Quick Navigation
Topics
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
What does monogamy in higher powers of a correlation measure mean?
arXiv
Authors: P. J. Geetha, Sudha, A. R. Usha Devi
Year
2014
Paper ID
47711
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
115
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We examine here the proposition that all multiparty quantum states can be made monogamous by considering positive integral powers of any quantum correlation measure. With Rajagopal-Rendell quantum deficit as the measure of quantum correlations for symmetric 3-qubit pure states, we illustrate that monogamy inequality is satisfied for higher powers of quantum deficit. We discuss the drawbacks of this inequality in quantification of correlations in the state. We also prove a monogamy inequality in higher powers of classical mutual information and bring out the fact that such inequality need not necessarily imply restricted shareability of correlations. We thus disprove the utility of higher powers of any correlation measure in establishing monogamous nature in multiparty quantum states.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Entanglement Theory & Quantum Correlations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2014 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We examine here the proposition that all multiparty quantum states can be made monogamous by considering positive integral powers of any quantum correlation measure.
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.