Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Algorithmic Complexity and Entanglement of Quantum States

2005, Physical Review Letters

Abstract

We define the algorithmic complexity of a quantum state relative to a given precision parameter, and give upper bounds for various examples of states. We also establish a connection between the entanglement of a quantum state and its algorithmic complexity.

References (26)

  1. R. J. Solomonoff, Information and Control 7, 1 (1964).
  2. A. N. Kolmogorov, Probl. Inf. Transmission 1, 1 (1965).
  3. G. J. Chaitin, Information, Randomness & Incomplete- ness (World Scientific, 1987).
  4. C. H. Bennett, Internal J. Theoret. Phys. 21, 905 (1982).
  5. W. H. Zurek, Nature 341, 119 (1989).
  6. R. Schack and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992).
  7. C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. E 47 (1993).
  8. J. Eisert and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001).
  9. A. Berthiaume et al., J. Compute. System Sci. 63 (2001).
  10. P. Vitanyi, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47, 2464 (2001).
  11. P. Gács, J. Phys. A 34, 6859 (2001).
  12. N. Bohr, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1958).
  13. T. Yamakami, arXiv: quant-ph/0412172 (2003).
  14. Adopting this scenario we arrive to a notion of complexity similar to that introduced in [9].
  15. This approach is close to Bohr's viewpoint that the quan- tum state is essentially an expression of an experimental scenario [12].
  16. C. H. Bennett, How to Define Complexity in Physics and Why (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City California, 1990), pp. 137-148.
  17. Here and in the following we use the signs (≃, ) when the relationships are expressed up to the leading order.
  18. J. J. Vartiainen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 92, 177902 (2004).
  19. A. Y. Kitaev, Russ. Math. Surv. 52, 1191 (1997).
  20. This, in fact, would again require to describe arbitrary unitary transformations.
  21. Even though almost all states are complex, it is impossi- ble to prove that any given state is. This derives from the fact that the statement:"The complexity of the classical string ω is greater than N " is unprovable [22].
  22. G. J. Chaitin, Randomness and Mathematical Proof, Sci- entific American 232 (5) (1975).
  23. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
  24. C. E. Mora and H. J. Briegel, arXiv: quant-ph/0412172.
  25. By W and GHZ states we intend N /qubit entangled states of the form, respectively, (|0...01 + |0...10 + ... + |1...00 )/ √ N and (|00...0 + |11...1 )/ √
  26. This procedure succeeds with exponentially low proba- bility, but this is not relevant from our point of view: we are in fact interested in the description of the procedure, not in the time or resources needed to apply it.