Refactor state latex drawer

[frankharkins]

Summary

This PR builds on #8273 and #8461.

In this PR I have:

• (1219531, c4debbd, 72e4fb7) Removed duplicated code that converts amplitudes to latex strings
  (visualization.array._num_to_latex and visualization.state_visualization._num_to_latex_ket)
• (21d4b6b, 1126a4f) Reduced the amount of code in the drawers and hopefully cleared up the logic a bit
• (bd64399) Cleaned up the output latex (fixes most of Fix latex output to match qiskit-texbook norms #8317)

[qiskit-bot]

Thank you for opening a new pull request.

Before your PR can be merged it will first need to pass continuous integration tests and be reviewed. Sometimes the review process can be slow, so please be patient.

While you're waiting, please feel free to review other open PRs. While only a subset of people are authorized to approve pull requests for merging, everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. Doing reviews helps reduce the burden on the core team and helps make the project's code better for everyone.

One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:

• @Qiskit/terra-core
• @enavarro51
• @ikkoham

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2874353207

• 34 of 39 (87.18%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
• 183 unchanged lines in 5 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.01%) to 84.036%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
qiskit/visualization/array.py	27	29	93.1%
qiskit/visualization/state_visualization.py	7	10	70.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
qiskit/extensions/quantum_initializer/initializer.py	1	97.22%
qiskit/extensions/unitary.py	1	96.59%
qiskit/visualization/array.py	1	86.25%
qiskit/circuit/quantumcircuit.py	36	93.5%
qiskit/visualization/state_visualization.py	144	55.31%

Totals
Change from base Build 2862656180:	-0.01%
Covered Lines:	56237
Relevant Lines:	66920

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jakelishman]

Is this intended to supersede/obsolete #8273 and #8461? If so, was it in discussion with @1ucian0 and @ryanhill1?

[frankharkins]

Not my intention, I assumed those PRs are close to ready-to-merge, so it made more sense to build on them instead of re-solving the same problems in main. I didn't speak to either author, but I imagine they'd want to see the PR through, so probably best to review & merge those first before turning to this. I can fix any merge conflicts.

[rishacha]

@1ucian0 - The fixes in this PR overlaps with some of the code in the 'noisy' PR #8174.

If this PR is allowed, then my original PR (linked above) shouldn't have been closed in the first place. It could've been linked to multiple issues, re-worded and reviewed with more fixes.