Examples II Sample Clauses

Examples II. The following examples support Conjectures 1 and 2 and illustrate their consequences. We consider mainly the same distributions as in Section 3.2, but this time under the aspect of the existence of classical and quantum key-agreement protocols. Example 1 (cont’d). We have shown in Section 3.2 that the resulting quan- tum state is entangled if and only if the intrinsic information of the cor- responding classical situation (with respect to the standard bases) is non- zero. Here, we show that such a correspondence also holds on the pro- tocol level. First of all, it is clear for the quantum state that QPA is possible whenever the state is entangled because both HA and HB have dimension two. On the other hand, the same is also true for the corre- sponding classic√al situation, i.e., secret-key agreement is possible whenever D/(1 − D) < 2 (1 − δ)δ holds, i.e., if the intrinsic information is positive. This is shown in Appendix C. There we describe the required protocol, more precisely, the advantage-distillation phase (called repeat-code protocol [20]), in which Xxxxx and Xxx use their advantage given by the authenticity of the public-discussion channel for generating new random variables for which the legitimate partners have an advantage over Xxx in terms of the (Xxxxxxx) information about each other’s new random variables. For a further discus- sion of this example, see also [15]. ♦ Example 2 (cont’d). The quantum state ρAB in this example is bound entan- gled, meaning that the entanglement cannot be used for QPA. Interestingly, but not surprisingly given the discussion above, the corresponding classical distribution has the property that I(X; Y ↓Z) > 0, but nevertheless, all the known classical advantage-distillation protocols [20], [22] fail for this distri- bution! It seems that S(X; Y ||Z) = 0 holds (although it is not clear how this fact could be rigorously proven, except by proving Conjecture 1 directly). ♦ Example 3 (cont’d). We have seen already that for 2 ≤ α ≤ 3, the quantum state is separable and the corresponding classical distribution (with respect to the standard bases) has vanishing intrinsic information. Moreover, it has been shown that for the quantum situation, 3 < α ≤ 4 corresponds to bound entanglement, whereas for α > 4, QPA is possible and allows for generating a secret key [18]. We describe a classical protocol here which suggests that the situation for the classical translation of the scenario is totally analogous: The protocol allow...
Sample 1
Examples II. The following examples support Conjectures 1 and 2 and illustrate their conse- quences. We consider mainly the same distributions as in Section 3.2, but this time under the aspect of the existence of classical and quantum key-agreement protocols. Example 1 (cont’d). We have shown in Section 3.2 that the resulting quantum state is entangled if and only if the intrinsic information of the corresponding classical situation (with respect to the standard bases) is non-zero. Such a corre- spondence also holds on the protocol level. First of all, it is clear for the quantum state that QPA is possible whenever the state is entangled because both HA and HB have dimension two. On the other hand, the same is also true for the cor- responding clas√sical situation, i.e., secret-key agreement is possible whenever D/(1 − D) < 2 (1 − δ)δ holds, i.e., if the intrinsic information is positive. The necessary protocol includes an interactive phase, called advantage distillation, based on a repeat code or on parity checks (see [20] or [29]). ♦ Example 2 (cont’d). The quantum state ρAB in this example is bound entangled, meaning that the entanglement cannot be used for QPA. Interestingly, but not surprisingly given the discussion above, the corresponding classical distribution has the property that I(X; Y Z) > 0, but nevertheless, all the known classical advantage-distillation protocols [20], [22] fail for this distribution! It seems that S(X; Y ||Z) = 0 holds (although it is not clear how this fact could be rigorously proven). ♦
Sample 1Sample 2
Examples II. The following examples support Conjectures 1 and 2 and illustrate their conse- quences. We consider mainly the same distributions as in Section 3.2, but this time under the aspect of the existence of classical and quantum key-agreement protocols. Example 1 (cont'd). We have shown in Section 3.2 that the resulting quantum state is entangled if and only if the intrinsic information of the corresponding classical situation (with respect to the standard bases) is non-zero. Such a corre- spondence also holds on the protocol level. First of all, it is clear for the quantum H B have dimension two. On the other hand, the same is also true for the cor- p #
Sample 1
Examples II. The following examples support Conjectures 1 and 2 and illustrate their consequences. We consider mainly the same distributions as in Section 3.2, but this time under the aspect of the existence of classical and quantum key-agreement protocols.
Sample 1

Related to Examples II

  • CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES The following categories of employees may apply for benefits under this policy: Category 1: Employees who have acquired eighty-five KPERS retirement points (a combination of age and KPERS service that adds to 85) and who have completed by June 30 of the retirement year fifteen (15) years of service in USD 434 that could include service given through the employment of the Three Lakes Cooperative. Category 2: Employee who qualifies for retirement under the basic provisions of KPERS. These employees must have attained the age of 62 and have 10 years of vested service in KPERS but have not acquired eighty-five retirement points at the time of retirement and who have completed by June 30 of the retirement year fifteen (15) years of service in USD 434 that could include service given through the employment of the Three Lakes Cooperative.

  • Agreements with Employees and Subcontractors Grantee shall have written, binding agreements with its employees and subcontractors that include provisions sufficient to give effect to and enable Grantee’s compliance with Grantee’s obligations under this Article VI, Intellectual Property.

  • Data Necessary to Perform Services The Trust or its agent shall furnish to USBFS the data necessary to perform the services described herein at such times and in such form as mutually agreed upon.

  • Information About You and Your Visits to the Website All information we collect on this Website is subject to our Privacy Policy. By using the Website, you consent to all actions taken by us with respect to your information in compliance with the Privacy Policy.

  • Review Systems; Personnel It will maintain business process management and/or other systems necessary to ensure that it can perform each Test and, on execution of this Agreement, will load each Test into these systems. The Asset Representations Reviewer will ensure that these systems allow for each Review Receivable and the related Review Materials to be individually tracked and stored as contemplated by this Agreement. The Asset Representations Reviewer will maintain adequate staff that is properly trained to conduct Reviews as required by this Agreement.

  • EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS 6.1 Administrators will meet with new employees to discuss their job description within one (1) month of hire. The Administrator and new employee will sign off on the job description and it will be forwarded to the Human Resources Department for inclusion in the employee‘s personnel file. The Human Resources Department will compile and distribute a list showing each employee‘s evaluator prior to November 1st of each year. Bargaining unit job descriptions will be made available via the District‘s web site. 6.2 Evaluations will transpire as follows for employees that are receiving satisfactory ratings: a. New hires—regular part-time (school year employees) will be evaluated at three (3) and six (6) working months. b. New hires—full time (12 month employees) will be evaluated at three (3), six (6) and twelve (12) months. c. After the initial year of employment, each employee shall be evaluated at least once annually by March 31st. 6.3 Criteria for evaluating bargaining unit members will be based on the performance categories outlined on the evaluation form as related to the job description of their specific position assignment. 6.4 Evaluation reports shall include feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses (if any) demonstrated by the employee. Prior to an employee receiving a rating less than “Meets Expectations,” the employee shall be advised of the performance concern and provided with a clear statement of any deficiency and a statement defining acceptable performance. This shall occur within a reasonable time prior to the final evaluation to allow the employee a chance to demonstrate improvement. 6.5 In the event an employee is evaluated overall as “Does Not Meet Expectations,” the district, in consultation with the employee and the Association, will provide the employee a written plan of improvement (See Employee Plan of Improvement form in Appendix). The plan shall clearly define all areas of deficiency, provide clear and attainable performance goals, and outline supports (if any) to be given, including any necessary training at the District’s expense. The employee will be given a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed sixty (60) working days, to meet job performance expectations. During the improvement period, feedback will be provided through a minimum of three scheduled meetings. Following the completion of the plan, the supervisor shall notify the employee in writing of the outcome. Failure to demonstrate satisfactory improvement may constitute grounds for termination. 6.6 The bargaining unit member shall be given a copy of their evaluation, and any data collection sheets (with the submitters name excluded) used in the evaluation. 6.7 Under the law there is no right to Association Representation at evaluation conferences. 6.8 Any information shared with the evaluating administrator for the evaluation process shall be recorded on Data Collection Sheet(s), with the exception of those unit members that have supervising teachers. Supervising teachers will work directly with the evaluating administrator to share performance information for inclusion in the unit member‘s evaluation. 6.9 Employees shall have the right to respond to evaluations in writing. Such written response shall be attached to the evaluation if received within 5 days. 6.10 No bargaining unit member shall be required to sign a blank or incomplete evaluation form.

  • Internet Use Customer assumes total responsibility for its and its users’ use of the Internet. Masergy specifically disclaims any warranties, endorsements or representations regarding any merchandise, information, software, products, data, files, or services provided through the Internet.

  • Historical Performance Information To the extent agreed upon by the parties, the Sub-Advisor will provide the Trust with historical performance information on similarly managed investment companies or for other accounts to be included in the Prospectus or for any other uses permitted by applicable law.

  • Users There is no limit to the number of users who can access the Software. You can invite any person You wish to access the Software.

  • List of Employees The Union shall be provided quarterly via compact disc a current list of names, employee numbers, classifications, addresses, home telephone numbers, work locations, hourly rate, status (regular, substitute, temporary) and social security numbers of all employees covered by this Agreement. This list will also include all employees newly hired into the bargaining unit during the preceding quarter and all bargaining unit employees who have separated from the District during the preceding quarter.

Most Referenced Clauses

Most Referenced Definitions