Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Kochen-Specker Sets with a Mixture of 16 Rank-1 and 14 Rank-2 Projectors for a Three-Qubit System
arXiv
Authors: S. P. Toh
Year
2013
Paper ID
32447
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
112
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem denies the possibility for the noncontextual hidden variable theories to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. A set of projection operators (projectors) and bases used to show the impossibility of noncontextual definite values assignment is named as the KS set. Since one KS set with a mixture of 16 rank-1 projectors and 14 rank-2 projectors proposed in 1995 \[Kernaghan M and Peres A 1995 Phys. Lett.\ A 198 1\] for a three-qubit system, there are plenty of the same type KS sets and we propose a systematic way to produce them. We also propose a probabilistic state-dependent proof of the KS theorem that mainly focuses on the values assignment for all the rank-2 projectors.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Entanglement Theory & Quantum Correlations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2013 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem denies the possibility for the noncontextual hidden variable theories to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics.
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.