Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Classification of bipartite observables II: NIP observables and the Todorcevic trichotomy
arXiv
Authors: Eduardo Due\~nez, Jos\'e Iovino
Year
2026
Paper ID
78849
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
248
Citations
N/A
Abstract
A bipartite observable is stable when its idealized responses are continuous. We show that it is NIP exactly when they are of the first Baire class. They then form a Rosenthal compactum, and the dividing lines of Shelah in model theory, together with the classification of Rosenthal compacta of Todor\v{c}evi'c, acquire a physical meaning. For observables, mixtures of states make every hereditarily separable compactum of idealized responses metrizable, and the Todor\v{c}evi'c trichotomy becomes a classification into three classes. Each class contains a physical order: the comparison of photon numbers, the comparison of positions, and the causal order of spacetime, whose idealized responses are not first countable because a light cone can shrink to a point; the comparison of two phases on a circle joins it there. Each of the seven minimal families of the heptachotomy, which Argyros, Dodos and Kanellopoulos extracted from the methods of Todor\v{c}evi'c, is realized by a tree of preparations of photons, of a particle in a box, or of a spin chain read by a probe; the spin chain also shows that NIP, unlike its uniform version, is not symmetric between the two parties. Finally, for the Ising model in a transverse field we show that, in the ordered phase, the responses of the two pure phases form split pairs whose midpoints, the responses of the symmetric state, form an uncountable discrete set; the proof uses a Lee--Yang theorem for this model.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- A bipartite observable is stable when its idealized responses are continuous.
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.