Linking Classical and Quantum Sample Clauses

Linking Classical and Quantum. Key Agreement In this section we derive a close connection between the possibilities offered by classical and quantum protocols for key agreement. The intuition is as follows. As described in Section 2.2, there is a very natural connection between quantum states Ψ and classical distributions PXY Z which can be thought of as arising from Ψ by measuring in a certain basis, e.g., the xxxx- dard basis6. (Note however that the connection is not unique even for fixed bases: For a given distribution PXY Z, there are many states Ψ leading to PXY Z by carrying out measurements.) When given a state Ψ between three parties Alice, Bob, and Eve, and if ρAB denotes the resulting mixed state after tracing out Eve, then the corresponding classical distribution PXY Z has positive intrinsic information if and only if ρAB is entangled. However, this correspondence clearly depends on the measurement bases used by Al- ice, Xxx, and Eve. If for instance ρAB is entangled, but Xxxxx and Xxx do very unclever measurements, then the intrinsic information may vanish (see Example 7 in Appendix B). If on the other hand ρAB is separable, Eve may do such bad measurements that the intrinsic information becomes positive, despite the fact that ρAB could have been established by public discussion without any prior correlation (see Example 6 in Appendix B). Consequently, the correspondence between intrinsic information and entan- 6A priori, there is no privileged basis. However, physicists often write states like ρAB in a basis which seems to be more natural than others. We refer to this as the standard basis. Somewhat surprisingly, this basis is generally easy to identify, though not precisely defined. One could characterize the standard basis as the basis for which as many coefficients as possible of Ψ are real and positive. We usually represent quantum states with respect to the standard basis. glement must involve some optimization over all possible measurements on all sides. A similar correspondence on the protocol level is supported by many examples, but not rigorously proven: The distribution PXY Z allows for clas- sical key agreement if and only if quantum key agreement is possible starting from the state ρAB. We show how these parallels allow for addressing problems of purely clas- sical information-theoretic nature with the methods of quantum information theory, and vice versa. 3.1 Entanglement and Intrinsic Information Let us first establish the connection between intrinsic informa...
Sample 1
Linking Classical and Quantum. Key Agreement In this section we derive a close connection between the possibilities offered by classical and quantum protocols for key agreement. The intuition is as follows. As described in Section 2.2, there is a very natural connection between quantum states Ψ and classical distributions PXY Z which can be thought of as arising 3 The term “quantum privacy amplification” is somewhat unfortunate since it does not correspond to classical privacy amplification, but includes advantage distillation and error correction. from Ψ by measuring in a certain basis, e.g., the standard basis4. (Note however that the connection is not unique even for fixed bases: For a given distribution PXY Z, there are many states Ψ leading to PXY Z by carrying out measurements.) When given a state Ψ between three parties Alice, Bob, and Eve, and if ρAB denotes the resulting mixed state after Eve is traced out, then the corresponding classical distribution PXY Z has positive intrinsic information if and only if ρAB is entangled. However, this correspondence clearly depends on the measurement bases used by Alice, Bob, and Eve. If for instance ρAB is entangled, but Xxxxx and Xxx do very unclever measurements, then the intrinsic information may vanish. If on the other hand ρAB is separable, Eve may do such bad measurements that the intrinsic information becomes positive, despite the fact that ρAB could have been established by public discussion without any prior correlation (see Example 4). Consequently, the correspondence between intrinsic information and entanglement must involve some optimization over all possible measurements on all sides. A similar correspondence on the protocol level is supported by many exam- ples, but not rigorously proven: The distribution PXY Z allows for classical key agreement if and only if quantum key agreement is possible starting from the state ρAB. We show how these parallels allow for addressing problems of purely classical information-theoretic nature with the methods of quantum information theory, and vice versa.
Sample 1

Related to Linking Classical and Quantum

  • Member Access to Vendor Proposal Notwithstanding any other information provided in this solicitation or Vendor designation of certain documentation as confidential or proprietary, Vendor’s acceptance of this TIPS Contract constitutes Vendor’s consent to the disclosure of Vendor’s comprehensive proposal, including any information deemed confidential or proprietary, to TIPS Members. The proposing Vendor agrees that TIPS shall not be responsible or liable for any use or distribution of information or documentation by TIPS Members or any other party. By submitting this proposal, Vendor certifies the foregoing. If the vendor is awarded a contract with TIPS under this solicitation, the vendor agrees to make any Choice of Law clauses in any contract or agreement entered into between the awarded vendor and with a TIPS member entity to read as follows: "Choice of law shall be the laws of the state where the customer resides" or words to that effect. Agreed In the event of litigation or use of any dispute resolution model when resolving disputes with a TIPS member entity as a result of a transaction between the vendor and TIPS or the TIPS member entity, the Venue for any litigation or other agreed upon model shall be in the state and county where the customer resides unless otherwise agreed by the parties at the time the dispute resolution model is decided by the parties. Agreed Texas and other states restrict by law or state Constitution the ability of a governmental entity to indemnify others. TIPS requires that any contract entered into between a vendor and TIPS or a TIPS Member as a result of an award under this Solicitation limit the requirement that the Customer indemnify the Vendor by either eliminating any such indemnity requirement clauses in any agreements, contracts or other binding documents OR by prefacing all indemnity clauses required of TIPS or the TIPS Member entity with the following: "To the extent permitted by the laws or the Constitution of the state where the customer resides, ". Agreed

  • Distribution and Pool Performance Information Item 1121(a) - Distribution and Pool Performance Information

  • Xxxxx, Haldimand, Norfolk An employee shall be granted five working days bereavement leave with pay upon the death of the employee’s spouse, child, stepchild, parent, stepparent, legal guardian, grandchild or step-grandchild.

  • Vendor Encouraging Members to bypass TIPS agreement Encouraging entities to purchase directly from the Vendor or through another agreement, when the Member has requested using the TIPS cooperative Agreement or price, and thereby bypassing the TIPS Agreement is a violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and will result in removal of the Vendor from the TIPS Program.

  • COVID-19 Vaccine Passports Pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code, Section 161.0085(c), Contractor certifies that it does not require its customers to provide any documentation certifying the customer’s COVID-19 vaccination or post-transmission recovery on entry to, to gain access to, or to receive service from the Contractor’s business. Contractor acknowledges that such a vaccine or recovery requirement would make Contractor ineligible for a state-funded contract.

  • XXXREAS the Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (the "1940 Act") as an open-end, series management investment company; and

  • Distribution of UDP and TCP queries DNS probes will send UDP or TCP “DNS test” approximating the distribution of these queries.

  • Loop Makeup Response Time - Electronic Exclusions Business Rules

  • Assets Reserved and Pending Claims (a) If, upon the occurrence of a Dissolution Event, there are any assets that, in the judgment of the Liquidating Trustee, cannot be sold or distributed in kind without sacrificing a significant portion of the value thereof or where such sale or distribution is otherwise impractical at the time of the Dissolution Event, such assets may be retained by the Company if the Liquidating Trustee determines that the retention of such assets is in the best interests of the Members. Upon the sale of such assets or a determination by the Liquidating Trustee that circumstances no longer require their retention, such assets (at their Fair Value) or the proceeds of their sale shall be taken into account in computing Capital Account on winding up and amounts distributable pursuant to Section 6.2(b), and distributed in accordance with such value. (b) If there are any claims or potential claims (including potential Company expenses in connection therewith) against the Company (either directly or indirectly, including potential claims for which the Company might have an indemnification obligation) for which the possible loss cannot, in the judgment of the Liquidating Trustee, be definitively ascertained, then such claims shall initially be taken into account in computing The Capital Account upon winding up and distributions pursuant to Section 6.2(b) at an amount estimated by the Liquidating Trustee to be sufficient to cover any potential loss or liability on account of such claims (including such potential Company expenses), and the Company shall retain funds (or assets) determined by the Liquidating Trustee in its discretion as a reserve against such potential losses and liabilities, including expenses associated therewith, and for any other Company purpose. The Liquidating Trustee may in its discretion obtain insurance or create escrow accounts or make other similar arrangements with respect to such losses and liabilities. Upon final settlement of such claims (including such potential Company expenses) or a determination by the Liquidating Trustee that the probable loss therefrom can be definitively ascertained, such claims (including such potential Company expenses) shall be taken into account in the amount at which they were settled or in the amount of the probable loss therefrom in computing the Capital Account on winding up and amounts distributable pursuant to Section 6.2(b), and any excess funds retained shall be distributed as such funds would be distributed under Section 6.2(b).

  • Note for Victorian customers In Victoria, a retailer must obtain a customer’s ‘explicit informed consent’ to base the customer’s bill on an estimation, unless the meter cannot be read or the metering data is not obtained.