Distinguishability and indistinguishability by local operations and classical communication

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 92, Issue 17, 2004, Pages

  Fan, Heng ^a  

^a JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; INFORMATION THEORY; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PROBABILITY; THEOREM PROVING;

BELL STATES; LOCAL OPERATIONS AND CLASSICAL COMMUNICATION (LOCC); PAULI MATRICES; QUANTUM STATES;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 2942576599     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.177905     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996).
2. J. Walgate, A. J. Short, L. Hardy, and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4972 (2000)
3. J. Walgate and L. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 147901 (2002).
4. C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P.W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1070 (1999).
5. M. Horodecki, A. Sen(De), U. Sen, and K. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 047902 (2003).
6. α corresponding to mutually unbiased states [7] are valid only when d is prime.
7. S. Bandyopadhyay et al., Algorithmica 34, 512 (2002).
8. S. Ghosh, G. Kar, A. Roy, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 277902 (2001).
9. S. Ghosh, G. Kar, A. Roy, D. Sarkar, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 65, 062307 (2002).
10. J. I. Cirac, W. Dür, B. Kraus, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 544 (2001).
11. G. Vidal, W. Dür, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 027901 (2002).
12. M. Horodecki, P.W. Shor, and M. B. Ruskai, quant-ph/0302031.
13. J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. A 63, 032306 (2001).
14. In this Letter, we consider only the case that one copy of the quantum state is provided
15. S. Virmani, M. F. Sacchi, M. B. Plenio, and D. Markham, Phys. Lett. A 288, 62 (2001).
16. Y. X. Chen, and D. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 64, 064303 (2001); 65, 022320 (2002).
17. Y. X. Chen, and D. Yang, Phys. Rev. A 64, 064303 (2001); 65, 022320 (2002).
18. When we say that the quantum states cannot be distinguished by LOCC, we mean that they cannot be distinguished by LOCC deterministically or probabilistically.
19. Without loss of generality, we assume d′ ≥ d.
20. D. Jonathan and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1455 (1999).
21. M. A. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436 (1999).
22. G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1046 (1999).
23. A. Chefles, quant-ph/0302066.
24. B. M. Terhal, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. W. Leung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5807 (2001).