Linking Classical and Quantum Clause Samples

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 ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ 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.
View Source
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 ▇▇▇▇- 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, ▇▇▇, and Eve. If for instance ρAB is entangled, but ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇ 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...
View Source

Related to Linking Classical and Quantum

  • STANDARDS AND QUALITY The Supplier shall at all times during the Contract Period ensure that the Services are delivered in accordance with: the Digital Service Design Manual (and the Supplier shall comply with the processes and procedures set out therein); the Standards; the KPIs; the Methodology; the applicable SOW; and all other applicable provisions of this Contract.

  • Documents Establishing the Eligibility and Qualifications of the Tenderer 16.1 To establish Tenderer eligibility in accordance with ITT 4, Tenderers shall complete the Form of Tender, included in Section IV, Tendering Forms. 16.2 The documentary evidence of the Tenderer qualifications to perform the Contract if its Tender is accepted shall establish to the Procuring Entity's satisfaction: a) that, if required in the TDS, a Tenderer that does not manufacture or produce the Goods it offers to supply shall submit the Manufacturer's Authorization using the form included in Section IV, Tendering Forms to demonstrate that it has been duly authorized by the manufacturer or producer of the Goods to supply these Goods in Kenya; b) that, if required in the TDS, in case of a Tenderer not doing business within the Kenya, the Tenderer is or will be (if awarded the Contract) represented by an Agent in the country equipped and able to carry out the Supplier's maintenance, repair and spare parts-stocking obligations prescribed in the Conditions of Contract and/or Technical Specifications; and c) that the Tenderer meets each of the qualification criterion specified in Section III, Evaluation and Qualification Criteria.

  • Organization and Qualification of the Company The Company is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of the state of Nevada and has full corporate power and authority to own, operate or lease the properties and assets now owned, operated or leased by it and to carry on its business as it has been and is currently conducted. Section 3.01 of the Disclosure Schedules sets forth each jurisdiction in which the Company is licensed or qualified to do business, and the Company is duly licensed or qualified to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction in which the properties owned or leased by it or the operation of its business as currently conducted makes such licensing or qualification necessary, except where the failure to be so licensed, qualified or in good standing would not have a material cost or other effect on the Company.

  • Due Incorporation and Qualification The Company has been duly incorporated and is validly existing as a corporation in good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware with corporate power and authority to own, lease and operate its properties and to conduct its business as described in the Pricing Disclosure Package and the Final Supplemented Prospectus and to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement, the Indenture and the Securities; and the Company is duly qualified as a foreign corporation to transact business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction in which such qualification is required, whether by reason of the ownership or leasing of property or the conduct of business, except where the failure to so qualify or be in good standing would not have a material adverse effect on the condition, financial or otherwise, or the earnings, business affairs or business prospects of the Company and its subsidiaries considered as one enterprise (a “Material Adverse Effect”).

  • Provisions Solely to Define Relative Rights The provisions of this Article XII are and are intended solely for the purpose of defining the relative rights of the Holders of the Securities on the one hand and the holders of Senior Debt on the other hand. Nothing contained in this Article XII or elsewhere in this Indenture or in the Securities is intended to or shall (a) impair, as between the Company and the Holders of the Securities, the obligations of the Company, which are absolute and unconditional, to pay to the Holders of the Securities the principal of and any premium and interest (including any Additional Interest) on the Securities as and when the same shall become due and payable in accordance with their terms, (b) affect the relative rights against the Company of the Holders of the Securities and creditors of the Company other than their rights in relation to the holders of Senior Debt or (c) prevent the Trustee or the Holder of any Security (or to the extent expressly provided herein, the holder of any Preferred Security) from exercising all remedies otherwise permitted by applicable law upon default under this Indenture, including filing and voting claims in any Proceeding, subject to the rights, if any, under this Article XII of the holders of Senior Debt to receive cash, property and securities otherwise payable or deliverable to the Trustee or such Holder.