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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #47711

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.