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:

    “It is very hard to give a just definition of love. The most we can say of it is this: that in the soul, it is a desire to rule; in the spirit, it is a sympathy; and in the body, it is but a hidden and subtle desire to possess—after many mysteries—what one loves.”
    —François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)

    “Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
    Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
    Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
    Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
    —Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)