Comment on some results of Erdahl and the convex structure of reduced density matrices

Journal of Mathematical Physics

Volumn 53, Issue 7, 2012, Pages

  Chen, Jianxin ^a,b   Ji, Zhengfeng ^b,c   Ruskai, Mary Beth ^b,d   Zeng, Bei ^a,b   Zhou, Duan Lu ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^c INSTITUTE OF SOFTWARE   (China)

^d TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864740259     PISSN: 00222488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.4736842     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Altunbulak M. Klyachko A. The Pauli principle revisited. Commun. Math. Phys. 2008, 282:287-322. 10.1007/s00220-008-0552-z.
2. Calderbank A.R. Rains E.M. Shor P.W. Sloane N.J. A. Quantum error correction via codes over GF(4). IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1998, 44(4):1369-1387. 10.1109/18.681315.
3. Christandl M. Mitchison G. The spectra of quantum states and the Kronecker coefficients of the symmetric group. Commun. Math. Phys. 2006, 261:789-797. 10.1007/s00220-005-1435-1.
4. Coleman A.J. Structure of fermion density matrices. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1963, 35:668-686. 10.1103/RevModPhys.35.668.
5. Diósi L. Three-party pure quantum states are determined by two two-party reduced states. Phys. Rev. A 2004, 70(1):010302. 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.010302.
6. Erdahl R.M. The convex structure of the set of N-representable reduced 2-Matrices. J. Math. Phys. 1972, 13:1608-1621. 10.1063/1.1665885.
7. Garrod C. Percus J.K. Reduction of the N-particle variational problem. J. Math. Phys. 1964, 5:1756-1776. 10.1063/1.1704098.
8. Jones N.S. Linden N. Parts of quantum states. Phys. Rev. A 2005, 71:012324. 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012324.
9. Klyachko A. Quantum marginal problem and representations of the symmetric group. e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0409113.
10. Klyachko A. Quantum marginal problem and N-representability. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2006, 36:72-86. 10.1088/1742-6596/36/1/014.
11. Kuhn H. Linear inequalities and the pauli principle. Combinatorial Analysis, Proc. Symp. Appl. Math. 1960, 10:141-147. 10.1002/zamm.19610410711.
12. Kummer H. N-representability problem for reduced density matrices. J. Math. Phys. 1967, 8:2063-2081. 10.1063/1.1705122.
13. Linden N. Popescu S. Wootters W.K. Almost every pure state of three qubits is completely determined by its two-particle reduced density matrices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89:207901. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.207901.
14. Linden N. Wootters W.K. The parts determine the whole in a generic pure quantum state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89:277906. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.277906.
15. Liu Y.-K. Christandl M. Verstraete F. Quantum computational complexity of the N-representability problem: QMA complete. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98(11):110503. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.110503.
16. Ocko S.A. Chen X. Zeng B. Yoshida B. Ji Z. Ruskai M.B. Chuang I.L. Quantum codes give counterexamples to the unique preimage conjecture of the N-representability problem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106(11):110501. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.110501.
17. Rosina M. Some theorems on uniqueness and reconstruction of higher-order density matrices. Many-Electron Densities and Reduced Density Matrices 2000, J. Cioslowski, in edited by (Springer)
18. Ruskai M.B. N-representability problem: particle-hole equivalence. J. Math. Phys. 1970, 11(11):3218-3224. 10.1063/1.1665118.
19. Ruskai M.B. Connecting N-representability to Weyl's problem: the one-particle density matrix for N = 3 and R = 6. J. Phys. A 2007, 40:F961-F967. 10.1088/1751-8113/40/45/F01.
20. Smith D.W. N-representability problem for fermion density matrices. I. The second-order density matrix with N = 3. J. Chem. Phys. 1965, 43:258. 10.1063/1.1701504.
21. Yang C.N. Concept of off-diagonal long-range order and the quantum phases of liquid he and of superconductors. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1962, 34:694-704. 10.1103/RevModPhys.34.694.
22. It is ironic that there is a typesetting error in the title of this section so that what was intended as "In Finite Dimensions ..." appears as "INFINITE DIMENSIONS ..." rather than "IN FINITE DIMENSIONS.".
23. N(W)]⊥
24. j , much less a set with unit norm.
25. Here, we use the fact that a linear map is continuous and interpret open as relatively open.
26. 2