Examples I. The following examples illustrate the correspondence established in Sec- tion 3.1. They show in particular that very often (Examples 1, 2, and 3), but not always (Examples 6 and 7 in Appendix B), the direct connection between entanglement and positive intrinsic information holds with respect to the standard bases (i.e., the bases physicists use by commodity and intu- ition).
Examples I. The following examples illustrate the correspondence established in Section 3.1. They show in particular that very often (Examples 1, 2, and 3), but not always (Example 4), the direct connection between entanglement and positive intrinsic information holds with respect to the standard bases (i.e., the bases physicists use by commodity and intuition). Example 1 was already analyzed in [15]. The examples of this section will be discussed further in Section 3.5 under the aspect of the existence of key-agreement protocols in the classical and quantum regimes.
Examples I. The following examples illustrate the correspondence established in Section 3.1. They show in particular that very often (Examples 1, 2, and 3), but not always (Example 4), the direct connection between entanglement and positive intrinsic information holds with respect to the standard bases (i.e., the bases physicists use by commodity and intuition). Example 1 was already analyzed in [15]. The examples of this section will be discussed further in Section 3.5 under the aspect of the existence of key-agreement protocols in the classical and quantum regimes. Example 1. Let us consider the so-called 4-state protocol of [3]. The analysis of the 6-state protocol [1] is analogous and leads to similar results. We compare the possibility of quantum and classical key agreement given the quantum state and the corresponding classical distribution, respectively, arising from this protocol. The conclusion is, under the assumption of incoherent eavesdropping, that key agreement in one setting is possible if and only if this is true also for the other. After carrying out the 4-state protocol, and under the assumption of optimal eavesdropping (in terms of Xxxxxxx information), the resulting quantum state is [11] = pF=2 j0; 0i 00 + pD=2 j0; 1i 01 + pD=2 j1; 0i 10 + pF=2 j1; 1i 11 ; where D (the disturbance) is the probability that X Y holds if X and Y are the classical random variables of Xxxxx and Xxx, respectively, where F = 1 D (the delity), and where the ij satisfy h 00j 11i = h 01j 10i = 1 2D and h iij iji = 0 for all i 6= j. Then the state AB is (in the basis fj 00 i, j 01 i, j 10 i, j 11 ig)
