Quick Navigation
Topics
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Quantum Foundations
Equivalence between contextuality and negativity of the Wigner function for qudits
arXiv
Authors: Nicolas Delfosse, Cihan Okay, Juan Bermejo-Vega, Dan E. Browne, Robert Raussendorf
Year
2016
Paper ID
42800
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
99
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Contextuality and negativity of the Wigner function are two notions of non-classicality for quantum systems. Howard, Wallman, Veitch and Emerson proved recently that these two notions coincide for qudits in odd prime dimension. This equivalence is particularly important since it promotes contextuality as a ressource that magic states must possess in order to allow for a quantum speed-up. We propose a simple proof of the equivalence between contextuality and negativity of the Wigner function based on character theory. This simplified approach allows us to generalize this equivalence to multiple qudits and to any qudit system of odd local dimension.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2016 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Contextuality and negativity of the Wigner function are two notions of non-classicality for quantum systems.
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.