Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Device-independent tests of classical and quantum dimensions

arXiv
Authors: Rodrigo Gallego, Nicolas Brunner, Christopher Hadley, Antonio Acin

Year

2010

Paper ID

10711

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

86

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We address the problem of testing the dimensionality of classical and quantum systems in a `black-box' scenario. We develop a general formalism for tackling this problem. This allows us to derive lower bounds on the classical dimension necessary to reproduce given measurement data. Furthermore, we generalise the concept of quantum dimension witnesses to arbitrary quantum systems, allowing one to place a lower bound on the Hilbert space dimension necessary to reproduce certain data. Illustrating these ideas, we provide simple examples of classical and quantum dimension witnesses.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2010 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We address the problem of testing the dimensionality of classical and quantum systems in a `black-box' scenario.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #10711 #69599 Tensor network compression usin... #69595 Tantalum as a base material for... #69590 Quantum Simulation of Spin-Depe... #69589 An integrated ultrahigh vacuum ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.