pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13993 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.LO· math.CT

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Graphical Algebraic Geometry: From Ideals and Varieties to Quantum Calculi

Dichuan Gao , Razin A. Shaikh , Aleks Kissinger
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 05:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.LOmath.CT
keywords graphical algebraic geometrydiagrammatic languagescommutative algebrasaffine varietiesZH calculusdiagram rewriting#CSPquantum computation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Graphical Algebraic Geometry supplies diagrammatic languages that are universal and complete for commutative algebras and affine varieties.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper defines Graphical Algebraic Geometry as a family of diagrammatic languages built by extending Graphical Linear Algebra. It constructs concrete languages inside this family and proves they are universal and complete with respect to the (co)span semantics of commutative algebras and affine varieties. The resulting diagrams therefore give exact graphical representations of polynomials, ideals, and varieties. Two applications follow directly: counting constraint satisfaction problems are recast as closed-diagram rewriting tasks, and the qudit ZH calculus is recovered as a direct extension of the same framework.

Core claim

Graphical Algebraic Geometry consists of diagrammatic languages whose generators and relations stand in exact correspondence with the (co)span categories of commutative algebras and affine varieties, making the languages universal and complete for representing and equating polynomials, ideals, and varieties.

What carries the argument

The (co)span semantics of commutative algebras and affine varieties, realized by a chosen set of diagrammatic generators and relations that enforce exact algebraic equality.

If this is right

  • #CSP instances become equivalent to deciding whether two closed diagrams in GAG rewrite to each other.
  • Deciding rewritability in GAG is #P-hard.
  • The qudit ZH calculus is obtained from GAG by the same kind of extension that turns Graphical Linear Algebra into the ZX calculus.
  • Computing amplitudes in the qudit ZH calculus requires only a constant number of queries to a GAG oracle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Algebraic-geometry proofs might be turned into finite sequences of diagram rewrites.
  • The same construction could be repeated for other algebraic structures such as non-commutative rings or schemes.
  • Hybrid classical-quantum algorithms could route polynomial-system subproblems through a GAG oracle.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen generators and relations in the diagrammatic languages capture the (co)span semantics of commutative algebras exactly, without adding or omitting algebraic information.

What would settle it

A concrete commutative algebra or affine variety whose defining relations cannot be expressed by any finite diagram in the GAG languages, or two diagrams that denote the same algebra yet cannot be transformed into each other by the given rewrite rules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13993 by Aleks Kissinger, Dichuan Gao, Razin A. Shaikh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Recursive Definition of Diagrammatic Terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Theory L𝐶𝐴𝑙𝑔𝐾 of Commutative Algebras over 𝑘 copy delete addition zero multiplication one 𝜅 scaling ∀𝑘 ∈ 𝐾 = (z-assoc) = (z-symm) = (z-unit) = (x-assoc) = (x-symm) = (x-unit) = (m-assoc) = (m-symm) = (m-unit) (z-fusion) Copy/Del Commutative Comonoid (x-fusion) Add/Zero Commutative Monoid (m-fusion) Mult/One Commutative Monoid = (mult-cp) = (mult-del) = (one-cp) = (one-del) = (add-cp) = (add-del) = (zer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scalable Notation for L𝐶𝐴𝑙𝑔𝑘 𝑛 ≔ 𝑛 ... 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 ≔ ... ... ... 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 ≔ ... ... ... 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 ≔ ... ... ... 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 ≔ 𝑛 ... 𝑛 ≔ ... 𝑛 𝑛 ≔ ... 𝑛 clear in Section 6 when we construct the language for spans of affine varieties. Proposition 3.3. From the rewrite rules of L𝐶𝐴𝑙𝑔𝑘 it is possible to derive the rewrite rules about polynomials in the scalable notation, as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rules for Scalable Notation 𝑓 𝑓 𝑓 = (poly-copy) 𝑓 = (poly-del) 𝑓 𝑔 = (poly-comp) 𝑔 ◦ 𝑓 𝑓 𝑔 = 𝑓 + 𝑔 (poly-add) 𝑓 𝑔 = 𝑓 · 𝑔 (poly-mult) We are now ready to define the three target semantic categories we meet in this paper: one for graphical commutative algebra, and two for graphical algebraic geometry. As we shall see later in proposition 4.8, structuring the (co)spans with respect to the appropriate inclusi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Additional Rewrite Rules for GCA𝑘 𝑙 𝑙 = −1 (k-inv) = (x-bone) ∀𝑙 ∈ 𝑘 × = (z-frob) = (z-frob) = (x-frob) = (x-frob) −1 = (cup) −1 = (cap) 𝜅 = 𝜅 (k-trp) = (k-trp) = (one-trp) Proposition 5.10 (Cospan Universality). For any ideal 𝐼 ⊂ 𝑘 [𝑥1, . . . , 𝑥𝑛] and tuples of polynomials 𝑓 ∈ (𝑘 [𝑥1, . . . , 𝑥𝑛])𝑚 and𝑔 ∈ (𝑘 [𝑥1, . . . , 𝑥𝑛])𝑚′ , " 𝐼 𝑓 𝑔 # =  𝑆𝑘 (𝑚) 𝑓 # 𝐼 −−→ 𝐴 𝑔 # 𝐼 ←− 𝑆𝑘 (𝑚 ′ )  (28) where 𝐴 = 𝑆𝑘 (𝑛)… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce Graphical Algebraic Geometry (GAG), a family of diagrammatic languages extending the Graphical Linear Algebra programme. We construct several languages within this family and prove that they are universal and complete for the corresponding (co)span semantics of commutative algebras and affine varieties. This framework provides clear graphical representations of algebraic structures -- such as polynomials, ideals, and varieties -- enabling intuitive yet rigorous diagrammatic reasoning. We showcase two practical viewpoints on GAG. First, we show that instances of counting constraint satisfaction problem (#CSP) are recast as rewrite problems of closed diagrams in GAG. This means that deciding rewritability in GAG is #P-hard, and GAG can be viewed as a complete and compositional rewrite system for networks of polynomial constraints. Second, we characterize the qudit ZH calculus, a diagrammatic language for quantum computation, as an extension of Graphical Algebraic Geometry. This establishes the correspondence that Graphical Algebraic Geometry is to the ZH calculus what Graphical Linear Algebra is to the ZX calculus. Using this construction, we show that computing amplitudes in qudit ZH requires only a constant number of queries to a GAG oracle.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Graphical Algebraic Geometry (GAG), a family of diagrammatic languages extending the Graphical Linear Algebra programme. It constructs several languages within this family and proves they are universal and complete for the (co)span semantics of commutative algebras and affine varieties. Applications include recasting #CSP instances as rewrite problems in GAG (implying #P-hardness of rewritability) and characterizing the qudit ZH calculus as an extension of GAG, with the correspondence that GAG is to ZH what GLA is to ZX; this yields a constant-query result for computing amplitudes in qudit ZH.

Significance. If the universality and completeness proofs hold, the work supplies a rigorous graphical calculus for polynomials, ideals, and varieties that directly interfaces with computational complexity (#CSP rewrites) and quantum diagrammatics (ZH calculus). The explicit link to existing Graphical Linear Algebra and ZX calculi, together with the constant-query amplitude result, would constitute a substantive advance in compositional reasoning for algebraic and quantum structures.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section on GAG language construction] The central universality and completeness claims rest on the generators and relations exactly capturing (co)span semantics without loss or addition of information. The manuscript should provide an explicit verification (e.g., in the section defining the GAG languages) that every polynomial relation is represented by a diagram and conversely, to substantiate the weakest modeling assumption.
  2. [Section on #CSP recasting] The #P-hardness reduction from #CSP to GAG rewritability is asserted via closed diagrams; the reduction must be shown to be parsimonious and to preserve the exact counting problem, including how the affine variety semantics maps onto the constraint network (reference the relevant theorem or proposition).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and language definitions] Clarify the precise number of distinct languages constructed within the GAG family and their individual generator sets, as the abstract refers to 'several languages' without an enumerated list.
  2. [ZH calculus characterization] The constant-query amplitude result for qudit ZH should include a brief statement of the oracle interface (what constitutes a single GAG query) to make the complexity claim fully operational.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and constructive comments on the manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, agreeing that additional explicit verification and clarification will strengthen the presentation. The revised manuscript will incorporate these changes as minor revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section on GAG language construction] The central universality and completeness claims rest on the generators and relations exactly capturing (co)span semantics without loss or addition of information. The manuscript should provide an explicit verification (e.g., in the section defining the GAG languages) that every polynomial relation is represented by a diagram and conversely, to substantiate the weakest modeling assumption.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification step would improve readability. The existing universality and completeness theorems already establish that the generators and relations precisely capture the (co)span semantics of commutative algebras and affine varieties. In the revised manuscript we will insert a short dedicated paragraph (or subsection) immediately after the language definition that spells out the direct correspondence: every polynomial relation is represented by a diagram via the standard monomial-to-generator encoding, and conversely every diagram evaluates to a unique polynomial relation under the (co)span semantics. This addition will reference the relevant theorems without altering the proofs themselves. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section on #CSP recasting] The #P-hardness reduction from #CSP to GAG rewritability is asserted via closed diagrams; the reduction must be shown to be parsimonious and to preserve the exact counting problem, including how the affine variety semantics maps onto the constraint network (reference the relevant theorem or proposition).

    Authors: We will revise the #CSP section to make the reduction fully explicit. We will state that the mapping is parsimonious (i.e., the number of solutions is preserved exactly) and will reference the theorem establishing the bijection between closed GAG diagrams and affine varieties over the constraint domain. A short paragraph will then explain how each constraint in the #CSP instance corresponds to a closed diagram whose evaluation counts the satisfying assignments, thereby preserving the exact counting problem. This clarification will be added without changing the underlying reduction argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claims rest on explicit constructions and proofs

full rationale

The paper defines Graphical Algebraic Geometry as an extension of prior diagrammatic frameworks, then constructs specific languages and asserts universality/completeness via proofs for (co)span semantics of commutative algebras and affine varieties. These proofs are presented as independent verifications rather than reductions to fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. Relations to #CSP hardness and qudit ZH calculus are derived consequences of the completeness result, not presuppositions. No load-bearing step equates a claimed prediction or theorem to its own inputs by construction, and any self-citations to Graphical Linear Algebra or ZX/ZH work serve only as background rather than substituting for the new proofs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on standard category-theoretic assumptions about spans and cospans together with the choice of specific generators for the diagrammatic languages; no free parameters or invented physical entities are mentioned.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Commutative algebras and affine varieties admit (co)span semantics that can be faithfully represented by string diagrams.
    Invoked when the paper states that the languages are universal and complete for those semantics.
invented entities (1)
  • Graphical Algebraic Geometry languages no independent evidence
    purpose: Diagrammatic representation of polynomials, ideals, and varieties.
    New family of languages constructed in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5506 in / 1335 out tokens · 29679 ms · 2026-05-15T05:40:39.250453+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Amir Ali Ahmadi, Georgina Hall, Ameesh Makadia, and Vikas Sindhwani. 2017. Geometry of 3D Environments and Sum of Squares Polynomials. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.1611.07369 arXiv:1611.07369 [math]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Asymptotically Good Quantum Codes

    A. Ashikhmin, S. Litsyn, and M. A. Tsfasman. 2001. Asymptotically Good Quan- tum Codes.Physical Review A63, 3 (Feb. 2001), 032311. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA. 63.032311 arXiv:quant-ph/0006061

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva 2001

  3. [3]

    Miriam Backens and Aleks Kissinger. 2019. ZH: A Complete Graphical Calculus for Quantum Computations Involving Classical Non-linearity.Electronic Proceed- ings in Theoretical Computer Science287 (Jan. 2019), 23–42. doi:10.4204/EPTCS. 287.2

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs 2019

  4. [4]

    Miriam Backens, Aleks Kissinger, Hector Miller-Bakewell, John van de Wetering, and Sal Wolffs. 2023. Completeness of the ZH-calculus.Compositionality5 (July 2023), 5. doi:10.32408/compositionality-5-5 arXiv:2103.06610 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.32408/compositionality-5-5 2023

  5. [6]

    Categories in Control

    John C. Baez and Jason Erbele. 2015. Categories in Control. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 1405.6881 arXiv:1405.6881 [math]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv 2015

  6. [7]

    Eli Ben-Sasson, Iddo Bentov, Yinon Horesh, and Michael Riabzev. 2018. Scalable, transparent, and post-quantum secure computational integrity. https://eprint. iacr.org/2018/046 Publication info: Preprint. MINOR revision

    work page 2018

  7. [8]

    Berlekamp

    Elwyn R. Berlekamp. 1968.Algebraic coding theory(1st ed ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York

    work page 1968

  8. [9]

    Filippo Bonchi, Fabio Gadducci, Aleks Kissinger, Pawel Sobocinski, and Fabio Zanasi. 2022. String Diagram Rewrite Theory I: Rewriting with Frobenius Struc- ture.J. ACM69, 2 (March 2022), 14:1–14:58. doi:10.1145/3502719

    work page doi:10.1145/3502719 2022

  9. [10]

    Filippo Bonchi, Fabio Gadducci, Aleks Kissinger, Pawel Sobocinski, and Fabio Zanasi. 2022. String diagram rewrite theory II: Rewriting with symmetric monoidal structure.Mathematical Structures in Computer Science32, 4 (April 2022), 511–541. doi:10.1017/S0960129522000317

    work page doi:10.1017/s0960129522000317 2022

  10. [11]

    Filippo Bonchi, Fabio Gadducci, Aleks Kissinger, Paweł Sobociński, and Fabio Zanasi. 2022. String Diagram Rewrite Theory III: Confluence with and without Frobenius. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2109.06049 arXiv:2109.06049 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.06049 2022

  11. [12]

    Filippo Bonchi, Robin Piedeleu, Pawel Sobocinski, and Fabio Zanasi. 2019. Graph- ical Affine Algebra. In2019 34th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Com- puter Science (LICS). IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–12. doi:10.1109/LICS.2019. 8785877

    work page doi:10.1109/lics.2019 2019

  12. [13]

    Filippo Bonchi, Pawel Sobocinski, and Fabio Zanasi. 2014. Interacting Bialgebras Are Frobenius. InFoundations of Software Science and Computation Structures. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 351–365. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54830-7-23 ISSN: 1611-3349

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54830-7-23 2014

  13. [14]

    Filippo Bonchi, Pawel Sobocinski, and Fabio Zanasi. 2015. Full Abstraction for Signal Flow Graphs. InProceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 515–526. doi:10.1145/2676726. 2676993

    work page doi:10.1145/2676726 2015

  14. [15]

    Filippo Bonchi, Pawel Sobocinski, and Fabio Zanasi. 2017. Interacting Hopf Algebras.Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra221, 1 (Jan. 2017), 144–184. doi:10. 1016/j.jpaa.2016.06.002 arXiv:1403.7048 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [16]

    Eugenia Cheng. 2020. Distributive laws for Lawvere theories.Compositionality 2 (May 2020), 1. doi:10.32408/compositionality-2-1 arXiv:1112.3076 [math]

    work page doi:10.32408/compositionality-2-1 2020

  16. [17]

    Bob Coecke and Ross Duncan. 2008. Interacting Quantum Observables. In Automata, Languages and Programming (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Luca Aceto, Ivan Damgård, Leslie Ann Goldberg, Magnús M. Halldórsson, Anna Ingólfsdóttir, and Igor Walukiewicz (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 298–310. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70583-3_25

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70583-3_25 2008

  17. [18]

    2017.Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning(1 ed.)

    Bob Coecke and Aleks Kissinger. 2017.Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning(1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316219317

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316219317 2017

  18. [19]

    Distributed Entanglement

    Valerie Coffman, Joydip Kundu, and William K. Wootters. 1999. Distributed Entanglement. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.61.052306 arXiv:quant-ph/9907047

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva.61.052306 1999

  19. [20]

    Cole Comfort. 2021. Distributive Laws, Spans and the ZX-Calculus. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2102.04386 arXiv:2102.04386 [math]

    work page arXiv 2021

  20. [21]

    Cole Comfort. 2021. The ZX&-calculus: A complete graphical calculus for classi- cal circuits using spiders.Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 340 (Sept. 2021), 60–90. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.340.4 arXiv:2004.05287 [cs]

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.340.4 2021

  21. [22]

    Cole Comfort and Aleks Kissinger. 2022. A Graphical Calculus for Lagrangian Relations.Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science372 (Nov. 2022), 338–351. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.372.24 arXiv:2105.06244 [cs]

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.372.24 2022

  22. [23]

    2007.Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra (third edition ed.)

    David Cox, John Little, and Donal OSHEA. 2007.Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra (third edition ed.). Springer Nature, New York, NY. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35651- 8 ISSN: 0172-6056

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35651- 2007

  23. [24]

    Cox, John Little, and Donal O’Shea

    David A. Cox, John Little, and Donal O’Shea. 2015.Ideals, Varieties, and Algo- rithms: An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra. Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16721- 3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16721- 2015

  24. [25]

    Niel de Beaudrap and Dominic Horsman. 2020. The ZX Calculus Is a Language for Surface Code Lattice Surgery.Quantum4 (Jan. 2020), 218. doi:10.22331/q- 2020-01-09-218

    work page doi:10.22331/q- 2020

  25. [26]

    Gilbarg and N

    David Eisenbud. 1995.Commutative Algebra: with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry(1st ed. 1995. ed.). Springer New York, New York, NY. doi:10.1007/978- 1-4612-5350-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 1995

  26. [27]

    Brendan Fong, Paolo Rapisarda, and Paweł Sobociński. 2016. A categorical approach to open and interconnected dynamical systems. InProceedings of the 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. 495–504. doi:10.1145/2933575.2934556 arXiv:1510.05076 [eess]

    work page doi:10.1145/2933575.2934556 2016

  27. [28]

    Markus Frembs. 2024. An algebraic characterisation of Kochen-Specker contex- tuality. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.16764 arXiv:2408.16764 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.16764 2024

  28. [29]

    Galbraith

    Steven D. Galbraith. 2012.The mathematics of public key cryptography(1st ed. ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    work page 2012

  29. [30]

    Carlos Galindo and Fernando Hernando. 2015. Quantum codes from affine variety codes and their subfield-subcodes.Designs, Codes and Cryptography76, 1 (July 2015), 89–100. doi:10.1007/s10623-014-0016-8 arXiv:1403.4060 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1007/s10623-014-0016-8 2015

  30. [31]

    Dichuan Gao. 2024. The Qudit ZH Calculus for Arbitrary Finite Fields: Universal- ity and Application. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.02219 arXiv:2406.02219 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02219 2024

  31. [32]

    Masoud Gharahi. 2024. Classifying Entanglement by Algebraic Geometry. International Journal of Quantum Information22, 03 (April 2024), 2350047. doi:10.1142/S0219749923500478 arXiv:2408.12265 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219749923500478 2024

  32. [33]

    Sudhir Ghorpade. 2019. A note on Nullstellensatz over finite fields. InContempo- rary Mathematics, Shrikrishna Dani, Surender Jain, Jugal Verma, and Meenakshi Graphical Algebraic Geometry Wasadikar (Eds.). Vol. 738. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 23–32. doi:10.1090/conm/738/14876

    work page doi:10.1090/conm/738/14876 2019

  33. [34]

    D. G. Glynn and J. W. P. Hirschfeld. 1995. On the classification of geometric codes by polynomial functions.Designs, Codes and Cryptography6, 3 (Nov. 1995), 189–204. doi:10.1007/BF01388474

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01388474 1995

  34. [35]

    V. D. Goppa. 1981. Codes on algebraic curves.Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR259, 6 (1981), 1289–1290

    work page 1981

  35. [36]

    Jens Groth. 2016. On the Size of Pairing-Based Non-interactive Arguments. InAd- vances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2016, Marc Fischlin and Jean-Sébastien Coron (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 305–326. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49896-5_11 2016

  36. [37]

    Grothendieck

    A. Grothendieck. 1960.Eléments de géométrie algébrique. Presses Universitaires de Frane, Paris

    work page 1960

  37. [38]

    Guruswami and M

    V. Guruswami and M. Sudan. 1999. Improved decoding of Reed-Solomon and algebraic-geometry codes.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory45, 6 (Sept. 1999), 1757–1767. doi:10.1109/18.782097

    work page doi:10.1109/18.782097 1999

  38. [39]

    2004.Multiple View Geometry in Com- puter Vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. 2004.Multiple View Geometry in Com- puter Vision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxford/detail.action?docID=256634

    work page 2004

  39. [40]

    1977.Algebraic Geometry

    Robin Hartshorne. 1977.Algebraic Geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 52. Springer New York, New York, NY. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3849-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3849-0 1977

  40. [41]

    Helmut Hasse. 1936. Zur Theorie der abstrakten elliptischen Funktionenkörper I. Die Struktur der Gruppe der Divisorenklassen endlicher Ordnung. 1936, 175 (Jan. 1936), 55–62. doi:10.1515/crll.1936.175.55

    work page doi:10.1515/crll.1936.175.55 1936

  41. [42]

    David Hilbert. 1890. Ueber die Theorie der algebraischen Formen.Math. Ann. 36, 4 (Dec. 1890), 473–534. doi:10.1007/BF01208503

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01208503

  42. [43]

    Hoholdt and R

    T. Hoholdt and R. Pellikaan. 1995. On the decoding of algebraic-geometric codes.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory41, 6 (Nov. 1995), 1589–1614. doi:10.1109/18.476214

    work page doi:10.1109/18.476214 1995

  43. [44]

    Mark Jerrum. 2017. Counting Constraint Satisfaction Problems. InDagstuhl Follow-Ups, Andrei Krokhin and Stanislav Zivny (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 27 pages, 647864 bytes. doi:10.4230/DFU.VOL7. 15301.205 Artwork Size: 27 pages, 647864 bytes

    work page doi:10.4230/dfu.vol7 2017

  44. [45]

    Lingfei Jin. 2014. Quantum Stabilizer Codes from Maximal Curves.IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory60, 1 (Jan. 2014), 313–316. doi:10.1109/TIT.2013. 2287694 arXiv:1311.2705 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1109/tit.2013 2014

  45. [46]

    Lingfei Jin and Chaoping Xing. 2013. Euclidean and Hermitian Self-orthogonal Algebraic Geometry Codes and Their Application to Quantum Codes. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.1308.3575 arXiv:1308.3575 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [47]

    P. T. Johnstone. 1982.Stone spaces. University Press, Cambridge

    work page 1982

  47. [48]

    Avanti Ketkar, Andreas Klappenecker, Santosh Kumar, and Pradeep Kiran Sarvepalli. 2005. Nonbinary stabilizer codes over finite fields. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.quant-ph/0508070 arXiv:quant-ph/0508070

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [49]

    Aleks Kissinger. 2022. Phase-free ZX diagrams are CSS codes (...or how to graph- ically grok the surface code). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2204.14038 arXiv:2204.14038 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.14038 2022

  49. [50]

    Aleks Kissinger and John van de Wetering. 2020. Reducing T-count with the ZX-calculus.Physical Review A102, 2 (Aug. 2020), 022406. arXiv:1903.10477 doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.102.022406

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.102.022406 2020

  50. [51]

    2024.Picturing Quantum Soft- ware

    Alexander Kissinger and John van de Wetering. 2024.Picturing Quantum Soft- ware

    work page 2024

  51. [53]

    2023), 89–113

    Picturing Counting Reductions with the ZH-Calculus.Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science384 (Aug. 2023), 89–113. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.384.6 arXiv:2304.02524 [cs]

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.384.6 2023

  52. [54]

    Tuomas Laakkonen, Konstantinos Meichanetzidis, and John van de Wetering

    work page

  53. [55]

    Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science406 (Aug

    A Graphical #SAT Algorithm for Formulae with Small Clause Density. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science406 (Aug. 2024), 137–161. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.406.7 arXiv:2212.08048 [cs]

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.406.7 2024

  54. [56]

    Stephen Lack. 2004. Composing PROPs.Theory and Applications of Categories [electronic only]13 (2004), 147–163. http://eudml.org/doc/124613

    work page 2004

  55. [57]

    Yves Lafont. 2003. Towards an algebraic theory of Boolean circuits.Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra184, 2 (Nov. 2003), 257–310. doi:10.1016/S0022- 4049(03)00069-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022- 2003

  56. [58]

    J. M. Landsberg and Laurent Manivel. 2003. On the ideals of secant varieties of Segre varieties. doi:10.48550/arXiv.math/0311388 arXiv:math/0311388

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.math/0311388 2003

  57. [59]

    1997.Finite fields(second edition

    Rudolf Lidl. 1997.Finite fields(second edition. ed.). University Press, Cambridge

    work page 1997

  58. [60]

    Saunders MacLane. 1965. Categorical algebra.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 71, 1 (Jan. 1965), 40–106. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bulletin- of-the-american-mathematical-society/volume-71/issue-1/Categorical- algebra/bams/1183526392.full Publisher: American Mathematical Society

    work page arXiv 1965

  59. [61]

    Ryutaroh Matsumoto. 2002. Algebraic geometric construction of a quantum stabilizer code.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory48, 7 (July 2002), 2122–

    work page 2002

  60. [63]

    Matsumoto

    R. Matsumoto. 2002. Improvement of Ashikhmin-Litsyn-Tsfasman bound for quantum codes.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory48, 7 (July 2002), 2122–

    work page 2002

  61. [64]

    doi:10.1109/TIT.2002.1013156

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.2002.1013156 2002

  62. [65]

    Akimasa Miyake. 2003. Classification of multipartite entangled states by multidimensional determinants.Physical Review A67, 1 (Jan. 2003), 012108. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.012108 arXiv:quant-ph/0206111

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva.67.012108 2003

  63. [66]

    Shaikh, and Quanlong Wang

    Boldizsár Poór, Razin A. Shaikh, and Quanlong Wang. 2025. ZX-calculus Is Com- plete for Finite-Dimensional Hilbert Spaces.Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science426 (Aug. 2025), 127–158. doi:10.4204/eptcs.426.5

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.426.5 2025

  64. [67]

    Stephen Prajna and Ali Jadbabaie. 2004. Safety Verification of Hybrid Systems Using Barrier Certificates. InHybrid Systems: Computation and Control, Rajeev Alur and George J. Pappas (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 477–492. doi:10. 1007/978-3-540-24743-2_32

    work page 2004

  65. [68]

    I. S. Reed and G. Solomon. 1960. Polynomial Codes Over Certain Finite Fields. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Journal of the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics8, 2 (June 1960), 5. doi:10.1137/0108018 Num Pages: 5 Place: Philadelphia, United States Publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    work page doi:10.1137/0108018 1960

  66. [69]

    Patrick Roy, John van de Wetering, and Lia Yeh. 2023. The Qudit ZH-Calculus: Generalised Toffoli+Hadamard and Universality.Electronic Proceedings in The- oretical Computer Science384 (Aug. 2023), 142–170. doi:10.4204/EPTCS.384.9 arXiv:2307.10095 [quant-ph]

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.384.9 2023

  67. [70]

    Pradeep Kiran Sarvepalli and Andreas Klappenecker. 2006. Nonbinary Quantum Codes from Hermitian Curves. InApplied Algebra, Algebraic Algorithms and Error-Correcting Codes, Marc P. C. Fossorier, Hideki Imai, Shu Lin, and Alain Poli (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 136–143. doi:10.1007/11617983_13

    work page doi:10.1007/11617983_13 2006

  68. [71]

    Shaska. 2008. Quantum codes from algebraic curves with automorphisms.Con- densed Matter Physics11, 2 (June 2008), 383. doi:10.5488/CMP.11.2.383

    work page doi:10.5488/cmp.11.2.383 2008

  69. [72]

    1993.Foundations of constraint satisfaction

    Edward Tsang. 1993.Foundations of constraint satisfaction. Academic Press Limited, London, England

    work page 1993

  70. [73]

    M. A. Tsfasman, S. G. Vlădutx, and Th. Zink. 1982. Modular curves, Shimura curves, and Goppa codes, better than Varshamov-Gilbert bound.Mathematische Nachrichten109, 1 (Jan. 1982), 21–28. doi:10.1002/mana.19821090103

    work page doi:10.1002/mana.19821090103 1982

  71. [74]

    S. G. Vlâdut and V. G. Drinfel’d. 1983. Number of points of an algebraic curve. Functional Analysis and Its Applications17, 1 (Jan. 1983), 53–54. doi:10.1007/ BF01083182 Company: Springer Distributor: Springer Institution: Springer Label: Springer Number: 1 Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers

    work page 1983

  72. [75]

    André Weil. 1949. Numbers of solutions of equations in finite fields.Bulletin (new series) of the American Mathematical Society55, 5 (1949), 497–508. doi:10. 1090/S0002-9904-1949-09219-4

    work page 1949

  73. [76]

    Adam Wills, Min-Hsiu Hsieh, and Hayata Yamasaki. 2024. Constant-Overhead Magic State Distillation. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.07764 arXiv:2408.07764 [quant- ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.07764 2024

  74. [77]

    Paul Wilson and Fabio Zanasi. 2023. An axiomatic approach to differentiation of polynomial circuits.Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming 135 (Oct. 2023), 100892. doi:10.1016/j.jlamp.2023.100892

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jlamp.2023.100892 2023

  75. [78]

    Interacting Hopf Algebras: the theory of linear systems

    Fabio Zanasi. 2018. Interacting Hopf Algebras: the theory of linear systems. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1805.03032 arXiv:1805.03032 [math]. A Derived Rules for Scalable Notation inL 𝐶𝐴𝑙𝑔𝑘 Proposition 3.3.From the rewrite rules of L𝐶𝐴𝑙𝑔𝑘 it is possible to derive the rewrite rules about polynomials in the scalable notation, as depicted in Figure 4. Proof. We begin ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.03032 2018