Dominic Horsman

Dominic Horsman, Susan Stepney, Tim Clarke et al.

Control systems are ubiquitous in modern technology, comprising an engineered plant to be kept within specific, often fine-tuned, limits, and a separate controller that ensures this is the case. While modern controllers often employ digital computers, other examples are purely mechanical, or even biological. It is an open question whether computation is happening within all controllers by virtue of them being part of a control system. Abstraction/ Representation theory (ART) has been developed to tackle just this question of whether a physical system is computing. Here, we demonstrate how to use ART to model control systems, and analyse them for computational properties. We determine that the plant of a control system is (a proxy for) the representational entity necessary in ART for the existence of any computation: the plant is the user of the controller. We consider specific systems: a digital thermostat, an electro-mechanical thermostat, the purely mechanical centrifugal governor, and an open-loop human-controlled heating system. We show that all these systems, and control systems in general, are performing some degree of computation. As an initial use of these results, we apply them to computationalism within cognitive theory: we show the governor is computing, so it cannot play its role of counter-example in the question of whether the brain is too.

Bob Coecke, Dominic Horsman, Aleks Kissinger et al.

This paper is a `spiritual child' of the 2005 lecture notes Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics, which showed how a simple, pictorial extension of Dirac notation allowed several quantum features to be easily expressed and derived, using language even a kindergartner can understand. Central to that approach was the use of pictures and pictorial transformation rules to understand and derive features of quantum theory and computation. However, this approach left many wondering `where's the beef?' In other words, was this new approach capable of producing new results, or was it simply an aesthetically pleasing way to restate stuff we already know? The aim of this sequel paper is to say `here's the beef!', and highlight some of the major results of the approach advocated in Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics, and how they are being applied to tackle practical problems on real quantum computers. We will focus mainly on what has become the Swiss army knife of the pictorial formalism: the ZX-calculus. First we look at some of the ideas behind the ZX-calculus, comparing and contrasting it with the usual quantum circuit formalism. We then survey results from the past 2 years falling into three categories: (1) completeness of the rules of the ZX-calculus, (2) state-of-the-art quantum circuit optimisation results in commercial and open-source quantum compilers relying on ZX, and (3) the use of ZX in translating real-world stuff like natural language into quantum circuits that can be run on today's (very limited) quantum hardware. We also take the title literally, and outline an ongoing experiment aiming to show that ZX-calculus enables children to do cutting-edge quantum computing stuff. If anything, this would truly confirm that `kindergarten quantum mechanics' wasn't just a joke.