Fredkin Gate - Definition

Definition

The basic Fredkin gate is a controlled swap gate that maps three inputs (C, I1, I2) onto three outputs (C, O1, O2). The C input is mapped directly to the C output. If C = 0, no swap is performed; I1 maps to O1, and I2 maps to O2. Otherwise, the two outputs are swapped so that I1 maps to O2, and I2 maps to O1. It is easy to see that this circuit is reversible, i.e., "undoes itself" when run backwards. A generalized n×n Fredkin gate passes its first n-2 inputs unchanged to the corresponding outputs, and swaps its last two outputs if and only if the first n-2 inputs are all 1.

The Fredkin gate is the reversible three-bit gate that swaps the last two bits if the first bit is 1.

Truth table Matrix form
INPUT OUTPUT
C I1 I2 C O1 O2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 1 0 1 1
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 1 1 1 0
1 1 0 1 0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix}

It has the useful property that the numbers of 0s and 1s are conserved throughout, which in the billiard ball model means the same number of balls are output as input. This corresponds nicely to the conservation of mass in physics, and helps to show that the model is not wasteful.

Read more about this topic:  Fredkin Gate

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “I’m beginning to think that the proper definition of “Man” is “an animal that writes letters.””
    —Lewis Carroll [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (1832–1898)

    “No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
    —Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)