: "bool" where "is_pareto_opt ≡ ∀tA pA tB pB. ( (restricted_strategic_space.alice_payoff γ tA pA tB pB > alice_payoff ⟶ restricted_strategic_space.bob_payoff γ tA pA tB pB < bob_payoff) ∧ (restricted_strategic_space.bob_payoff γ tA pA tB pB > bob_payoff ⟶ restricted_strategic_space.alice_payoff γ tA pA tB pB < alice_payoff) )"

To avoid something so long, you may want to rename *restricted_strategic_space* with *strategic_space* or something even shorter.

@Yijun He The definition of a Nash equilibrium is simply:

definition (in restricted_strategic_space) is_nash_eq :: "bool" where "is_nash_eq ≡ (∀tA pA. alice_payoff ≥ restricted_strategic_space.alice_payoff γ tA pA θ⇩B φ⇩B) ∧ (∀tB pB. bob_payoff ≥ restricted_strategic_space.bob_payoff γ θ⇩A φ⇩A tB pB)"

@Anthony Bordg Many thanks! I didn't realize that `restricted_strategic_space.alice_payoff`

allows me to use alice_payoff directly as a function. I have fixed up all the definitions and lemmas, and I will make a pull request after double checking.

To avoid something so long, you may want to rename *restricted_strategic_space* with *strategic_space* or something even shorter.

@Yijun He Sorry to come back on that, but to avoid any possible confusion a more precise name is needed. `2p_strategic_space`

or even `2p_space`

where 2p stands for 2-parameter are shorter and unambiguous.

@Anthony Bordg I replaced `strategic_space`

by `strategic_space_2p`

and updated the pull request. It seems that identifiers in Isabelle couldn't begin with a numeral.

Last updated: Feb 04 2023 at 01:27 UTC