Quick Navigation
Topics
Topological Quantum Computing
Quantum Gravity Relativistic Quantum Information
Quantum Entropy Information Measures
Quantum Software Tools Programming
Octonionic two-qubit separability probability conjectures
arXiv
Authors: Paul B. Slater
Year
2016
Paper ID
41940
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
140
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We study, further, a conjectured formula for generalized two-qubit Hilbert-Schmidt separability probabilities that has recently been proven by Lovas and Andai (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.01410.pdf) for its real (two-rebit) asserted value $frac{29}{64}$, and that has also been very strongly supported numerically for its complex $frac{8}{33}$, and quaternionic $frac{26}{323}$ counterparts. Now, we seek to test the presumptive octonionic value of frac{44482}{4091349} approx 0.0108722. We are somewhat encouraged by certain numerical computations, indicating that this (51-dimensional) instance of the conjecture might be fulfilled by setting a certain determinantal-power parameter a, introduced by Forrester (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.08081.pdf), to 0 (or possibly near to 0). Hilbert-Schmidt measure being the case k=0 of random induced measure, for k=1, the corresponding octonionic separability probability conjecture is frac{7612846}{293213345} approx 0.0259635, while for k=2, it is frac{4893392}{95041567} approx 0.0514869, ldots. The relation between the parameters a and k is explored.
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.