Non-Abelian Strategies in Quantum Penny Flip Game
Hiroaki Mishima
Department of Complex Systems Science, Graduate School of Information Science, Nagoya University, Chikusa-ku,
Nagoya 464-8601, Japan
arXiv:1707.00938v1 [quant-ph] 4 Jul 2017
July 5, 2017
Abstract
We formulate and analyze generalizations of the quantum penny flip game. In the penny flip game,
one coin has two states, heads or tails, and two players apply operations on the coin alternatively. In
the original Meyer game, a first player is allowed to use only classical (i.e., commutative) operations but
a second player is allowed to use quantum (i.e., non-commutative) operations, too. In our generalized
games, the both players are allowed to use non-commutative operations. We show that even if the first
player is allowed to use “phase-variable” operations which are non-Abelian generally, the second player
still has winning strategies. Besides, we show that even when the first player is allowed to choose one
from two or more elements of the group U (2), the second player has winning strategies under a certain
condition. These results suggest that there is a method for restoring a quantum state disturbed by an
agent.
1
Introduction
In 1999 Meyer introduced quantum penny flip game in a seminal paper [1] on quantum game theory. He
gave a procedure for converting a conventional classical game into a quantum game. A quantum game is
derived from a classical game by applying quantum mechanical principles like superposition, entanglement,
non-locality, and interference. In the quantum penny flip game that Meyer originated, two players manipulate
one invisible coin and they try to predict the final state of the coin. One of players is allowed to use quantum
mechanical operations on the coin while another player is allowed to use only classical operations. Meyer
found that the quantum player has strategies to win certainly.
Although there have been a lot of discussions about games between quantum vs. classical players and
quantum vs. quantum players, there have been few discussions about games between quantum vs. restricted
quantum players. It has been understood that a quantum player is stronger than a classical player [1, 2].
Thus, let us put a question: can a full quantum player defeat another quantum player who has a restricted
set of operations? How much restriction allows advantage of the full quantum player?
Strategies in the penny flip game can be regarded as a kind of information processing. The quantum
penny flip game was introduced for investigating possible influence of quantum mechanics on information
processing. The purpose of this paper is to investigate possibility of quantum operations to recover the state
of a system disturbed by a classical agent.
2
Classical/Quantum Penny flip game
Let us introduce the simple game, “penny flip game,” that is the basis of this paper.
2.1
Classical version
Classical penny flip game is introduced by Meyer [1]. This game has the following rules:
i) Players P and Q have a common penny coin.
1
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
The initial state of the penny is heads. The penny is in a box and is invisible from outside.
Each player can choose to either flip or non-flip the penny.
Players cannot see either the current state of penny and the other player’s previous operation.
Sequence of operations : Q → P → Q
If the final state is heads, (i.e., final state is equal to initial state,) Q wins else P wins.
The payoff matrix of the game is Table 1, in which F , N and N F mean, respectively, flip, non-flip and
Table 1: Payoff matrix of Classical penny flip game
Q
P
(P, Q)
N
F
NN
(−1, 1)
(1, −1)
NF
(1, −1)
(−1, 1)
FN
(1, −1)
(−1, 1)
FF
(−1, 1)
(1, −1)
non-flip after flip. The numbers in the matrix are the payoffs for each player; first index is for P and the
second is for Q. For example, (−1, 1) means P loses while Q wins as the final state is heads. It is easily verified
that the winning probability of each player is 21 , and that there exists no pure strategy Nash equilibrium
[4]. The probabilities of choices of each player are denoted as p~ := (pN , pF ) and ~q := (qN N , qN F , qF N , qF F ),
respectively. The payoff functions are defined as an expectation value of individual player as uP (~
p,~q) =
−uQ (~
p, ~q) = (1 − 2pN )[1 − 2(qN F +qF N )]. The mixed strategy Nash equilibria are given at p~ ∗ = 21 , 12 and
1
1
1
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
∗
~q ∗ = qN
N , qN F , 2 − qN F , 2 − qN N , where qN F and qN N may take any values in the range [0, 2 ]. Hence P’s
optimal strategy is to choose either F or N with the equal probability and Q’s are to choose either the same
or different operation with the equal probability. We find that the average payoffs of the both players are
zero at the Nash equilibrium. Altogether, classical penny flip game is a fair game and is one of symmetric
zero-sum games.
2.2
Quantum version
ä
. Ä0 1ä
. Ä0 −iä
. Ä
0
ˆ := (σ̂1 , σ̂2 , σ̂3 ), where σ̂1 =
We use the notation ~σ
and σ̂3 = 10 −1
are Pauli matrices.
1 0 , σ̂2 = i
0
Quantum penny flip game is formulated by Meyer [1]. In classical penny flip game, a penny coin takes
one of two states: heads or tails. He introduced a two-state quantum system like a spin as “a quantum
coin”. In this case we have to take account of quantum properties like superposition, unitary transformation,
etc. In quantum penny flip game, only player Q has “quantum strategy”. Namely, the quantum player can
apply arbitrary unitary transformations and the classical player can do Abelian unitary transformations only.
Besides, P’s and Q’s quantum payoff functions are defined by $P = −$Q = 1 − 2|hf |ii|2 , where |ii is an initial
state and |f i is a final state of the coin. He showed that player Q wins every time if he uses the Hadamard
transformation:
)
( |1i+|0i
Å ã
√
if P applies σ̂1
|0i + |1i . 1 1
Q
Q
P
2
√
=√
−−−−−−→
−−−−−→ |0i .
(2.1)
|0i −−−−−→
|0i+|1i
√
if
P
applies
1̂
l
2
2 1
Ĥ
Ĥ
σ̂1 or 1̂l
2
. Ää
. Ää
.
Here |0i = 10 denotes ‘head’ (up-spin) and |1i = 01 does ‘tail’ (down-spin), Ĥ =
√1
2
Ä1
1
ä
1
−1
is the
Hadamard transformation, the Pauli matrix σ̂1 flips the penny coin and the identity matrix 1̂l leaves the
penny coin unchanged. At the first step, the operation of player Q, which is the Hadamard transformation
Ĥ, puts the coin into the equal-weight superposition state of heads and tails. At the second step, although
player P can chose to flip or not to flip the coin, the superposed state of the coin remains unchanged after
the operation of player P. At the third step, player Q applies the Hadamard transformation Ĥ on the coin.
Then the coin turns back to the initial state because Ĥ 2 = 1̂l. Thus player Q always wins when they open
the box. Hence, in the penny flip game, the quantum strategy is perfectly advantageous against any classical
strategy. Note that the intermediate state |+xi is a simultaneous eigenstate of P’s operations 1̂l and σ̂1 . This
fact implies that the quantum player Q makes operations of player P, 1̂l or σ̂1 , ineffective (see Fig. 1).
2
|+z
|−x
|−y
Ĥ
±π
Ĥ
σ̂1
|+y
|+x
|−z
Ä1ä
.
Figure 1: The winning strategy of Meyer is drawn on the Bloch sphere. Here we set |±xi = √12 ±1
,
. √1 Ä 1 ä
|±yi = 2 ±i , |+zi = |0i and |−zi = |1i. The Hadamard transformation, which is the operation of player
Q, conveys the |+zi state to the |+xi state. The operation of σ̂1 , which is the coin-flip operation by player P,
is a rotation around the x-axis by π radian. Player P cannot change the |+xi state by applying the coin-flip
operation. See Eq. (2.1).
Of course one may ask how the game goes if both players are allowed to play with quantum strategies.
Meyer showed that the one-side advantage is lost in that case (see Theorem 2 of Ref. [1]).
Although the strategy provided by Meyer is only one of a lot of winning strategies, his example demonstrates the superiority of quantum strategies. Chappell et al. [3] gave all the unitary transformations that
are winning strategies for player Q as
ï Å
ã ò
θ
θ
(1)
iδ1
ˆ , Û (2) (θ, φ) = eiδ2 eiφσ̂3 /2 Û (1)† ,
ÛQ (θ, φ) = e exp i
a, b cot , ab · ~σ
(2.2)
Q
Q
2
2
»
(1)
(2)
and
where ÛQ is Q’s first operation, ÛQ is second one, a = ± 12 1 − cot2 θ2 , b = ±1, |θ| ∈ π2 , 3π
2
π
π
φ, δ1 , δ2 ∈ [0, 2π), provided that double signs are arbitrary. When we put (θ, φ, δ1 , δ2 ) = (π, 0, − 2 , − 2 ), the
(1)
(2)
3
Chappell transformations become ÛQ = ÛQ = σ̂1√+σ̂
= Ĥ, which coincides with Meyer’s solution.
2
3
Modified quantum penny flip games
In the previous section, we see that player Q can change the state of the coin into a simultaneous eigenstate of
possible operations of player P if the operations of P are mutually commutative. This is the winning strategy
for player Q. As a straight extension of this observation, now we propose a question: if player P is allowed to
use a restricted class of non-commutative unitary operations, does player Q have a winning strategy? It has
been shown, in Ref. [1], that if player P is allowed to use any unitary operations, player Q has no winning
strategies. Thus, for making a sense of the question, we need to define the class of the operations allowed to
player P to use.
3
3.1
Non-Abelian strategy and winning strategy against it
To begin with, let us consider a simple modification of the strategy of player P by allowing him to use σ̂3
instead of 1̂l as the non-flipping operation. Player P uses σ̂1 as the flipping operation. Note that these
operators are non-commutative; [σ̂3 , σ̂1 ] = 2iσ̂2 6= 0, and therefore they generate a non-Abelian group. We
found a winning strategy of player Q, which are given by
Å
ã
Å
ã
1 i −1
1 1 i
(2) .
(1) .
, ÛQ = √
.
(3.3)
ÛQ = √
2 i 1
2 1 −i
The game flow proceeds as
( |0i−i|1i
Å ã
i √2
|0i + i |1i . 1 1
P
√
|0i −−−−→
=√
−−−−−−−−→
|0i−i|1i
(1)
√
σ̂1 or σ̂3
2
2 i
ÛQ
2
Q
if P applies σ̂1
)
if P applies σ̂3
(
Q
−−−−→
(2)
ÛQ
− |0i
i |0i
.
(3.4)
Thus, the final state of the coin is always equivalent to the initial state, heads. This means that the operations
Eq. (3.3) give a winning strategy Äof player
Q.
ä
1
1
√
We get two special states 2 ±i in which player P cannot avoid flipping the coin except for a phase
with operations σ̂1 and σ̂3 . Namely, player P must flip the coin through the operations. Player Q can always
know the state of the coin (see Fig. 2).
|+z
(2)
ÛQ
σ̂3
|−y
±π
|−x
(1)
ÛQ
σ̂1 or σ̂3
±π
|+y
σ̂1
|+x
|−z
Figure 2: The winning strategy we found on the Bloch sphere. Player P always convey the state |+yi into
|−yi. See Eq. (3.4).
Using a method similar to Chappell et al. [3], we can find all the winning strategies for player Q in the
modified game in that player P uses σ̂1 and σ̂3 . The complete set of the winning strategies are the unitary
operators
ï Å
ã ò
θ
θ
(1)
ˆ , Û (2) (θ, φ) = eiδ2 eiφσ̂3 /2 Û (1)† σ̂3 ,
b cot , ab, a · ~σ
(3.5)
ÛQ (θ, φ) = eiδ1 exp i
Q
Q
2
2
which are parameterized by the variables same to (2.2). When we put (θ, φ, δ1 , δ2 ) = ( π2 , 0, 0, π2 ), the general
solution (3.5) is reduced to Eq. (3.3).
4
3.2
Non-Abelian strategy with phase variables and winning strategy against it
We can introduce a modified flip operator F̂ and a modified non-flip operator N̂ for player P;
Å
ã
Å
ã
0
eiα/2
0
.
. eiβ/2
F̂ (α) := eiασ̂3 /2 σ̂1 = −iα/2
, N̂ (β) := eiβ σ̂3 /2 =
,
e
0
0
e−iβ/2
(3.6)
where α, β ∈ R. The operator F̂ flips the coin while the operator N̂ does not in a classical sense but the
both introduce phase changes of the quantum state of the coin. They are non-commutative in general;
/ 2πZ. Note that using
the group composition
law of SU (2)
[F̂ (α), N̂ (β)] = 2eiασ̂3 /2 σ̂2 sin β2 6= 0 if β ∈
î
ó
π
α
α
ˆ
[5], the modified flip operation can be rewritten as iF̂ (α) = exp ±i 2 cos 2 , − sin 2 , 0 · ~σ whose rotation
(flipping) axes are in the same plane of Bloch sphere. Even if we replace α with α + 2πZ, the rotation axis
is unchanged except for arbitrary double signs. This fact is equivalent to that the commutation relation
0
[F̂ (α), F̂ (α0 )] = 2iσ̂3 sin α−α
is zero. We call the operators Eq. (3.6) a phase-variable strategy and call the
2
player P using this strategy a phase-variable player. It is easily seen that
• If we put α, β ∈ 2πZ, player P’s operations become (F̂ , N̂ ) = (±σ̂1 , ±1̂l) which are same as Meyer’s
setting.
• If we put α ∈ 2πZ, β ∈ (2Z + 1)π, player P’s operations become (F̂ , N̂ ) = (±σ̂1 , ±iσ̂3 ) which are same
as defined in section 3.1.
provided that double signs are arbitrary.
Let us seek for a winning strategy of player Q against the phase-variable player P. We use density matrix
representation of the coin state to deal classical and quantum operations on a same footing. Using density
matrix, the game flow is illustrated as:
Q
P
(1)
ÛQ
Q
F̂ (α) or N̂ (β)
ρ̂0 −−−−−→ ρ̂1 −−−−−−−−−−→ ρ̂2 −−−−−→ ρ̂3 .
(3.7)
(2)
ÛQ
The initial state of the coin is assumed to be the heads, ρ̂0 := |0i h0|. Player Q applies a unitary transformation
(1)
(1)
(1)†
ÛQ on it to get ρ̂1 := ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ . In next step, player P applies the flip operation F̂ (α) with probability
p or the non-flip operation N̂ (β) with probability 1 − p. Then, the density matrix is transformed to ρ̂2 :=
pF̂ ρˆ1 F̂ † + (1 − p)N̂ ρ̂1 N̂ † . The phase parameters α and β will be adjusted for making the strongest strategy
(2)
(2)
(2)†
for player P. In the final step, player Q applies another unitary transformation ÛQ to get ρ̂3 := ÛQ ρ̂2 ÛQ .
Thus, the density matrix of the final state is
(2)
(1)
(1)†
ρ̂3 = pÛQ F̂ ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ
(2)†
F̂ † ÛQ
(2)
(1)
(1)†
+ (1 − p)ÛQ N̂ ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ
(2)†
N̂ † ÛQ
.
(3.8)
For providing a perfect strategy for player Q to make ρ̂3 = ρ̂0 for arbitrary flip probability p, we need to have

(2)†
(1)
(1)†
(2)
ÛQ F̂ ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ F̂ † ÛQ 
(3.9)
= ρ̂0 .
(2)
(1)
(1)† † (2)† 
Û N̂ Û ρ̂ Û
N̂ Û
(3.10)
Q
1̂l+σ̂3
2 , we can rewrite Eq.
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
ÛQ and ÛQ , i.e., ÛQ N̂ ÛQ
0
Q
Q
Q
(2)
(1)
Using ρ̂0 =
(3.10) to [ÛQ N̂ ÛQ , σ̂3 ] = 0. From this, we can derive a relation
between
= eiδ2 eiφσ̂3 /2 , which is equivalent to
(2)
(1)†
ÛQ = eiδ2 eiφσ̂3 /2 ÛQ
N̂ † (β)
(3.11)
where φ, δ2 ∈ [0, 2π). By substituting Eq. (3.11) into Eq. (3.9), we get
(1)†
eiφσ̂3 /2 ÛQ
(1)†
(1)
(1)†
N̂ † F̂ ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ
(1)
F̂ † N̂ ÛQ e−iφσ̂3 /2 = ρ̂0 .
(1)
(3.12)
(1)†
(1)
Also, Eq. (3.12) is rewritten as [ÛQ N̂ † F̂ ÛQ , σ̂3 ] = 0, which implies that Û := ÛQ N̂ † F̂ ÛQ is a linear
combination of 1̂l and σ̂3 . Since Û is an arbitrary unitary transformation, Û satisfy Û † Û = 1̂l. Besides, we
(1)†
(1)
need to seek Û satisfying Û 6= ±1̂l. We take the case: ÛQ N̂ † F̂ ÛQ = ±σ̂3 , i.e.,
(1)†
ÛQ
(1)†
N̂ † F̂ = ±σˆ3 ÛQ
5
.
(3.13)
(1)
The unitary operator ÛQ can be parameterized as
Å
ã
θ
θ
ˆ
(1)
ˆ
ÛQ = eiδ1 eiθ~n·~σ/2 = eiδ1 cos 1̂l + i sin ~n · ~σ
2
2
(3.14)
with the parameters θ ∈ R, ~n = (n1 , n2 , n3 ) ∈ S 2 ⊂ R3 and δ1 ∈ [0, 2π). By substituting Eq. (3.14) into
Eq. (3.13), we get the relation:
ï
ò
ò
ï
θ
θ
θ
θ
cos 1̂l − i sin (n1 σ̂1 + n2 σ̂2 + n3 σ̂3 ) N̂ † F̂ = bσ̂3 cos 1̂l − i sin (n1 σ̂1 + n2 σ̂2 + n3 σ̂3 ) ,
(3.15)
2
2
2
2
where b2 = 1. We want to find the parameter θ and n̂ satisfying Eq. (3.15). From Eq. (3.6), we have
∆
N̂ † F̂ = cos ∆
2 σ̂1 − sin 2 σ̂2 , where ∆ := α − β. Comparing both sides of Eq. (3.15), this equation is satisfied
if
Å
ã

θ
∆
θ
∆


sin = bn3 sin ,
−
n
sin
(3.16)
n
cos
2
1

2
2
2
2
Å
ã

∆
θ
∆
θ


(3.17)
 n1 sin 2 + n2 cos 2 sin 2 = b cos 2 ,
which implies sin θ2 6= 0. From Eqs. (3.16) and (3.17), we get
n2 = b sec
∆
θ
∆
cot − n1 tan ,
2
2
2
n3 = bn1 sec
∆
∆
θ
− tan cot .
2
2
2
Substituting these into the constraint n21 + n22 + n23 = 1, we get
ïÅ
ã
ò
θ 1
∆
θ
∆
∆
1 + sin2
cot2 − cos2
= 0,
n21 − 2bn1 sin cot +
2
2 2
2
2
2
(3.18)
(3.19)
and hence
∆
θ
∆
cot + a cos ,
(3.20)
2
2
2
1 − cot2 θ2 and cot θ2 ≤ 1, i.e., |θ| ∈ π2 , 3π
2 . By substituting Eq. (3.20) into Eq. (3.18),
n1 = b sin
where a := ±
we obtain
»
1
2
n2 = b cot
θ
∆
− a sin ,
2
2
n3 = ab.
(3.21)
Combining these with Eqs. (3.11) and (3.14), we get the winning strategy for player Q:
ï Å
ã ò
θ
∆
θ
∆
θ
∆
(1)
iδ1
ˆ ,
ÛQ (θ, φ; α, β) = e exp i
b sin cot + a cos , b cot − a sin , ab · ~σ
2
2
2
2
2
2
(2)
(1)†
ÛQ (θ, φ; α, β) = eiδ2 N̂ (φ)ÛQ
(1)† −iβ σ̂3 /2
N̂ † (β) = eiδ2 eiφσ̂3 /2 ÛQ
e
,
(3.22)
(3.23)
provided that double signs in a and b are arbitrary.
3.3
Unrestricted strategy and winning strategy against it
In the above argument, the operations of player P are required to be coin flip or non-flip operations in the
classical sense. Here we discard this restriction. Player P is allowed to use one of the two arbitrary unitary
(1)
(2)
operators ÛP and ÛP . They do not necessarily yield definite heads or tails states when they act on the
coin heads state. Instead, they can yield superposition states of heads and tails. In this sense, player P
(1)
(2)
also becomes a quantum player. Player P applies ÛP on the coin with probability p or applies ÛP with
probability 1 − p. In this section, we seek for a winning strategy of player Q.
Using density matrices, the game flow is illustrated as:
Q
P
(1)
ÛQ
(k)
{ÛP }k=1,2
Q
ρ̂0 −−−−−→ ρ̂1 −−−−−−−−−→ ρ̂2 −−−−−→ ρ̂3 .
6
(2)
ÛQ
(3.24)
The final state of the coin is
(2)
(1)
(1)
(1)†
ρ̂3 := pÛQ ÛP ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ
(1)†
ÛP
(2)†
ÛQ
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)†
+ (1 − p)ÛQ ÛP ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ
(2)†
ÛP
(2)†
ÛQ
(3.25)
(2)
where p ∈ [0, 1]. We would like to find ÛQ and ÛQ that yield ρ̂3 = ρ̂0 for arbitrary p. Via argument similar
(2)
(2)
(1)
to the above section, we get an equation [ÛQ ÛP ÛQ , σ̂3 ] = 0. From this, we have
(2)
(1)†
ÛQ = eiδ2 eiθ2 σ̂3 /2 ÛQ
(2)†
ÛP
,
(3.26)
where δ2 , θ2 ∈ [0, 2π). By substituting Eq. (3.26) into Eq. (3.25), we get
(1)†
eiθ2 σ̂3 /2 ÛQ
Using ρ̂0 =
1̂l+σ̂3
2 ,
(2)†
ÛP
(1)
(1)
(1)†
ÛP ÛQ ρ̂0 ÛQ
(1)†
we can rewrite Eq. (3.27) to [ÛQ
(1)†
ÛQ
(2)†
ÛP
(1)†
ÛP
(2)†
ÛP
(2)
(1)
ÛP ÛQ e−iθ2 σ̂3 /2 = ρ̂0 .
(1)
(1)
ÛP ÛQ , σ̂3 ] = 0, which implies
(1)
(1)†
ÛP = eiδ3 eiγ σ̂3 /2 ÛQ
(1)
(3.27)
(k)
with the parameters δ3 , γ ∈ R. The unitary operator ÛQ and ÛP
,
(3.28)
can be parameterized as
Å
ã
θ1
θ1
ˆ
(1)
ˆ ,
ÛQ = eiδ1 eiθ1 ~n·~σ/2 = eiδ1 cos 1̂l + i sin ~n · ~σ
2
2
Å
ã
φ
φk
ˆ
k
(k)
iξk iφk m
~ k ·~
σ /2
iξk
ˆ
ÛP = e e
=e
cos 1̂l + i sin m
~ k · ~σ ,
2
2
(3.29)
(3.30)
with the parameters k(= 1, 2), δ1 , ξk , θ1 , φk ∈ R, ~n := (n1 , n2 , n3 ) ∈ S 2 and m
~ k := (mk1 , mk2 , mk3 ) ∈ S 2 .
(1)
Here we need to get ÛQ satisfying Eq. (3.28). By using the law of spherical trigonometry [5], we can rewrite
the l.h.s of Eq. (3.28) as
Å
ã
Φ
Φ~ ˆ
~ ˆ
(1)† (2)† (1)
ÛQ ÛP ÛP = ei(ξ1 −ξ2 −δ1 ) eiΦM·~σ/2 = ei(ξ1 −ξ2 −δ1 ) cos 1̂l + i sin M
· ~σ ,
(3.31)
2
2
where
ϕ
φ1
φ2
φ1
φ2
:= cos
cos
+m
~1·m
~ 2 sin
sin ,
2
2
2
2
2
φ1
φ2
φ1
φ2
m
~
sin
cos
−
m
~
cos
sin
−
m
~
~ 2 sin φ21 sin φ22
2
1×m
2
2
2
2
~ := 1
M
∈ S2,
sin ϕ2
Φ
θ1
ϕ
~ · ~n sin θ1 sin ϕ ,
cos := cos cos + M
2
2
2
2
2
~ sin ϕ cos θ1 − ~n cos ϕ sin θ1 − M
~ × ~n sin ϕ sin θ1
M
2
2
2
2
2
2
~ :=
M
∈ S2.
sin Φ2
cos
(3.32)
(3.33)
(3.34)
(3.35)
Similarly, the r.h.s of Eq. (3.28) is rewritten as
(1)†
eiδ3 eiγ σ̂3 /2 ÛQ
Å
ã
Θ~ ˆ
Θ
· ~σ ,
= ei(δ3 −δ1 ) cos 1̂l + i sin N
2
2
(3.36)
where
Θ
γ
θ1
γ
θ1
:= cos cos
+ n3 sin sin ,
2
2
2
2
2
Ñ
é
(n1 cos γ2 + n2 sin γ2 ) sin θ21
~ := − 1
N
∈ S2
(n2 cos γ2 − n1 sin γ2 ) sin θ21
sin Θ2
γ
γ
θ1
θ1
n3 sin 2 cos 2 − cos 2 sin 2
cos
7
(3.37)
(3.38)
From Eqs. (3.31) and (3.36), we get the following relation:
cos
Å
ã
Φ
Θ
Φ~ ˆ
Θ~ ˆ
1̂l + i sin M
· ~σ = ei(δ3 +ξ2 −ξ1 ) cos 1̂l + i sin N
· ~σ .
2
2
2
2
(3.39)
We find that ei(δ3 +ξ2 −ξ1 ) ∈ R since cos Φ2 , sin Φ2 , cos Θ2 , sin Θ2 ∈ R. We choose the value of δ3 so as to satisfy
δ3 + ξ2 − ξ1 ∈ πZ. Namely, we find that ei(δ3 +ξ2 −ξ1 ) =: c, where c2 = 1. We obtain the system of linear
equations:

Θ
Φ


 cos = c cos ,
(3.40)
2
2

M
~ sin Φ = cN
~ sin Θ .

(3.41)
2
2
Since Eqs. (3.40) and (3.41) are equivalent to the system of four linear equations with three unknowns n1 , n2
and n3 , only three of the four equations are mutually independent. Selecting Eq. (3.41), we get the matrix
equation:
Ñ
é
M1 sin ϕ2
θ1
ϕ
M2 sin 2
,
(3.42)
V̂ ~n = cos
2
M3 sin ϕ2 − c sin γ2
where
θ1
V̂ := sin
2
cos ϕ2 − c cos γ2
M3 sin ϕ2 + c sin γ2
−M2 sin ϕ2
Ñ
− M3 sin ϕ2 + c sin γ2
cos ϕ2 − c cos γ2
M1 sin ϕ2
M2 sin ϕ2
−M1 sin ϕ2
cos ϕ2 − c cos γ2
é
.
(3.43)
Note that Eq. (3.42) can be solved if there exists the inverse matrix V̂ −1 , that is, the determinant of the
matrix V is nonzero. We find the determinant det V̂ is calculated as
Å
ãÅ
ã
ϕ
γ
ϕ
γ
ϕ
γ
θ1
det V̂ = 2c sin3
cos − c cos
M3 sin sin − cos cos + c .
(3.44)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
We find that there exist player Q’s winning strategies, in the case of that player P is allowed to use two
(k)
arbitrary U (2) operations ÛP ,
(1)
ˆ
ÛQ = eiδ1 eiθ1 ~n·~σ/2 ,
(2)
(1)†
ÛQ = eiδ2 eiθ2 σ̂3 /2 ÛQ
(2)†
ÛP
,
(3.45)
where the Bloch vector for player Q’s winning strategies is given by
Ö
è
M1 cos γ2 − M2 sin γ2 sin ϕ2
θ1
cot 2
M1 sin γ2 + M2 cos γ2 sin ϕ2
.
~n = −
ϕ
γ
ϕ
γ
M3 sin 2 sin 2 − cos 2 cos 2 + c
ϕ
γ
ϕ
γ
M3 sin 2 cos 2 + cos 2 sin 2
(3.46)
Player Q should choose the parameters θ1 , ϕ (i.e., φ1 , φ2 in Eq. (3.32)), γ and c = ±1 such that Eq. (3.44)
is nonzero so as to make Eq. (3.46) converged. When player Q operates the strategies Eq. (3.45), he always
wins independent of a selection of the parameter θ2 , δ1 and δ2 .
3.4
Multiple strategy and winning strategy against it
(j)
Finally, let us propose a more general game. We allow player P to choose one of ` elements {ÛP }j=1,··· ,` of
the group U (2) as his operation. We call this a multiple strategy. We ask existence of a winning strategy
of player Q in this game. If all the operators given to player P are mutually commutative, there exists a
simultaneous eigenvector of these operators, and this vector is invariant under operations of player P. Hence,
in this case, player Q always wins by transforming the initial state vector to the simultaneous eigenvector at
the first step and by transforming it back to the initial state at the final step.
8
Let us consider it when player P has one of ` elements of the group U (2), which are divided into twotype unitary operations. We allow player P to choose s modified flip operations {F̂ (αkF )}kF =1,··· ,s :=
{eiαkF σ̂3 /2 σ̂1 }kF =1,··· ,s and `−s modified non-flip ones {N̂ (βkN )}kN =s+1,··· ,` := {eiβkN σ̂3 /2 }kN =s+1,··· ,` . Player
P has at least one of the both type unitary operations, i.e., 1 ≤ s ≤ ` − 1.
If all of player P’s modified flip operations {F̂ (αkF )}kF are mutually commutative and all of modified
non-flip ones {N̂ (βkN )}kN are equal to identity 1̂l, i.e., βkN ∈ πZ for all kN , we can deduce easily that player Q
always have complete set of winning strategies since there exist simultaneous eigenstates for player P similar
to section 2.2 similar to Meyer’s.
If all {F̂ (αkF )}kF are mutually commutative and all {N̂ (βkN )}kN are not equal to identity 1̂l, there do not
exist any Q’s winning strategies in general. However, only for s = 1, ` − 1, there exist player Q’s winning
strategies since our examinations of section 3.2 are always available.
4
Conclusion
Let us summarize discussions in this paper.
Meyer proposed a quantum version of penny flip game. In that, player P is allowed to use only classical
operations, flip or non-flip, on the coin while player Q is allowed to use any unitary transformation. Meyer
showed that there is a winning strategy for player Q; player Q always wins by transforming the initial coin
state to the superposition state that is a simultaneous eigenvector of the flip operation σ̂1 and the non-flip
operation 1̂l, and hence is invariant under any operation of player P.
In this paper, we proposed four kinds of generalizations of quantum version of penny flip game and
analyzed them.
In the first generalization, we allow player P to use σ̂1 and σ̂3 as his operations, which are non-commutative
and do not admit simultaneous eigenvectors. Even in this game we found a complete set of winning strategies
for player Q. After the first operation of player Q, the two possible operations of player P yield equivalent
states, and therefore player Q can restore the coin state into the same initial state by his second operation.
This scheme is common among all the winning strategies.
In the second generalization, we allow player P to use phase-changing flip and non-flip operations. In this
game also we found a complete set of winning strategies for player Q, with the proviso that player Q knows
the values of the parameters α and β in player P’s operations.
In the third generalization, we allow player P to use two arbitrary unitary operations. Even in this game,
player Q has a set of winning strategies if the determinant of the V̂ is nonzero.
In the forth generalization, we allow player P to use ` ≥ 3 elements of phase-changing flip and non-flip
operations. Even in this game, player Q has a set of winning strategies if some conditions are satisfied.
Consequently, we found that even if player P has non-Abelian mixed strategies, there were cases in that
player Q has a set of winning strategies. Note that, in these games, the purpose of player Q was to restore
the initial state to the end while the purpose of player P was to change the initial state. In this context, to
get a winning strategy for player Q is equivalent to restoration of initial state against player P. Furthermore,
the conditions for the existence of winning strategies was similar to classification of interference such that
the initial state can be always restored.
The author hopes that the present work provides a new perspective on the other quantum games.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Tomotoshi Nishino for guiding to the research of the present subject, to Shogo
Tanimura for careful reading of my manuscript and helpful suggestions for improving it, and to Ryosuke
Ishiwata for useful discussions.
References
[1] D. A. Meyer, “Quantum Strategies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1052-1055 (1999)
9
[2] J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, “Quantum Games and Quantum Strategies,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
83, 3077-3080 (1999)
[3] J. M. Chappell, A. Iqbal, M. A. Lohe, and L. von Dmekal, “An analysis of the quantum penny flip game
using geometric algebra,” J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 054801(4p) (2009)
[4] J. Nash, “Equilibrium points in n-person games,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
36(1): 48-49 (1950)
[5] W. Gellert, S. Gottwald, M. Hellwich, H. Kästner, and H. Küstner, “The VNR Concise Encyclopedia of
Mathematics,” 2nd ed., ch. 12 (Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, 1989)
10