3.05 score from hupso.pl for:
njohnston.ca



HTML Content


Titlenathaniel johnston

Length: 18, Words: 2
Description pusty

Length: 0, Words: 0
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 7376
Text/HTML 30.53 %
Headings H1 0
H2 6
H3 22
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
H2
how to compute hard-to-compute matrix norms
introducing qetlab: a matlab toolbox for quantum entanglement
“obvious” does not imply “true”: the minimal superpermutation conjecture is false
all minimal superpermutations on five symbols have been found
what the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglement
counting the possible orderings of pairwise multiplication
H3
induced matrix norms
induced schatten superoperator norms
entanglement norms
the basics
mixed state separability
symmetry of subsystems
nonlocality and bell inequalities
download and documentation
superpermutations
the conjecture is false
the eight minimal superpermutations
how they were found
proving a state is entangled: the realignment criterion
proving a state is entangled: beyond the realignment criterion
proving a state is separable
a rough upper bound
a better upper bound
this bound is not tight
recent posts
tags
monthly archive
recent comments
H4
H5
H6
strong
references:
q
e
t
lab
references:
references
update [august 18, 2014]:
important update [august 22, 2014]:
references
theorem 1 (realignment criterion).
theorem 2.
claim 1:
claim 2:
theorem 3 [4,5].
proposition 4.
theorem 5 [6].
references
question.
update [feb. 13, 2014]:
update [feb. 14, 2014]:
update [feb. 18, 2014]:
references
b
i
references:
q
e
t
lab
references:
references
update [august 18, 2014]:
important update [august 22, 2014]:
references
theorem 1 (realignment criterion).
theorem 2.
claim 1:
claim 2:
theorem 3 [4,5].
proposition 4.
theorem 5 [6].
references
question.
update [feb. 13, 2014]:
update [feb. 14, 2014]:
update [feb. 18, 2014]:
references
em references:
q
e
t
lab
references:
references
update [august 18, 2014]:
important update [august 22, 2014]:
references
theorem 1 (realignment criterion).
theorem 2.
claim 1:
claim 2:
theorem 3 [4,5].
proposition 4.
theorem 5 [6].
references
question.
update [feb. 13, 2014]:
update [feb. 14, 2014]:
update [feb. 18, 2014]:
references
Bolds strong 23
b 0
i 23
em 23
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 13
Pliki CSS 1
Pliki javascript 12
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 229
Linki wewnętrzne 4
Linki zewnętrzne 225
Linki bez atrybutu Title 186
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

nathaniel@njohnston.ca mailto:nathaniel@njohnston.ca
javascript:void(0);
top #
nathaniel johnston mailto:nathaniel@njohnston.ca

Linki zewnętrzne

home http://www.njohnston.ca/
cv http://www.njohnston.ca/cv/
publications http://www.njohnston.ca/publications/
my websites http://www.njohnston.ca/my-websites/
contact http://www.njohnston.ca/contact/
how to compute hard-to-compute matrix norms http://www.njohnston.ca/2016/01/how-to-compute-hard-to-compute-matrix-norms/
no comments http://www.njohnston.ca/2016/01/how-to-compute-hard-to-compute-matrix-norms/#respond
norms of matrices and operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/matrix_norm
schatten norms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schatten_norm
ky fan norms http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/08/ky-fan-norms-schatten-norms-and-everything-in-between/
induced p-norms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/matrix_norm#induced_norm
hölder’s inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/h%c3%b6lder%27s_inequality
power method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/power_iteration
qetlab package http://www.qetlab.com/main_page
inducedmatrixnorm http://www.qetlab.com/inducedmatrixnorm
schatten p-norm http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/08/ky-fan-norms-schatten-norms-and-everything-in-between/
hölder inequality for schatten norms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schatten_class_operator
hilbert–schmidt inner product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hilbert%e2%80%93schmidt_operator
inducedschattennorm http://www.qetlab.com/inducedschattennorm
my thesis http://www.njohnston.ca/publications/norms-and-cones-in-the-theory-of-quantum-entanglement/
sk_iterate http://www.qetlab.com/sk_iterate
schmidt rank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schmidt_decomposition
computation of matrix norms with applications to robust optimization http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~nemirovs/daureen.pdf
arxiv:0908.1397 http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1397
arxiv:quant-ph/0411077 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411077
arxiv:quant-ph/0212030 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212030
coding http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/coding/
matrix analysis http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/matrix-analysis/
norms http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/norms/
qetlab http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/qetlab/
research http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/research/
introducing qetlab: a matlab toolbox for quantum entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/2015/04/introducing-qetlab-a-matlab-toolbox-for-quantum-entanglement/
1 comment http://www.njohnston.ca/2015/04/introducing-qetlab-a-matlab-toolbox-for-quantum-entanglement/#comments
qetlab http://www.qetlab.com/main_page
handful of papers http://www.qetlab.com/how_to_cite#papers_that_use_qetlab
tensor products http://www.qetlab.com/tensor
schmidt decompositions http://www.qetlab.com/schmidtdecomposition
random pure http://www.qetlab.com/randomstatevector
mixed states http://www.qetlab.com/randomdensitymatrix
applying superoperators to quantum states http://www.qetlab.com/applymap
computing choi matrices http://www.qetlab.com/choimatrix
kraus operators http://www.qetlab.com/krausoperators
quantinf http://www.dr-qubit.org/matlab.php
qubit4matlab http://bird.szfki.kfki.hu/~toth/qubit4matlab.html
positive partial transpose (ppt) criterion http://www.qetlab.com/partialtranspose
isseparable http://www.qetlab.com/isseparable
upb http://www.qetlab.com/upb
upb http://www.qetlab.com/upb
isseparable http://www.qetlab.com/isseparable
partial transpose http://www.qetlab.com/partialtranspose
realignment criterion http://www.qetlab.com/realignment
choi map http://www.qetlab.com/choimap
symmetric extensions http://www.qetlab.com/symmetricextension
this type of thing is quite common in quantum information theory http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6595
qubit4matlab http://bird.szfki.kfki.hu/~toth/qubit4matlab.html
symmetricprojection http://www.qetlab.com/symmetricprojection
antisymmetric projection http://www.qetlab.com/antisymmetricprojection
permuting different subsystems http://www.qetlab.com/permutesystems
constructing the unitary swap operator that implements this permutation http://www.qetlab.com/permutationoperator
chsh inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chsh_inequality
tsirelson’s bound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tsirelson%27s_bound
bellinequalitymax http://www.qetlab.com/bellinequalitymax
bellinequalitymax http://www.qetlab.com/bellinequalitymax
bellinequalitymax http://www.qetlab.com/bellinequalitymax
bellinequalitymax http://www.qetlab.com/bellinequalitymax
npahierarchy http://www.qetlab.com/npahierarchy
computing the classical, quantum, or no-signalling value of a nonlocal game http://www.qetlab.com/nonlocalgamevalue
qetlab.com http://www.qetlab.com/main_page
also on github https://github.com/nathanieljohnston/qetlab
arxiv:quant-ph/9808030 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9808030
arxiv:0803.4290 http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4290
matlab http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/matlab/
qetlab http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/qetlab/
quantum entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-entanglement/
quantum information theory http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-information-theory/
“obvious” does not imply “true”: the minimal superpermutation conjecture is false http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/obvious-does-not-imply-true-the-minimal-superpermutation-conjecture-is-false/
10 comments http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/obvious-does-not-imply-true-the-minimal-superpermutation-conjecture-is-false/#comments
here http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/04/the-minimal-superpermutation-problem/
here http://mathsci.wikia.com/wiki/the_haruhi_problem
mathexchange http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/15510/what-is-the-shortest-string-that-contains-all-permutations-of-an-alphabet/
stackoverflow http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2253232/generate-sequence-with-all-permutations/
here http://apps.topcoder.com/forums/?module=thread&threadid=594178
example http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~west/regs/unicycperm.html
arxiv:1408.5108 http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5108
combinatorics http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/combinatorics/
open problems http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/open-problems/
all minimal superpermutations on five symbols have been found http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/all-minimal-superpermutations-on-five-symbols-have-been-found/
no comments http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/all-minimal-superpermutations-on-five-symbols-have-been-found/#respond
earlier blog post http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/04/the-minimal-superpermutation-problem/
here http://www.njohnston.ca/superperm5.txt
here http://www.notatt.com/permutations.pdf
here http://www.njohnston.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/minimalsuperpermutation.c
here http://www.njohnston.ca/superperm6_1wasted.txt
here http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/obvious-does-not-imply-true-the-minimal-superpermutation-conjecture-is-false/
non-uniqueness of minimal superpermutations http://www.njohnston.ca/publications/non-uniqueness-of-minimal-superpermutations/
combinatorics http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/combinatorics/
integer sequences http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/integer-sequences/
open problems http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/open-problems/
what the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/06/what-the-operator-schmidt-decomposition-tells-us-about-entanglement/
6 comments http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/06/what-the-operator-schmidt-decomposition-tells-us-about-entanglement/#comments
schmidt decomposition theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/schmidt_decomposition
singular value decomposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/singular_value_decomposition
certain function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/entropy_of_entanglement
hilbert–schmidt inner product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hilbert%e2%80%93schmidt_operator
product states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/product_state
partial traces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/partial_trace
arxiv:quant-ph/0303055 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0303055
arxiv:quant-ph/0205017 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205017
arxiv:quant-ph/0212047 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212047
arxiv:0709.3766 http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3766
arxiv:0803.0757 http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0757
arxiv:1311.7275 http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.7275
arxiv:1405.3634 http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3634
quantum entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-entanglement/
research http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/research/
counting the possible orderings of pairwise multiplication http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/02/counting-the-possible-orderings-of-pairwise-multiplication/
2 comments http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/02/counting-the-possible-orderings-of-pairwise-multiplication/#comments
a003121 http://oeis.org/a003121
available here http://www.njohnston.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/selfmultiplicationcount.c
this improved version of the c script http://www.njohnston.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/selfmultiplicationcountb.c
a237749 https://oeis.org/a237749
arxiv:quant-ph/0502170 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502170
a combinatorial problem http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.mmj/1028989731
arxiv:1110.6154 http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6154
enumeration of golomb rulers http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/teach/masters/tu.pdf
c http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/c/
integer sequences http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/integer-sequences/
quantum entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-entanglement/
research http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/research/
older entries http://www.njohnston.ca/page/2/
how to compute hard-to-compute matrix norms http://www.njohnston.ca/2016/01/how-to-compute-hard-to-compute-matrix-norms/
introducing qetlab: a matlab toolbox for quantum entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/2015/04/introducing-qetlab-a-matlab-toolbox-for-quantum-entanglement/
“obvious” does not imply “true”: the minimal superpermutation conjecture is false http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/obvious-does-not-imply-true-the-minimal-superpermutation-conjecture-is-false/
all minimal superpermutations on five symbols have been found http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/all-minimal-superpermutations-on-five-symbols-have-been-found/
what the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/06/what-the-operator-schmidt-decomposition-tells-us-about-entanglement/
counting the possible orderings of pairwise multiplication http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/02/counting-the-possible-orderings-of-pairwise-multiplication/
in search of a 4-by-11 matrix http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/10/in-search-of-a-4-by-11-matrix/
the spectrum of the partial transpose of a density matrix http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/07/the-spectrum-of-the-partial-transpose/
the minimal superpermutation problem http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/04/the-minimal-superpermutation-problem/
how to construct minimal unextendible product bases http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/03/how-to-construct-minimal-upbs/
c http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/c/
calculus http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/calculus/
cellular automata http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/cellular-automata/
coding http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/coding/
combinatorics http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/combinatorics/
conferences http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/conferences/
conway's game of life http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/conways-game-of-life/
cryptography http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/cryptography/
fractals http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/fractals/
graph theory http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/graph-theory/
integer sequences http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/integer-sequences/
java http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/java/
javascript http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/javascript/
latex http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/latex/
linear preserver problems http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/linear-preserver-problems/
math in the media http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/math-in-the-media/
matlab http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/matlab/
matrix analysis http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/matrix-analysis/
movies http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/movies/
norms http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/norms/
open problems http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/open-problems/
operator theory http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/operator-theory/
personal http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/personal/
popular culture http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/popular-culture/
python http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/python/
qetlab http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/qetlab/
quantum entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-entanglement/
quantum error correction http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-error-correction/
quantum information theory http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/quantum-information-theory/
research http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/research/
statistics http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/statistics/
teaching http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/teaching/
unextendible product bases http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/unextendible-product-bases/
video games http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/video-games/
visual basic http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/visual-basic/
websites http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/websites/
wolfram alpha http://www.njohnston.ca/tag/wolfram-alpha/
january 2016 http://www.njohnston.ca/2016/01/
april 2015 http://www.njohnston.ca/2015/04/
august 2014 http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/08/
june 2014 http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/06/
february 2014 http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/02/
october 2013 http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/10/
july 2013 http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/07/
april 2013 http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/04/
march 2013 http://www.njohnston.ca/2013/03/
may 2012 http://www.njohnston.ca/2012/05/
february 2012 http://www.njohnston.ca/2012/02/
july 2011 http://www.njohnston.ca/2011/07/
june 2011 http://www.njohnston.ca/2011/06/
march 2011 http://www.njohnston.ca/2011/03/
january 2011 http://www.njohnston.ca/2011/01/
december 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/12/
november 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/11/
october 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/10/
september 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/09/
august 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/08/
march 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/03/
january 2010 http://www.njohnston.ca/2010/01/
december 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/12/
november 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/11/
october 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/10/
september 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/09/
august 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/08/
july 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/07/
june 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/
may 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/05/
february 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/02/
january 2009 http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/01/
december 2008 http://www.njohnston.ca/2008/12/
october 2008 http://www.njohnston.ca/2008/10/
billy http://cookinglight.com
longest-lived soup density in conway's game of life http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/longest-lived-soup-density-in-conways-game-of-life/#comment-1311219
latex beamer template | wallpapershdi.com http://wallpapershdi.com/latex-beamer-template/
latex poster template http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/08/latex-poster-template/#comment-1309092
what the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglement http://www.njohnston.ca/2014/06/what-the-operator-schmidt-decomposition-tells-us-about-entanglement/#comment-1308864
the maximum score in the game “entanglement” is 9080 http://www.njohnston.ca/2011/01/the-maximum-score-in-the-game-entanglement-is-9080/#comment-1308481
the maximum score in the game “entanglement” is 9080 http://www.njohnston.ca/2011/01/the-maximum-score-in-the-game-entanglement-is-9080/#comment-1308479
rss feed http://www.njohnston.ca/feed/
google http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http://www.njohnston.ca/feed/
my yahoo! http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http://www.njohnston.ca/feed/
newsgator http://www.newsgator.com/ngs/subscriber/subfext.aspx?url=http://www.njohnston.ca/feed/
bloglines http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://www.njohnston.ca/feed/
wordpress http://wordpress.org/
wordpress http://wordpress.org/

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 338
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 0
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 0
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

empty

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

empty

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

nathaniel johnston assistant professor mount allison university sackville, new brunswick, canadanathaniel@njohnston.ca home cv publications my websites contact how to compute hard-to-compute matrix norms january 11th, 2016 no comments there are a wide variety of different norms of matrices and operators that are useful in many different contexts. some matrix norms, such as the schatten norms and ky fan norms, are easy to compute thanks to the singular value decomposition. however, the computation of many other norms, such as the induced p-norms (when p ≠ 1, 2, ∞), is np-hard. in this post, we will look at a general method for getting quite good estimates of almost any matrix norm. the basic idea is that every norm can be written as a maximization of a convex function over a convex set (in particular, every norm can be written as a maximization over the unit ball of the dual norm). however, this maximization is often difficult to deal with or solve analytically, so instead it can help to write the norm as a maximization over two or more simpler sets, each of which can be solved individually. to illustrate how this works, let’s start with the induced matrix norms. induced matrix norms the induced p → q norm of a matrix b is defined as follows: where is the vector p-norm. there are three special cases of these norms that are easy to compute: when p = q = 2, this is the usual operator norm of b (i.e., its largest singular value). when p = q = 1, this is the maximum absolute column sum: . when p = q = ∞, this is the maximum absolute row sum: . however, outside of these three special cases (and some other special cases, such as when b only has real entries that are non-negative [1]), this norm is much messier. in general, its computation is np-hard [2], so how can we get a good idea of its value? well, we rewrite the norm as the following double maximization: where  is the positive real number such that (and we take if , and vice-versa). the idea is then to maximize over and one at a time, alternately. start by setting and fixing a randomly-chosen vector , scaled so that . compute keeping fixed, and let be the vector attaining this maximum. by hölder’s inequality, we know that this maximum value is exactly equal to . furthermore, the equality condition of hölder’s inequality tells us that the vector attaining this maximum is the one with complex phases that are the same as those of , and whose magnitudes are such that  is a multiple of  (here the notation means we take the absolute value and the q-th power of every entry of the vector). compute keeping fixed, and let be the vector attaining this maximum. by an argument almost identical to that of step 2, this maximum is equal to , where is the positive real number such that . furthermore, the vector attaining this maximum is the one with complex phases that are the same as those of , and whose magnitudes are such that is a multiple of . increment by 1 and return to step 2. repeat until negligible gains are made after each iteration. this algorithm is extremely quick to run, since hölder’s inequality tells us exactly how to solve each of the two maximizations separately, so we’re left only performing simple vector calculations at each step. the downside of this algorithm is that, even though it will always converge to some local maximum, it might converge to a value that is smaller than the true induced p → q norm. however, in practice this algorithm is fast enough that it can be run several thousand times with different (randomly-chosen) starting vectors to get an extremely good idea of the value of . it is worth noting that this algorithm is essentially the same as the one presented in [3], and reduces to the power method for finding the largest singular value when p = q = 2. this algorithm has been implemented in the qetlab package for matlab as the inducedmatrixnorm function. induced schatten superoperator norms there is a natural family of induced norms on superoperators (i.e., linear maps ) as well. first, for a matrix , we define its schatten p-norm to be the p-norm of its vector of singular values: three special cases of the schatten p-norms include: p = 1, which is often called the “trace norm” or “nuclear norm”, p = 2, which is often called the “frobenius norm” or “hilbert–schmidt norm”, and p = ∞, which is the usual operator norm. the schatten norms themselves are easy to compute (since singular values are easy to compute), but their induced counter-parts are not. given a superoperator , its induced schatten p → q norm is defined as follows: these induced schatten norms were studied in some depth in [4], and crop up fairly frequently in quantum information theory (especially when p = q = 1) and operator theory (especially when p = q = ∞). the fact that they are np-hard to compute in general is not surprising, since they reduce to the induced matrix norms (discussed earlier) in the case when only acts on the diagonal entries of and just zeros out the off-diagonal entries. however, it seems likely that this norm’s computation is also difficult even in the special cases p = q = 1 and p = q = ∞ (however, it is straightforward to compute when p = q = 2). nevertheless, we can obtain good estimates of this norm’s value numerically using essentially the same method as discussed in the previous section. we start by rewriting the norm as a double maximization, where each maximization individually is easy to deal with: where is again the positive real number (or infinity) satisfying . we now maximize over and , one at a time, alternately, just as before: start by setting and fixing a randomly-chosen matrix , scaled so that . compute keeping fixed, and let be the matrix attaining this maximum. by the hölder inequality for schatten norms, we know that this maximum value is exactly equal to . furthermore, the matrix  attaining this maximum is the one with the same left and right singular vectors as , and whose singular values are such that there is a constant so that  for all (i.e., the vector of singular values of , raised to the power, is a multiple of the vector of singular values of , raised to the power). compute keeping fixed, and let be the matrix attaining this maximum. by essentially the same argument as in step 2, we know that this maximum value is exactly equal to , where is the map that is dual to in the hilbert–schmidt inner product. furthermore, the matrix  attaining this maximum is the one with the same left and right singular vectors as , and whose singular values are such that there is a constant so that  for all . increment by 1 and return to step 2. repeat until negligible gains are made after each iteration. the above algorithm is almost identical to the algorithm presented for induced matrix norms, but with absolute values and complex phases of the vectors and replaced by the singular values and singular vectors of the matrices and , respectively. the entire algorithm is still extremely quick to run, since each step just involves computing one singular value decomposition. the downside of this algorithm, as with the induced matrix norm algorithm, is that we have no guarantee that this method will actually converge to the induced schatten p → q norm; only that it will converge to some lower bound of it. however, the algorithm works pretty well in practice, and is fast enough that we can simply run it a few thousand times to get a very good idea of what the norm actually is. if you’re interested in making use of this algorithm, it has been implemented in qetlab as the inducedschattennorm function. entanglement norms the central idea used for the previous two families of norms can also be used to get lower bounds on the following norm on  that comes up from time to time when dealing with quantum entanglement: (as a side note: this norm, and some other ones like it, were the central focus on my thesis.) this norm is already written for us as a double maximization, so the idea presented in the previous two sections is somewhat clearer from the start: we fix randomly-generated vectors and and then maximize over all vectors and , which can be done simply by computing the left and right singular vectors associated with the maximum singular value of the operator we then fix and as those singular vectors and then maximize over all vectors and (which is again a singular value problem), and we iterate back and forth until we converge to some value. as with the previously-discussed norms, this algorithm always converges, and it converges to a lower bound of , but perhaps not its exact value. if you want to take this algorithm out for a spin, it has been implemented in qetlab as the sk_iterate function. it’s also worth mentioning that this algorithm generalizes straightforwardly in several different directions. for example, it can be used to find lower bounds on the norms where we maximize on the left and right by pure states with schmidt rank not larger than k rather than separable pure states, and it can be used to find lower bounds on the geometric measure of entanglement [5]. references: d. steinberg. computation of matrix norms with applications to robust optimization. research thesis. technion – israel university of technology, 2005. j. m. hendrickx and a. olshevsky. matrix p-norms are np-hard to approximate if p ≠ 1,2,∞. 2009. e-print: arxiv:0908.1397 d. w. boyd. the power method for ℓp norms. linear algebra and its applications, 9:95–101, 1974. j. watrous. notes on super-operator norms induced by schatten norms. quantum information & computation, 5(1):58–68, 2005. e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/0411077 t.-c. wei and p. m. goldbart. geometric measure of entanglement and applications to bipartite and multipartite quantum states. physical review a, 68:042307, 2003. e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/0212030 tags: coding, matrix analysis, norms, qetlab, research introducing qetlab: a matlab toolbox for quantum entanglement april 14th, 2015 1 comment after over two and a half years in various stages of development, i am happy to somewhat “officially” announce a matlab package that i have been developing: qetlab (quantum entanglement theory laboratory). this announcement is completely arbitrary, since people started finding qetlab via google about a year ago, and a handful of papers have made use of it already, but i figured that i should at least acknowledge its existence myself at some point. i’ll no doubt be writing some posts in the near future that highlight some of its more advanced features, but i will give a brief run-down of what it’s about here. the basics first off, qetlab has a variety of functions for dealing with “simple” things like tensor products, schmidt decompositions, random pure and mixed states, applying superoperators to quantum states, computing choi matrices and kraus operators, and so on, which are fairly standard daily tasks for quantum information theorists. these sorts of functions are somewhat standard, and are also found in a few other matlab packages (such as toby cubitt’s nice quantinf package and géza tóth’s qubit4matlab package), so i won’t really spend any time discussing them here. mixed state separability the “motivating problem” for qetlab is the separability problem, which asks us to (efficiently / operationally / practically) determine whether a given mixed quantum state is separable or entangled. the (by far) most well-known tool for this job is the positive partial transpose (ppt) criterion, which says that every separable state remains positive semidefinite when the partial transpose map is applied to it. however, this is just a quick-and-dirty one-way test, and going beyond it is much more difficult. the qetlab function that tries to solve this problem is the isseparable function, which goes through several separability criteria in an attempt to prove the given state separable or entangled, and provides a journal reference to the paper that contains the separability criteria that works (if one was found). as an example, consider the “tiles” state, introduced in [1], which is an example of a quantum state that is entangled, but is not detected by the simple ppt test for entanglement. we can construct this state using qetlab’s upb function, which lets the user easily construct a wide variety of unextendible product bases, and then verify its entanglement as follows: >> u = upb('tiles'); % generates the "tiles" upb >> rho = eye(9) - u*u'; % rho is the projection onto the orthogonal complement of the upb >> rho = rho/trace(rho); % we are now done constructing the bound entangled state   >> isseparable(rho) determined to be entangled via the realignment criterion. reference: k. chen and l.-a. wu. a matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement. quantum inf. comput., 3:193-202, 2003.   ans =   0 and of course more advanced tests for entanglement, such as those based on symmetric extensions, are also checked. generally, quick and easy tests are done first, and slow but powerful tests are only performed if the script has difficulty finding an answer. alternatively, if you want to check individual tests for entanglement yourself, you can do that too, as there are stand-alone functions for the partial transpose, the realignment criterion, the choi map (a specific positive map in 3-dimensional systems), symmetric extensions, and so on. symmetry of subsystems one problem that i’ve come across repeatedly in my work is the need for robust functions relating to permuting quantum systems that have been tensored together, and dealing with the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces (and indeed, this type of thing is quite common in quantum information theory). some very basic functionality of this type has been provided in other matlab packages, but it has never been as comprehensive as i would have liked. for example, qubit4matlab has a function that is capable of computing the symmetric projection on two systems, or on an arbitrary number of 2- or 3-dimensional systems, but not on an arbitrary number of systems of any dimension. qetlab’s symmetricprojection function fills this gap. similarly, there are functions for computing the antisymmetric projection, for permuting different subsystems, and for constructing the unitary swap operator that implements this permutation. nonlocality and bell inequalities qetlab also has a set of functions for dealing with quantum non-locality and bell inequalities. for example, consider the chsh inequality, which says that if and are -valued measurement settings, then the following inequality holds in classical physics (where denotes expectation): however, in quantum-mechanical settings, this inequality can be violated, and the quantity on the left can take on a value as large as (this is tsirelson’s bound). finally, in no-signalling theories, the quantity on the left can take on a value as large as . all three of these quantities can be easily computed in qetlab via the bellinequalitymax function: >> coeffs = [1 1;1 -1]; % coefficients of the terms in the bell inequality >> a_coe = [0 0]; % coefficients of in the bell inequality >> b_coe = [0 0]; % coefficients of in the bell inequality >> a_val = [-1 1]; % values of the a_i measurements >> b_val = [-1 1]; % values of the b_i measurements >> bellinequalitymax(coeffs, a_coe, b_coe, a_val, b_val, 'classical') ans = 2 >> bellinequalitymax(coeffs, a_coe, b_coe, a_val, b_val, 'quantum') ans = 2.8284 >> bellinequalitymax(coeffs, a_coe, b_coe, a_val, b_val, 'nosignal') ans = 4.0000 the classical value of the bell inequality is computed simply by brute force, and the no-signalling value is computed via a linear program. however, no reasonably efficient method is known for computing the quantum value of a bell inequality, so this quantity is estimated using the npa hierarchy [2]. advanced users who want more control can specify which level of the npa hierarchy to use, or even call the npahierarchy function directly themselves. there is also a closely-related function for computing the classical, quantum, or no-signalling value of a nonlocal game (in case you’re a computer scientist instead of a physicist). download and documentation qetlab v0.8 is currently available at qetlab.com (where you will also find its documentation) and also on github. if you have any suggestions/comments/requests/anything, or if you have used qetlab in your work, please let me know! references: c.h. bennett, d.p. divincenzo, t. mor, p.w. shor, j.a. smolin, and b.m. terhal. unextendible product bases and bound entanglement. phys. rev. lett. 82, 5385–5388, 1999. e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/9808030 m. navascués, s. pironio, and a. acín. a convergent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations. new j. phys., 10:073013, 2008. e-print: arxiv:0803.4290 [quant-ph] tags: matlab, qetlab, quantum entanglement, quantum information theory “obvious” does not imply “true”: the minimal superpermutation conjecture is false august 22nd, 2014 10 comments one of my favourite examples of an “obvious” mathematical statement that is actually false is the “fact” that if  are vector spaces then the reason that the above statement seems so obvious is that the similar fact does hold, so it’s very tempting to think  “inclusion-exclusion, yadda yadda, it’s simple enough to prove that it’s not worth writing down or working through the details”. however, it’s not true: a counterexample is provided by 3 distinct lines through the origin in . there is another problem that i’ve been thinking about for quite some time that is also “obvious”: the minimal superpermutation conjecture. this conjecture was so obvious, in fact, that it appeared as a question in a national programming contest in 1998. well, last night robin houston posted a note on the arxiv showing that, despite being obvious, the conjecture is false [1]. superpermutations what is the shortest string that contains each permutation of “123” as a contiguous substring? it is straightforward to check that “123121321” contains each of “123”, “132”, “213”, “231”, “312”, and “321” as substrings (i.e., it is a superpermutation of 3 symbols), and it’s not difficult to argue (or use a computer search to show) that it is the shortest string with this property. well, we can repeat this question for any number of symbols. i won’t repeat all of the details (because i already wrote about the problem here), but there is a natural recursive construction that takes an (n-1)-symbol superpermutation of length l and spits out an n-symbol superpermutation of length l+n!. this immediately gives us an n-symbol superpermutation of length 1! + 2! + 3! + … + n! for all n. importantly, it seemed like this construction was the best we could do: computer search verifies that these superpermutations are the smallest possible, and are even unique, for n ≤ 4. furthermore, it is not difficult to come up with some lower bounds on the length of superpermutations that seem to suggest that we have found the right answer. a trivial argument shows that an n-symbol superpermutation must have length at least (n-1) + n!, since we need n characters for the first permutation, and 1 additional character for each of the remaining n!-1  permutations. this argument can be refined to show that a superpermutation must actually have length at least (n-2) + (n-1)! + n!, since there is no way to pack the permutations tightly enough so that each one only uses 1 additional character (spend a few minutes trying to construct superpermutations by hand and you’ll see this for yourself). in fact, we can even refine this argument further (see a not-so-pretty proof sketch here) to show that n-symbol superpermutations must have length at least (n-3) + (n-2)! + (n-1)! + n!. a-ha! a pattern has emerged – surely we can just keep refining this argument over and over again to eventually get a lower bound of 1! + 2! + 3! + … + n!, which shows that the superpermutations we already have are indeed minimal, right? some variant of this line of thought seemed to be where almost everyone’s mind went when introduced to this problem, and it seemed fairly convincing: this argument is more or less contained within the answers when this question was posted on mathexchange and on stackoverflow (although the authors are usually careful to state that their method only appears to be optimal), and this problem was presented as a programming question in the 1998 turkish informatics olympiad (see the resulting thread here). furthermore, even on pages where this was acknowledged to be a difficult open problem, it was sometimes claimed that it had been proved for n ≤ 11 (example). for the above reasons, it was a long time before i was even convinced that this problem was indeed unsolved – it seemed like people had solved this problem but just found it not worth the effort of writing up a full proof, or that people had found a simple way to tackle the problem for moderately large values of n like 10 or 11 that i couldn’t even dream of handling. the conjecture is false it turns out that the minimal superpermutation conjecture is false for all n ≥ 6. that is, there exists a superpermutation of length strictly less than 1! + 2! + 3! + … + n! in all of these cases [1]. in particular, robin houston found the following 6-symbol superpermutation of length 872, which is smaller than the conjectured minimum length of 1! + 2! + … + 6! = 873: 12345612345162345126345123645132645136245136425136452136451234651234156234152634 15236415234615234165234125634125364125346125341625341265341235641235461235416235 41263541236541326543126453162435162431562431652431625431624531642531462531426531 42563142536142531645231465231456231452631452361452316453216453126435126431526431 25643215642315462315426315423615423165423156421356421536241536214536215436215346 21354621345621346521346251346215364215634216534216354216345216342516342156432516 43256143256413256431265432165432615342613542613452613425613426513426153246513246 53124635124631524631254632154632514632541632546132546312456321456324156324516324 56132456312465321465324165324615326415326145326154326514362514365214356214352614 35216435214635214365124361524361254361245361243561243651423561423516423514623514 263514236514326541362541365241356241352641352461352416352413654213654123 so not only are congratulations due to robin for settling the conjecture, but a big “thank you” are due to him as well for (hopefully) convincing everyone that this problem is not as easy as it appears upon first glance. references r. houston. tackling the minimal superpermutation problem. e-print: arxiv:1408.5108 [math.co], 2014. tags: combinatorics, open problems all minimal superpermutations on five symbols have been found august 13th, 2014 no comments recall from an earlier blog post that the minimal superpermutation problem asks for the shortest string on the symbols “1”, “2”, …, “n” that contains every permutation of those symbols as a contiguous substring. for example, “121” is a minimal superpermutation on the symbols “1” and “2”, since it contains both “12” and “21” as substrings, and there is no shorter string with this property. until now, the length of minimal superpermutations has only been known when n ≤ 4: they have length 1, 3, 9, and 33 in these cases, respectively. it has been conjectured that minimal superpermutations have length for all n, and i am happy to announce that ben chaffin has proved this conjecture when n = 5. more specifically, he showed that minimal superpermutations in the n = 5 case have length 153, and there are exactly 8 such superpermutations (previously, it was only known that minimal superpermutations have either length 152 or 153 in this case, and there are at least 2 superpermutations of length 153). the eight minimal superpermutations the eight superpermutations that ben found are available here (they’re too large to include in the body of this post). notice that the first superpermutation is the well-known “easy-to-construct” superpermutation described here, and the second superpermutation is the one that was found in [1]. the other six superpermutations are new. one really interesting thing about the six new superpermutations is that they are the first known minimal superpermutations to break the “gap pattern” that previously-known constructions have. to explain what i mean by this, consider the minimal superpermutation “123121321” on three symbols. we can think about generating this superpermutation greedily: we start with “123”, then we append the character “1” to add the permutation “231” to the string, and then we append the character “2” to add the permutation “312” to the string. but now we are stuck: we have “12312”, and there is no way to append just one character to this string in such a way as to add another permutation to it: we have to append the two characters “13” to get the new permutation “213”. this phenomenon seemed to be fairly general: in all known small superpermutations on n symbols, there was always a point (approximately halfway through the superpermutation) where n-2 consecutive characters were “wasted”: they did not add any new permutations themselves, but only “prepared” the next symbol to add a new permutation. however, none of the six new minimal superpermutations have this property: they all never have more than 2 consecutive “wasted” characters, whereas the two previously-known superpermutations each have a run of n-2 = 3 consecutive “wasted” characters. thus these six new superpermutations are really quite different from any superpermutations that we currently know and love. how they were found the idea of ben’s search is to do a depth-first search on the placement of the “wasted” characters (recall that “wasted” characters were defined and discussed in the previous section). since the shortest known superpermutation on 5 symbols has length 153, and there are 120 permutations of 5 symbols, and the first n-1 = 4 characters of the superpermutation must be wasted, we are left with the problem of trying to place 153 – 120 – 4 = 29 wasted characters. if we can find a superpermutation with only 28 wasted characters (other than the initial 4), then we’ve found a superpermutation of length 152; if we really need all 29 wasted characters, then minimal superpermutations have length 153. so now we do the depth-first search: find (via brute-force) the maximum number of permutations that we can fit in a string if we are allowed only 1 wasted character: the answer is 10 permutations (for example, the string “123451234152341” does the job). now find the maximum number of permutations that we can fit in a string if we are allowed 2 wasted characters. to speed up the search, once we have found a string that contains some number (call it p) of permutations, we can ignore all other strings that use a wasted character before p-10 permutations, since we know from the previous bullet point that the second wasted character can add at most 10 more permutations, for a total of (p-10)+10 = p permutations. we now repeat this process for higher and higher numbers of wasted characters: we find the maximum number of permutations that we can fit in a string with 3 wasted characters, using the results from the previous two bullets to speed up the search by ignoring strings that place 1 or 2 wasted characters too early. etc. the results of this computation are summarized in the following table: wasted characters maximum # of permutations 0 5 1 10 2 15 3 20 4 23 5 28 6 33 7 36 8 41 9 46 10 49 11 53 12 58 13 62 14 66 15 70 16 74 17 79 18 83 19 87 20 92 21 96 22 99 23 103 24 107 25 111 26 114 27 116 28 118 29 120 as we can see, it is not possible to place all 120 permutations in a string with 28 or fewer wasted characters, which proves that there is no superpermutation of length 152 in the n = 5 case. c code that computes the values in the above table is available here. update [august 18, 2014]: robin houston has found a superpermutation on 6 symbols of length 873 (i.e., the conjectured minimal length) with the interesting property that it never has more than one consecutive wasted character! the superpermutation is available here. important update [august 22, 2014]: robin houston has gone one step further and disproved the minimal superpermutation conjecture for all n ≥ 6. see here. references n. johnston. non-uniqueness of minimal superpermutations. discrete mathematics, 313:1553–1557, 2013. tags: combinatorics, integer sequences, open problems what the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglement june 27th, 2014 6 comments in quantum information theory, the well-known schmidt decomposition theorem tells us that every pure quantum state can be written in the form where each is a real scalar and the sets and form orthonormal bases of . the schmidt decomposition theorem isn’t anything fancy: it is just the singular value decomposition in disguise (the ‘s are singular values of some matrix and the sets  and are its left and right singular vectors). however, it tells us everything we could ever want to know about the entanglement of : it is entangled if and only if it has more than one non-zero , and in this case the question of “how much” entanglement is contained within is answered by a certain function of the ‘s. well, we can find a similar decomposition of mixed quantum states. if is a mixed quantum state then it can be written in its operator-schmidt decomposition: where each is a real scalar and the sets and form orthonormal bases of hermitian matrices in (under the hilbert–schmidt inner product ). once again, we haven’t really done anything fancy: the operator-schmidt decomposition is also just the singular value decomposition in disguise in almost the exact same way as the regular schmidt decomposition. however, its relationship with entanglement of mixed states is much weaker (as we might expect from the fact that the singular value decomposition can be computed in polynomial time, but determining whether a mixed state is entangled or separable (i.e., not entangled) is expected to be hard [1]). in this post, we’ll investigate some cases when the operator-schmidt decomposition does let us conclude that is separable or entangled. proving a state is entangled: the realignment criterion one reasonably well-known method for proving that a mixed state is entangled is the realignment criterion [2,3]. what is slightly less well-known is that the realignment criterion can be phrased in terms of the coefficients in the operator-schmidt decomposition of . theorem 1 (realignment criterion). let have operator-schmidt decomposition if then is entangled. proof. the idea is to construct a specific entanglement witness that detects the entanglement in . in particular, the entanglement witness that we will use is . to see that is indeed an entanglement witness, we must show that for all and . well, some algebra shows that so it suffices to show that . to see this notice that where the inequality is the cauchy–schwarz inequality and the equality comes from the fact that the sets and are orthonormal bases, so (and similarly for ). now that we know that is an entanglement witness, we must check that it detects the entanglement in (that is, we want to show that ). this is straightforward to show by making use of the fact that the sets and are orthonormal: it follows that is entangled, which completes the proof. a more popular formulation of the realignment criterion says that if we define the realignment map by and extending by linearity, and let denote the trace norm (i.e., the sum of the singular values), then implies that is entangled. the equivalence of these two formulations of the realignment criterion comes from the fact that the singular values of are exactly the coefficients in its operator-schmidt decomposition. proving a state is entangled: beyond the realignment criterion we might naturally wonder whether we can prove that even more states are entangled based on their operator-schmidt decomposition than those detected by the realignment criterion. the following theorem gives one sense in which the answer to this question is “no”: if we only look at “nice” functions of the coefficients then the realignment criterion gives the best method of entanglement detection possible. theorem 2. let be a symmetric gauge function (i.e., a norm that is invariant under permutations and sign changes of the entries of the input vector). if we can conclude that is entangled based on the value of then it must be the case that . proof. without loss of generality, we scale so that . we first prove two facts about . claim 1: for all mixed states . this follows from the fact that  (which itself is kind of a pain to prove: it follows from the fact that the schatten norm of the realignment map is , but if anyone knows of a more direct and/or simpler way to prove this, i’d love to see it). if we assume without loss of generality that then as desired. claim 2: there exists a separable state for which equals any given value in the interval . to see why this is the case, first notice that there exists a separable state with and for all : the state is one such example. similarly, there is a separable state with and for all : the state is one such example. furthermore, it is straightforward to interpolate between these two extremes to find separable states (even product states) with for all and any value of . for such states we have which can take any value in the interval  as claimed. by combining claims 1 and 2, we see that we could only ever use the value of to conclude that is entangled if . however, in this case we have which completes the proof. theorem 2 can be phrased naturally in terms of the other formulation of the realignment criterion as well: it says that there is no unitarily-invariant matrix norm with the property that we can use the value of to conclude that is entangled, except in those cases where the trace norm (i.e., the realignment criterion) itself already tells us that is entangled. nonetheless, we can certainly imagine using functions of the coefficients that are not symmetric gauge functions. alternatively, we could take into account some (hopefully easily-computable) properties of the matrices and . one such method for detecting entanglement that depends on the coefficients and the trace of each and is as follows. theorem 3 [4,5]. let have operator-schmidt decomposition if then is entangled. i won’t prove theorem 3 here, but i will note that it is strictly stronger than the realignment criterion, which can be seen by showing that the left-hand side of theorem 3 is at least as large as the left-hand side of theorem 1. to show this, observe that and which is nonnegative. proving a state is separable much like we can use the operator-schmidt decomposition to sometimes prove that a state is entangled, we can also use it to sometimes prove that a state is separable. to this end, we will use the operator-schmidt rank of , which is the number of non-zero coefficients in its operator-schmidt decomposition. one trivial observation is as follows: proposition 4. if the operator-schmidt rank of is then is separable. proof. if the operator-schmidt rank of is then we can write for some . since is positive semidefinite, it follows that either and are both positive semidefinite or both negative semidefinite. if they are both positive semidefinite, we are done. if they are both negative semidefinite then we can write and then we are done. somewhat surprisingly, however, we can go further than this: it turns out that all states with operator-schmidt rank are also separable, as was shown in [6]. theorem 5 [6]. if the operator-schmidt rank of is then is separable. proof. if has operator-schmidt rank then it can be written in the form for some . throughout this proof, we use the notation , and so on. since is positive semidefinite, so are each of its partial traces. thus and are both positive semidefinite operators. it is then straightforward to verify that what is important here is that we have found a rank- tensor decomposition of in which one of the terms is positive semidefinite. now we define and notice that for some (in order to do this, we actually need the partial traces of to be nonsingular, but this is easily taken care of by standard continuity arguments, so we’ll sweep it under the rug). furthermore, is also positive semidefinite, and it is separable if and only if is separable. since is positive semidefinite, we know that for all eigenvalues of and of . if we absorb scalars between and so that then this implies that for all . thus and are both positive semidefinite. furthermore, a straightforward calculation shows that we now play a similar game as before: we define a new matrix and notice that for some (similar to before, we note that there is a standard continuity argument that can be used to handle the fact that and might be singluar). the minimum eigenvalue of  is then , which is non-negative as a result of being positive semidefinite. it then follows that since each term in the above decomposition is positive semidefinite, it follows that is separable, which implies that is separable, which finally implies that is separable. in light of theorem 6, it seems somewhat natural to ask how far we can push things: what values of the operator-schmidt rank imply that a state is separable? certainly we cannot expect all states with an operator-schmidt rank of to be separable, since every state in has operator-schmidt rank or less, and there are entangled states in this space (more concretely, it’s easy to check that the maximally-entangled pure state has operator-schmidt rank ). this left the case of operator-schmidt rank open. very recently, it was shown in [7] that a mixed state in with operator-schmidt rank is indeed separable, yet there are entangled states with operator-schmidt rank in . references l. gurvits. classical deterministic complexity of edmonds’ problem and quantum entanglement. in proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual acm symposium on theory of computing, pages 10–19, 2003. e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/0303055 k. chen and l.-a. wu. a matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement. quantum inf. comput., 3:193–202, 2003. e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/0205017 o. rudolph. some properties of the computable cross norm criterion for separability. phys. rev. a, 67:032312, 2003. e-print:  e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/0212047 c.-j. zhang, y.-s. zhang, s. zhang, and g.-c. guo. entanglement detection beyond the cross-norm or realignment criterion. phys. rev. a, 77:060301(r), 2008. e-print: arxiv:0709.3766 [quant-ph] o. gittsovich, o. gühne, p. hyllus, and j. eisert. unifying several separability conditions using the covariance matrix criterion. phys. rev. a, 78:052319, 2008. e-print: arxiv:0803.0757 [quant-ph] d. cariello. separability for weak irreducible matrices. e-print: arxiv:1311.7275 [quant-ph] d. cariello. does symmetry imply ppt property?. e-print: arxiv:1405.3634 [math-ph] tags: quantum entanglement, research counting the possible orderings of pairwise multiplication february 12th, 2014 2 comments suppose we are given n distinct positive real numbers . the question we are going to consider in this post is as follows: question. how many different possible orderings are there of the numbers ? to help illustrate what we mean by this question, consider the n = 2 case, where . then the 3 possible products of and are , and it is straightforward to see that we must have , so there is only one possible ordering in the n = 2 case. in the n = 3 case, we have  and 6 possible products: . some relationships between these 6 numbers are immediate, such as . however, it could be the case that either or (we ignore the degenerate cases where two products are equal to each other), so there are two different possible orderings in this case: in this post, we will consider the problem of how many such orderings exist for larger values of n. this problem arises naturally from a problem in quantum entanglement: the number of such orderings is exactly the minimum number of linear matrix inequalities needed to characterize the eigenvalues of quantum states that are “ppt from spectrum” [1]. a rough upper bound we now begin constructing upper bounds on the number of possible orderings of . since we are counting orderings between numbers, a trivial upper bound is given by , since that is the number of possible orderings of arbitrary numbers. however, this quantity is a gross overestimate. we can improve this upper bound by creating an matrix whose -entry is (note that this matrix is symmetric, positive semidefinite, and has rank 1, which is roughly how the connection to quantum entanglement arises). for example, in the n = 4 case, this matrix is as follows: where we have used asterisks (*) to indicate entries that are determined by symmetry. the fact that implies that the rows and columns of the upper-triangular part of this matrix are decreasing. thus we can get an upper bound to the solution to our problem by counting the number of ways that we can place the numbers (exactly once each) in the upper-triangular part of a matrix in such a way that the rows and columns of that upper-triangular part are decreasing. for example, this can be done in 2 different ways in the n = 3 case: the matrix above on the left corresponds to the case discussed earlier, while the matrix above on the right corresponds to the case . a formula for the number of such ways to place the integers  in a matrix was derived in [2] (see also a003121 in the oeis), which immediately gives us the following upper bound on the number of orderings of the products : for n = 1, 2, 3, …, this formula gives the values 1, 1, 2, 12, 286, 33592, 23178480, … a better upper bound before improving the upper bound that we just presented, let’s first discuss why it is not actually a solution to the original question. in the n = 4 case, our best upper bound so far is 12, since there are 12 different ways to place the integers in the upper-triangular part of a matrix such that the rows and columns of that upper-triangular part are decreasing. however, one such placement is as follows: the above matrix corresponds to the following inequalities in terms of : the problem here is that there actually do not exist real numbers that satisfy the above string of inequalities. to see this, notice in particular that we have the following three inequalities: , , and . however, multiplying the first two inequalities together gives , so , which contradicts the third inequality. more generally, there can not be indices such that we simultaneously have the following three inequalities: , , and . i am not aware of a general formula for the number integer matrices that do not lead to these types of “bad” inequalities, but i have computed this quantity for n ≤ 7 (c code is available here), which gives the following better upper bound on the number of possible orderings of the products  for n = 1, 2, 3, …: 1,1,2,10,114,2612,108664, …, which we see is significantly smaller than the upper bound found in the previous section for n ≥ 5. this bound is not tight it is straightforward to write a script that generates random numbers and determines the resulting ordering of the pairwise products . by doing this, we can verify that the upper bounds from the previous section are in fact tight when n ≤ 5. however, when n = 6, we find that 4 of the 2612 potential orderings do not seem to actually be attained by any choice of . one of these “problematic” orderings is the one that arises from the following matrix: the problem here is that the above matrix implies the following 5 inequalities: however, multiplying the first four inequalities gives , so , which contradicts the fifth inequality above. we can similarly prove that the other 3 seemingly problematic orderings are in fact not attainable, so there are exactly 2608 possible orderings in the n = 6 case. i haven’t been able to compute the number of orderings when n ≥ 7, as my methods for obtaining upper and lower bounds are both much too slow in these cases. the best bounds that i have in the n = 7 case say that the number of orderings is between 50900 and 108664, inclusive. update [feb. 13, 2014]: giovanni resta has improved the lower bound in the n = 7 case to 107498, which narrows the n = 7 region down considerably. i’ve also improved the upper bound to 108146 (see this improved version of the c script). in all likelihood, 107498 is the correct number of orderings in this case, and it’s the upper bound 108146 that needs to be further improved. update [feb. 14, 2014]: this sequence is now in the oeis. see a237749. update [feb. 18, 2014]: hans havermann has found a couple of references that talk about this problem (in the language of golomb rulers) and compute all values for n ≤ 7. see [3] and [4]. references r. hildebrand. positive partial transpose from spectra. phys. rev. a, 76:052325, 2007. e-print: arxiv:quant-ph/0502170 r. m. thrall. a combinatorial problem. michigan math. j., 1:81–88, 1952. m. beck, t. bogart, and t. pham. enumeration of golomb rulers and acyclic orientations of mixed graphs. electron. j. combin., 19:42, 2012. e-print: arxiv:1110.6154 [math.co] t. pham. enumeration of golomb rulers. master’s thesis, san francisco state university, 2011. tags: c, integer sequences, quantum entanglement, research older entries recent posts how to compute hard-to-compute matrix normsintroducing qetlab: a matlab toolbox for quantum entanglement“obvious” does not imply “true”: the minimal superpermutation conjecture is falseall minimal superpermutations on five symbols have been foundwhat the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglementcounting the possible orderings of pairwise multiplicationin search of a 4-by-11 matrixthe spectrum of the partial transpose of a density matrixthe minimal superpermutation problemhow to construct minimal unextendible product bases tags c calculus cellular automata coding combinatorics conferences conway's game of life cryptography fractals graph theory integer sequences java javascript latex linear preserver problems math in the media matlab matrix analysis movies norms open problems operator theory personal popular culture python qetlab quantum entanglement quantum error correction quantum information theory research statistics teaching unextendible product bases video games visual basic websites wolfram alpha monthly archive january 2016 april 2015 august 2014 june 2014 february 2014 october 2013 july 2013 april 2013 march 2013 may 2012 february 2012 july 2011 june 2011 march 2011 january 2011 december 2010 november 2010 october 2010 september 2010 august 2010 march 2010 january 2010 december 2009 november 2009 october 2009 september 2009 august 2009 july 2009 june 2009 may 2009 february 2009 january 2009 december 2008 october 2008 recent commentsbilly on longest-lived soup density in conway's game of lifelatex beamer template | wallpapershdi.com on latex poster templatejack on what the operator-schmidt decomposition tells us about entanglementjdarc on the maximum score in the game “entanglement” is 9080jdarc on the maximum score in the game “entanglement” is 9080 rss feed google my yahoo! newsgator bloglines top wordpress copyright © 2007-2016 by nathaniel johnston. powered by wordpress.


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 7651

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 8% (612)
that - 2.54% (194)
and - 2.44% (187)
for - 1.59% (122)
this - 1.48% (113)
are - 1.18% (90)
all - 1.11% (85)
permutation - 1.05% (80)
norm - 0.93% (71)
here - 0.9% (69)
can - 0.8% (61)
superpermutation - 0.73% (56)
value - 0.71% (54)
how - 0.67% (51)
not - 0.63% (48)
state - 0.61% (47)
one - 0.59% (45)
ever - 0.55% (42)
matrix - 0.55% (42)
have - 0.54% (41)
permutations - 0.54% (41)
operator - 0.52% (40)
with - 0.52% (40)
equal - 0.51% (39)
entanglement - 0.5% (38)
now - 0.48% (37)
able - 0.48% (37)
which - 0.48% (37)
quantum - 0.47% (36)
case - 0.46% (35)
was - 0.46% (35)
schmidt - 0.44% (34)
there - 0.43% (33)
problem - 0.43% (33)
some - 0.43% (33)
number - 0.42% (32)
real - 0.42% (32)
norms - 0.39% (30)
then - 0.38% (29)
see - 0.38% (29)
on. - 0.37% (28)
bound - 0.37% (28)
character - 0.37% (28)
has - 0.37% (28)
superpermutations - 0.34% (26)
operator-schmidt - 0.34% (26)
singular - 0.34% (26)
know - 0.33% (25)
more - 0.33% (25)
entangled - 0.33% (25)
decomposition - 0.33% (25)
use - 0.33% (25)
separable - 0.33% (25)
compute - 0.33% (25)
such - 0.33% (25)
function - 0.31% (24)
vector - 0.31% (24)
minimal - 0.31% (24)
length - 0.29% (22)
maximum - 0.29% (22)
however, - 0.29% (22)
its - 0.29% (22)
equality - 0.29% (22)
values - 0.27% (21)
out - 0.27% (21)
order - 0.27% (21)
form - 0.26% (20)
qetlab - 0.26% (20)
inequality - 0.26% (20)
string - 0.26% (20)
positive - 0.26% (20)
ordering - 0.26% (20)
each - 0.26% (20)
upper - 0.26% (20)
where - 0.26% (20)
when - 0.26% (20)
but - 0.25% (19)
prove - 0.25% (19)
part - 0.25% (19)
realignment - 0.25% (19)
any - 0.25% (19)
let - 0.25% (19)
symbol - 0.25% (19)
wasted - 0.25% (19)
way - 0.24% (18)
only - 0.24% (18)
criterion - 0.24% (18)
since - 0.24% (18)
than - 0.24% (18)
orderings - 0.24% (18)
characters - 0.22% (17)
induced - 0.22% (17)
show - 0.22% (17)
ans - 0.22% (17)
states - 0.22% (17)
found - 0.22% (17)
semidefinite - 0.21% (16)
e-print: - 0.21% (16)
– - 0.21% (16)
from - 0.21% (16)
arxiv - 0.21% (16)
fact - 0.21% (16)
also - 0.21% (16)
what - 0.21% (16)
rank - 0.21% (16)
first - 0.2% (15)
these - 0.2% (15)
give - 0.2% (15)
two - 0.2% (15)
algorithm - 0.2% (15)
153 - 0.18% (14)
been - 0.18% (14)
follows - 0.18% (14)
well - 0.18% (14)
very - 0.18% (14)
set - 0.18% (14)
product - 0.18% (14)
example - 0.18% (14)
possible - 0.18% (14)
time - 0.17% (13)
left - 0.17% (13)
side - 0.17% (13)
you - 0.17% (13)
find - 0.17% (13)
2014 - 0.17% (13)
conjecture - 0.17% (13)
other - 0.17% (13)
line - 0.17% (13)
method - 0.17% (13)
following - 0.17% (13)
search - 0.17% (13)
further - 0.17% (13)
known - 0.17% (13)
on, - 0.17% (13)
previous - 0.16% (12)
theorem - 0.16% (12)
symbols - 0.16% (12)
construct - 0.16% (12)
term - 0.16% (12)
over - 0.16% (12)
schatten - 0.16% (12)
about - 0.16% (12)
inequalities - 0.14% (11)
bell - 0.14% (11)
post - 0.14% (11)
efficient - 0.14% (11)
exact - 0.14% (11)
vectors - 0.14% (11)
cases - 0.14% (11)
152 - 0.14% (11)
seem - 0.14% (11)
2009 - 0.14% (11)
mixed - 0.14% (11)
even - 0.14% (11)
new - 0.14% (11)
above - 0.14% (11)
every - 0.13% (10)
will - 0.13% (10)
add - 0.13% (10)
symmetric - 0.13% (10)
is, - 0.13% (10)
just - 0.13% (10)
call - 0.13% (10)
different - 0.13% (10)
they - 0.13% (10)
question - 0.13% (10)
get - 0.13% (10)
theory - 0.13% (10)
matlab - 0.13% (10)
general - 0.13% (10)
easy - 0.12% (9)
straightforward - 0.12% (9)
right - 0.12% (9)
lower - 0.12% (9)
maximization - 0.12% (9)
… - 0.12% (9)
coefficients - 0.12% (9)
numbers - 0.12% (9)
place - 0.12% (9)
take - 0.12% (9)
functions - 0.12% (9)
exactly - 0.12% (9)
furthermore, - 0.12% (9)
reference - 0.12% (9)
(i.e., - 0.12% (9)
it’s - 0.12% (9)
our - 0.12% (9)
like - 0.12% (9)
argument - 0.12% (9)
proof - 0.12% (9)
large - 0.12% (9)
idea - 0.12% (9)
similar - 0.1% (8)
actually - 0.1% (8)
gives - 0.1% (8)
must - 0.1% (8)
bounds - 0.1% (8)
comment - 0.1% (8)
fix - 0.1% (8)
note - 0.1% (8)
thing - 0.1% (8)
both - 0.1% (8)
example, - 0.1% (8)
via - 0.1% (8)
computing - 0.1% (8)
converge - 0.1% (8)
attaining - 0.1% (8)
tells - 0.1% (8)
same - 0.1% (8)
math - 0.1% (8)
start - 0.1% (8)
define - 0.09% (7)
ways - 0.09% (7)
near - 0.09% (7)
discuss - 0.09% (7)
those - 0.09% (7)
done - 0.09% (7)
that  - 0.09% (7)
most - 0.09% (7)
power - 0.09% (7)
step - 0.09% (7)
used - 0.09% (7)
hard - 0.09% (7)
rough - 0.09% (7)
products - 0.09% (7)
simple - 0.09% (7)
separability - 0.09% (7)
too - 0.09% (7)
partial - 0.09% (7)
difficult - 0.09% (7)
august - 0.09% (7)
2010 - 0.09% (7)
imply - 0.09% (7)
bases - 0.09% (7)
comments - 0.09% (7)
matrices - 0.09% (7)
norms, - 0.09% (7)
pack - 0.09% (7)
map - 0.09% (7)
tags - 0.09% (7)
proved - 0.09% (7)
references - 0.09% (7)
follows: - 0.09% (7)
three - 0.09% (7)
special - 0.09% (7)
consider - 0.09% (7)
case, - 0.09% (7)
trace - 0.09% (7)
systems - 0.09% (7)
of  - 0.09% (7)
were - 0.09% (7)
game - 0.09% (7)
information - 0.09% (7)
semidefinite, - 0.09% (7)
run - 0.09% (7)
matrix  - 0.08% (6)
120 - 0.08% (6)
least - 0.08% (6)
given - 0.08% (6)
answer - 0.08% (6)
could - 0.08% (6)
written - 0.08% (6)
property - 0.08% (6)
need - 0.08% (6)
integer - 0.08% (6)
formula - 0.08% (6)
sets - 0.08% (6)
entries - 0.08% (6)
random - 0.08% (6)
work - 0.08% (6)
less - 0.08% (6)
package - 0.08% (6)
contains - 0.08% (6)
rho - 0.08% (6)
down - 0.08% (6)
before - 0.08% (6)
notice - 0.08% (6)
entangled. - 0.08% (6)
computation - 0.08% (6)
this, - 0.08% (6)
them - 0.08% (6)
p-norm - 0.08% (6)
solve - 0.08% (6)
hand - 0.08% (6)
much - 0.08% (6)
deal - 0.08% (6)
using - 0.08% (6)
tags: - 0.08% (6)
does - 0.08% (6)
sign - 0.08% (6)
proof. - 0.08% (6)
repeat - 0.08% (6)
exist - 0.08% (6)
linear - 0.08% (6)
natural - 0.08% (6)
implies - 0.08% (6)
who - 0.08% (6)
false - 0.08% (6)
phys. - 0.08% (6)
available - 0.07% (5)
between - 0.07% (5)
next - 0.07% (5)
result - 0.07% (5)
good - 0.07% (5)
discussed - 0.07% (5)
robin - 0.07% (5)
“wasted” - 0.07% (5)
come - 0.07% (5)
well, - 0.07% (5)
here. - 0.07% (5)
maximize - 0.07% (5)
houston - 0.07% (5)
n-1 - 0.07% (5)
proving - 0.07% (5)
rev. - 0.07% (5)
really - 0.07% (5)
write - 0.07% (5)
row - 0.07% (5)
entanglement. - 0.07% (5)
ben - 0.07% (5)
2008 - 0.07% (5)
sum - 0.07% (5)
entangled, - 0.07% (5)
through - 0.07% (5)
january - 0.07% (5)
presented - 0.07% (5)
transpose - 0.07% (5)
small - 0.07% (5)
open - 0.07% (5)
well-known - 0.07% (5)
times - 0.07% (5)
indeed - 0.07% (5)
keep - 0.07% (5)
check - 0.07% (5)
separable, - 0.07% (5)
say - 0.07% (5)
section - 0.07% (5)
dual - 0.07% (5)
2011 - 0.07% (5)
terms - 0.07% (5)
update - 0.07% (5)
whose - 0.07% (5)
 that - 0.07% (5)
want - 0.07% (5)
almost - 0.07% (5)
measure - 0.07% (5)
improve - 0.07% (5)
computed - 0.07% (5)
research - 0.07% (5)
seemed - 0.07% (5)
separable. - 0.07% (5)
pure - 0.07% (5)
quantity - 0.07% (5)
2014]: - 0.07% (5)
2003. - 0.07% (5)
operators - 0.07% (5)
upper-triangular - 0.07% (5)
already - 0.07% (5)
somewhat - 0.07% (5)
decomposition. - 0.07% (5)
negative - 0.07% (5)
classical - 0.07% (5)
2013 - 0.07% (5)
criterion. - 0.05% (4)
a_val - 0.05% (4)
n-symbol - 0.05% (4)
projection - 0.05% (4)
shortest - 0.05% (4)
fairly - 0.05% (4)
tests - 0.05% (4)
norm” - 0.05% (4)
p → - 0.05% (4)
october - 0.05% (4)
entanglement, - 0.05% (4)
ask - 0.05% (4)
superoperator - 0.05% (4)
problems - 0.05% (4)
quite - 0.05% (4)
script - 0.05% (4)
easily - 0.05% (4)
hierarchy - 0.05% (4)
arbitrary - 0.05% (4)
[1]. - 0.05% (4)
(n-1) - 0.05% (4)
johnston - 0.05% (4)
b_val - 0.05% (4)
(in - 0.05% (4)
media - 0.05% (4)
shows - 0.05% (4)
basic - 0.05% (4)
n ≤ - 0.05% (4)
b_coe - 0.05% (4)
norm. - 0.05% (4)
many - 0.05% (4)
(see - 0.05% (4)
bellinequalitymax - 0.05% (4)
here) - 0.05% (4)
[quant-ph] - 0.05% (4)
coeffs - 0.05% (4)
never - 0.05% (4)
a_coe - 0.05% (4)
best - 0.05% (4)
“obvious” - 0.05% (4)
unextendible - 0.05% (4)
n-2 - 0.05% (4)
is. - 0.05% (4)
≥ - 0.05% (4)
few - 0.05% (4)
several - 0.05% (4)
determine - 0.05% (4)
append - 0.05% (4)
(and - 0.05% (4)
fixed, - 0.05% (4)
table - 0.05% (4)
consecutive - 0.05% (4)
enough - 0.05% (4)
conclude - 0.05% (4)
standard - 0.05% (4)
six - 0.05% (4)
np-hard - 0.05% (4)
characters, - 0.05% (4)
 is - 0.05% (4)
thus - 0.05% (4)
writing - 0.05% (4)
until - 0.05% (4)
keeping - 0.05% (4)
setting - 0.05% (4)
107 - 0.05% (4)
rows - 0.05% (4)
dealing - 0.05% (4)
particular - 0.05% (4)
quick - 0.05% (4)
worth - 0.05% (4)
maximum. - 0.05% (4)
upb - 0.05% (4)
complex - 0.05% (4)
semidefinite. - 0.05% (4)
expect - 0.05% (4)
might - 0.05% (4)
sequence - 0.05% (4)
absolute - 0.05% (4)
june - 0.05% (4)
12, - 0.05% (4)
witness - 0.05% (4)
local - 0.05% (4)
column - 0.05% (4)
reason - 0.05% (4)
ppt - 0.05% (4)
orthonormal - 0.05% (4)
improved - 0.05% (4)
february - 0.05% (4)
again - 0.05% (4)
counting - 0.05% (4)
says - 0.05% (4)
similarly - 0.05% (4)
strings - 0.05% (4)
columns - 0.04% (3)
scalar - 0.04% (3)
trivial - 0.04% (3)
july - 0.04% (3)
construction - 0.04% (3)
…, - 0.04% (3)
anything - 0.04% (3)
think - 0.04% (3)
under - 0.04% (3)
naturally - 0.04% (3)
light - 0.04% (3)
direct - 0.04% (3)
december - 0.04% (3)
formulation - 0.04% (3)
pairwise - 0.04% (3)
“123” - 0.04% (3)
arises - 0.04% (3)
2012 - 0.04% (3)
 as - 0.04% (3)
of . - 0.04% (3)
zhang, - 0.04% (3)
certain - 0.04% (3)
march - 0.04% (3)
decreasing. - 0.04% (3)
permutations. - 0.04% (3)
corresponds - 0.04% (3)
exists - 0.04% (3)
recent - 0.04% (3)
sometimes - 0.04% (3)
san - 0.04% (3)
had - 0.04% (3)
[feb. - 0.04% (3)
full - 0.04% (3)
rulers - 0.04% (3)
far - 0.04% (3)
variant - 0.04% (3)
conjectured - 0.04% (3)
math. - 0.04% (3)
minimum - 0.04% (3)
either - 0.04% (3)
less, - 0.04% (3)
golomb - 0.04% (3)
“1” - 0.04% (3)
eigenvalue - 0.04% (3)
mean - 0.04% (3)
[2] - 0.04% (3)
once - 0.04% (3)
johnston. - 0.04% (3)
important - 0.04% (3)
case. - 0.04% (3)
cross - 0.04% (3)
earlier - 0.04% (3)
n!, - 0.04% (3)
permutations, - 0.04% (3)
fit - 0.04% (3)
“2” - 0.04% (3)
latex - 0.04% (3)
inequalities: - 0.04% (3)
sequences - 0.04% (3)
tight - 0.04% (3)
characters. - 0.04% (3)
graph - 0.04% (3)
combinatorics - 0.04% (3)
point - 0.04% (3)
space - 0.04% (3)
nathaniel - 0.04% (3)
 are - 0.04% (3)
phases - 0.04% (3)
always - 0.04% (3)
beyond - 0.04% (3)
though - 0.04% (3)
paper - 0.04% (3)
extremely - 0.04% (3)
after - 0.04% (3)
made - 0.04% (3)
verify - 0.04% (3)
constructing - 0.04% (3)
multiple - 0.04% (3)
hölder’s - 0.04% (3)
tool - 0.04% (3)
inequality, - 0.04% (3)
randomly-chosen - 0.04% (3)
based - 0.04% (3)
time, - 0.04% (3)
double - 0.04% (3)
individual - 0.04% (3)
criterion, - 0.04% (3)
specific - 0.04% (3)
symmetry - 0.04% (3)
i’ve - 0.04% (3)
usual - 0.04% (3)
smaller - 0.04% (3)
whether - 0.04% (3)
type - 0.04% (3)
advanced - 0.04% (3)
works - 0.04% (3)
comes - 0.04% (3)
algorithm, - 0.04% (3)
hilbert–schmidt - 0.04% (3)
states, - 0.04% (3)
applications - 0.04% (3)
april - 0.04% (3)
seems - 0.04% (3)
announce - 0.04% (3)
people - 0.04% (3)
depth - 0.04% (3)
asks - 0.04% (3)
tensor - 0.04% (3)
their - 0.04% (3)
themselves - 0.04% (3)
choi - 0.04% (3)
p-norms - 0.04% (3)
function. - 0.04% (3)
won’t - 0.04% (3)
implemented - 0.04% (3)
finding - 0.04% (3)
essentially - 0.04% (3)
problem, - 0.04% (3)
defined - 0.04% (3)
simply - 0.04% (3)
norms. - 0.04% (3)
a_val, - 0.04% (3)
a_i - 0.04% (3)
bellinequalitymax(coeffs, - 0.04% (3)
often - 0.04% (3)
a_coe, - 0.04% (3)
unit - 0.04% (3)
particular, - 0.04% (3)
b_coe, - 0.04% (3)
npa - 0.04% (3)
no-signalling - 0.04% (3)
post, - 0.04% (3)
fan - 0.04% (3)
computer - 0.04% (3)
variety - 0.04% (3)
2016 - 0.04% (3)
your - 0.04% (3)
university - 0.04% (3)
2008. - 0.04% (3)
1]; - 0.04% (3)
b_val, - 0.04% (3)
solved - 0.04% (3)
systems, - 0.04% (3)
measurement - 0.04% (3)
problematic - 0.03% (2)
done. - 0.03% (2)
certainly - 0.03% (2)
(hopefully - 0.03% (2)
properties - 0.03% (2)
left-hand - 0.03% (2)
maximization, - 0.03% (2)
obtain - 0.03% (2)
proof. if - 0.03% (2)
websites - 0.03% (2)
= ∞ - 0.03% (2)
norm’s - 0.03% (2)
september - 0.03% (2)
shown - 0.03% (2)
diagonal - 0.03% (2)
individually - 0.03% (2)
[6]. - 0.03% (2)
november - 0.03% (2)
acts - 0.03% (2)
hard-to-compute - 0.03% (2)
reduce - 0.03% (2)
traces - 0.03% (2)
care - 0.03% (2)
continuity - 0.03% (2)
eigenvalues - 0.03% (2)
calculation - 0.03% (2)
(especially - 0.03% (2)
enumeration - 0.03% (2)
14, - 0.03% (2)
criterion) - 0.03% (2)
example. - 0.03% (2)
(or - 0.03% (2)
raised - 0.03% (2)
phrased - 0.03% (2)
pretty - 0.03% (2)
detects - 0.03% (2)
witness, - 0.03% (2)
9080 - 0.03% (2)
“entanglement” - 0.03% (2)
it. - 0.03% (2)
completes - 0.03% (2)
[3] - 0.03% (2)
popular - 0.03% (2)
respectively. - 0.03% (2)
denote - 0.03% (2)
inner - 0.03% (2)
score - 0.03% (2)
constant - 0.03% (2)
let’s - 0.03% (2)
detection - 0.03% (2)
gauge - 0.03% (2)
invariant - 0.03% (2)
template - 0.03% (2)
values are - 0.03% (2)
matrix attaining - 0.03% (2)
loss - 0.03% (2)
itself - 0.03% (2)
before: - 0.03% (2)
love - 0.03% (2)
without - 0.03% (2)
generality - 0.03% (2)
interval - 0.03% (2)
why - 0.03% (2)
wide - 0.03% (2)
correct - 0.03% (2)
may - 0.03% (2)
cases, - 0.03% (2)
negligible - 0.03% (2)
entangled: - 0.03% (2)
108664, - 0.03% (2)
increment - 0.03% (2)
identical - 0.03% (2)
vector). - 0.03% (2)
entry - 0.03% (2)
notation - 0.03% (2)
solution - 0.03% (2)
help - 0.03% (2)
coding - 0.03% (2)
magnitudes - 0.03% (2)
simpler - 0.03% (2)
condition - 0.03% (2)
conway's - 0.03% (2)
non-negative - 0.03% (2)
better - 0.03% (2)
that . - 0.03% (2)
integers - 0.03% (2)
satisfy - 0.03% (2)
scaled - 0.03% (2)
density - 0.03% (2)
multiplying - 0.03% (2)
spectrum - 0.03% (2)
together - 0.03% (2)
contradicts - 0.03% (2)
fixing - 0.03% (2)
matrixthe - 0.03% (2)
2612 - 0.03% (2)
gains - 0.03% (2)
life - 0.03% (2)
fifth - 0.03% (2)
fast - 0.03% (2)
norm”, - 0.03% (2)
finally - 0.03% (2)
called - 0.03% (2)
108146 - 0.03% (2)
[math.co] - 0.03% (2)
look - 0.03% (2)
largest - 0.03% (2)
estimates - 0.03% (2)
analysis - 0.03% (2)
computable - 0.03% (2)
pham. - 0.03% (2)
sum: - 0.03% (2)
convex - 0.03% (2)
thousand - 0.03% (2)
cariello. - 0.03% (2)
iteration. - 0.03% (2)
weak - 0.03% (2)
practice - 0.03% (2)
illustrate - 0.03% (2)
java - 0.03% (2)
13, - 0.03% (2)
multiplication - 0.03% (2)
that, - 0.03% (2)
downside - 0.03% (2)
∞, - 0.03% (2)
question. - 0.03% (2)
run, - 0.03% (2)
instead - 0.03% (2)
have  - 0.03% (2)
case: - 0.03% (2)
return - 0.03% (2)
converges - 0.03% (2)
you’re - 0.03% (2)
first, - 0.03% (2)
extensions, - 0.03% (2)
pages - 0.03% (2)
resulting - 0.03% (2)
1998 - 0.03% (2)
appears - 0.03% (2)
contained - 0.03% (2)
generally, - 0.03% (2)
slow - 0.03% (2)
comput., - 0.03% (2)
answer. - 0.03% (2)
alternatively, - 0.03% (2)
pattern - 0.03% (2)
n!. - 0.03% (2)
3-dimensional - 0.03% (2)
refine - 0.03% (2)
subsystems - 0.03% (2)
trying - 0.03% (2)
claimed - 0.03% (2)
inf. - 0.03% (2)
antisymmetric - 0.03% (2)
due - 0.03% (2)
bases, - 0.03% (2)
five - 0.03% (2)
combinatorics, - 0.03% (2)
problem. - 0.03% (2)
generates - 0.03% (2)
everyone - 0.03% (2)
convincing - 0.03% (2)
determined - 0.03% (2)
long - 0.03% (2)
strictly - 0.03% (2)
chen - 0.03% (2)
l.-a. - 0.03% (2)
n ≥ - 0.03% (2)
turns - 0.03% (2)
proof, - 0.03% (2)
wu. - 0.03% (2)
recognizing - 0.03% (2)
permuting - 0.03% (2)
(n-1)! - 0.03% (2)
user - 0.03% (2)
programming - 0.03% (2)
reasonably - 0.03% (2)
being - 0.03% (2)
showing - 0.03% (2)
nonlocal - 0.03% (2)
posted - 0.03% (2)
documentation - 0.03% (2)
currently - 0.03% (2)
fact, - 0.03% (2)
contiguous - 0.03% (2)
obvious, - 0.03% (2)
another - 0.03% (2)
origin - 0.03% (2)
lines - 0.03% (2)
distinct - 0.03% (2)
yadda - 0.03% (2)
“true”: - 0.03% (2)
statement - 0.03% (2)
brute - 0.03% (2)
“123121321” - 0.03% (2)
(n-2) - 0.03% (2)
0]; - 0.03% (2)
provided - 0.03% (2)
additional - 0.03% (2)
similarly, - 0.03% (2)
permutation. - 0.03% (2)
inequalities. - 0.03% (2)
suggest - 0.03% (2)
settings, - 0.03% (2)
(where - 0.03% (2)
[-1 - 0.03% (2)
“123”, - 0.03% (2)
immediately - 0.03% (2)
measurements - 0.03% (2)
b_i - 0.03% (2)
here), - 0.03% (2)
details - 0.03% (2)
symbols. - 0.03% (2)
property. - 0.03% (2)
substrings - 0.03% (2)
recall - 0.03% (2)
blog - 0.03% (2)
making - 0.03% (2)
states. - 0.03% (2)
thesis. - 0.03% (2)
2005. - 0.03% (2)
873 - 0.03% (2)
approximate - 0.03% (2)
18, - 0.03% (2)
[august - 0.03% (2)
algebra - 0.03% (2)
code - 0.03% (2)
sequences, - 0.03% (2)
qetlab, - 0.03% (2)
introducing - 0.03% (2)
114 - 0.03% (2)
111 - 0.03% (2)
qetlab: - 0.03% (2)
results - 0.03% (2)
toolbox - 0.03% (2)
higher - 0.03% (2)
robust - 0.03% (2)
references: - 0.03% (2)
p-10 - 0.03% (2)
‘s - 0.03% (2)
we’ll - 0.03% (2)
central - 0.03% (2)
relationship - 0.03% (2)
haven’t - 0.03% (2)
bases of - 0.03% (2)
within - 0.03% (2)
non-zero - 0.03% (2)
entanglement: - 0.03% (2)
(the - 0.03% (2)
geometric - 0.03% (2)
disguise - 0.03% (2)
fancy: - 0.03% (2)
(as - 0.03% (2)
(which - 0.03% (2)
iterate - 0.03% (2)
value. - 0.03% (2)
spaces - 0.03% (2)
larger - 0.03% (2)
bullet - 0.03% (2)
2015 - 0.03% (2)
“2”, - 0.03% (2)
include - 0.03% (2)
“231” - 0.03% (2)
previously-known - 0.03% (2)
interesting - 0.03% (2)
job - 0.03% (2)
second - 0.03% (2)
here, - 0.03% (2)
going - 0.03% (2)
eight - 0.03% (2)
“312” - 0.03% (2)
isseparable - 0.03% (2)
function, - 0.03% (2)
criteria - 0.03% (2)
153, - 0.03% (2)
introduced - 0.03% (2)
detected - 0.03% (2)
qetlab’s - 0.03% (2)
lets - 0.03% (2)
spend - 0.03% (2)
string. - 0.03% (2)
ignore - 0.03% (2)
placement - 0.03% (2)
half - 0.03% (2)
happy - 0.03% (2)
speed - 0.03% (2)
allowed - 0.03% (2)
google - 0.03% (2)
year - 0.03% (2)
papers - 0.03% (2)
acknowledge - 0.03% (2)
depth-first - 0.03% (2)
symbols, - 0.03% (2)
posts - 0.03% (2)
things - 0.03% (2)
none - 0.03% (2)
superoperators - 0.03% (2)
characters were - 0.03% (2)
packages - 0.03% (2)
nice - 0.03% (2)
qubit4matlab - 0.03% (2)
wordpress - 0.03% (2)
of the - 0.72% (55)
in the - 0.56% (43)
that i - 0.55% (42)
that the - 0.47% (36)
is the - 0.46% (35)
on the - 0.41% (31)
we can - 0.39% (30)
, which - 0.35% (27)
that is - 0.29% (22)
here is - 0.27% (21)
minimal superpermutation - 0.27% (21)
and the - 0.27% (21)
singular value - 0.25% (19)
can be - 0.25% (19)
that a - 0.25% (19)
number of - 0.24% (18)
that we - 0.24% (18)
. however, - 0.24% (18)
to the - 0.22% (17)
the realignment - 0.2% (15)
is entangled - 0.2% (15)
realignment criterion - 0.2% (15)
there is - 0.18% (14)
upper bound - 0.18% (14)
wasted character - 0.17% (13)
schmidt rank - 0.17% (13)
the number - 0.17% (13)
for all - 0.17% (13)
positive semidefinite - 0.17% (13)
the following - 0.17% (13)
operator-schmidt decomposition - 0.17% (13)
this maximum - 0.16% (12)
we have - 0.16% (12)
operator-schmidt rank - 0.16% (12)
the operator-schmidt - 0.16% (12)
there are - 0.16% (12)
as the - 0.16% (12)
state is - 0.14% (11)
matrix norm - 0.14% (11)
minimal superpermutations - 0.14% (11)
quantum entanglement - 0.14% (11)
values of - 0.14% (11)
is separable - 0.14% (11)
and are - 0.13% (10)
we are - 0.13% (10)
in this - 0.13% (10)
value of - 0.13% (10)
that this - 0.13% (10)
this algorithm - 0.13% (10)
from the - 0.13% (10)
singular values - 0.13% (10)
permutation of - 0.13% (10)
with the - 0.13% (10)
which is - 0.13% (10)
the vector - 0.12% (9)
of this - 0.12% (9)
. furthermore, - 0.12% (9)
fact that - 0.12% (9)
is that - 0.12% (9)
the minimal - 0.12% (9)
the previous - 0.12% (9)
the fact - 0.12% (9)
lower bound - 0.12% (9)
of length - 0.12% (9)
to compute - 0.12% (9)
that it - 0.12% (9)
attaining this - 0.1% (8)
possible orderings - 0.1% (8)
if the - 0.1% (8)
matrix norms - 0.1% (8)
found a - 0.1% (8)
quantum state - 0.1% (8)
when p - 0.1% (8)
this is - 0.1% (8)
such a - 0.1% (8)
tells us - 0.1% (8)
that are - 0.1% (8)
and it - 0.1% (8)
superpermutation of - 0.1% (8)
the induced - 0.1% (8)
this problem - 0.1% (8)
such that - 0.1% (8)
the above - 0.1% (8)
is not - 0.1% (8)
the upper - 0.1% (8)
the maximum - 0.1% (8)
mixed state - 0.09% (7)
that there - 0.09% (7)
the left - 0.09% (7)
the same - 0.09% (7)
quantum information - 0.09% (7)
so that - 0.09% (7)
be the - 0.09% (7)
for the - 0.09% (7)
the one - 0.09% (7)
have length - 0.09% (7)
the case - 0.09% (7)
as follows: - 0.09% (7)
positive semidefinite, - 0.09% (7)
to show - 0.09% (7)
straightforward to - 0.09% (7)
the singular - 0.09% (7)
for example, - 0.09% (7)
to some - 0.08% (6)
easy to - 0.08% (6)
and there - 0.08% (6)
a superpermutation - 0.08% (6)
now that - 0.08% (6)
schatten norm - 0.08% (6)
to see - 0.08% (6)
are both - 0.08% (6)
the matrix - 0.08% (6)
orderings of - 0.08% (6)
the value - 0.08% (6)
at least - 0.08% (6)
of these - 0.08% (6)
on theory - 0.08% (6)
algorithm is - 0.08% (6)
and for - 0.08% (6)
method for - 0.08% (6)
is straightforward - 0.08% (6)
is then - 0.08% (6)
and so - 0.08% (6)
we know - 0.08% (6)
permutations that - 0.08% (6)
a state - 0.08% (6)
however, it - 0.08% (6)
then we - 0.08% (6)
it can - 0.08% (6)
the first - 0.08% (6)
such as - 0.08% (6)
singular vectors - 0.08% (6)
. theorem - 0.07% (5)
left and - 0.07% (5)
show that - 0.07% (5)
that for - 0.07% (5)
a string - 0.07% (5)
and right - 0.07% (5)
notice that - 0.07% (5)
the sets - 0.07% (5)
superpermutation conjecture - 0.07% (5)
in quantum - 0.07% (5)
is false - 0.07% (5)
lower bounds - 0.07% (5)
and then - 0.07% (5)
consider the - 0.07% (5)
partial transpose - 0.07% (5)
rank of - 0.07% (5)
is separable. - 0.07% (5)
bell inequality - 0.07% (5)
the bell - 0.07% (5)
implies that - 0.07% (5)
information theory - 0.07% (5)
the conjecture - 0.07% (5)
conjecture is - 0.07% (5)
prove that - 0.07% (5)
phys. rev. - 0.07% (5)
this norm - 0.07% (5)
each of - 0.07% (5)
bounds on - 0.07% (5)
separable state - 0.07% (5)
vectors and - 0.07% (5)
the coefficients - 0.07% (5)
is also - 0.07% (5)
value decomposition - 0.07% (5)
than the - 0.07% (5)
are the - 0.07% (5)
be written - 0.07% (5)
and let - 0.07% (5)
special cases - 0.07% (5)
upper-triangular part - 0.07% (5)
induced matrix - 0.07% (5)
real number - 0.07% (5)
has been - 0.07% (5)
maximum is - 0.07% (5)
converge to - 0.07% (5)
let be - 0.07% (5)
the norm - 0.07% (5)
know that - 0.07% (5)
operator norm - 0.05% (4)
are such - 0.05% (4)
. thus - 0.05% (4)
matlab package - 0.05% (4)
that . - 0.05% (4)
where is - 0.05% (4)
way to - 0.05% (4)
be used - 0.05% (4)
in particular - 0.05% (4)
this argument - 0.05% (4)
states with - 0.05% (4)
to this - 0.05% (4)
it has - 0.05% (4)
of its - 0.05% (4)
this question - 0.05% (4)
q norm - 0.05% (4)
it was - 0.05% (4)
then the - 0.05% (4)
the idea - 0.05% (4)
how to - 0.05% (4)
2003. e-print: - 0.05% (4)
used to - 0.05% (4)
follows that - 0.05% (4)
have been - 0.05% (4)
out the - 0.05% (4)
shows that - 0.05% (4)
one of - 0.05% (4)
furthermore, the - 0.05% (4)
then is - 0.05% (4)
the partial - 0.05% (4)
fixed, and - 0.05% (4)
compute keeping - 0.05% (4)
use the - 0.05% (4)
product bases - 0.05% (4)
it follows - 0.05% (4)
both positive - 0.05% (4)
and whose - 0.05% (4)
previous section - 0.05% (4)
which can - 0.05% (4)
one such - 0.05% (4)
maximize over - 0.05% (4)
functions for - 0.05% (4)
by the - 0.05% (4)
is entangled, - 0.05% (4)
keeping fixed, - 0.05% (4)
robin houston - 0.05% (4)
that contains - 0.05% (4)
the positive - 0.05% (4)
idea of - 0.05% (4)
vector attaining - 0.05% (4)
says that - 0.05% (4)
this maximum. - 0.05% (4)
in fact - 0.05% (4)
of orderings - 0.05% (4)
for some - 0.05% (4)
dealing with - 0.05% (4)
n-symbol superpermutation - 0.05% (4)
norms the - 0.05% (4)
to get - 0.05% (4)
conclude that - 0.05% (4)
so that  - 0.05% (4)
we define - 0.05% (4)
entanglement witness - 0.05% (4)
the shortest - 0.05% (4)
the superpermutation - 0.05% (4)
is entangled. - 0.05% (4)
the matrix  - 0.05% (4)
a matlab - 0.05% (4)
quantum states - 0.05% (4)
we will - 0.05% (4)
p → q - 0.05% (4)
a mixed - 0.05% (4)
. well, - 0.05% (4)
are easy - 0.05% (4)
right singular - 0.05% (4)
they are - 0.05% (4)
one with - 0.05% (4)
the schatten - 0.05% (4)
maximum. by - 0.05% (4)
string with - 0.05% (4)
sets and - 0.05% (4)
(i.e., the - 0.05% (4)
we now - 0.05% (4)
we could - 0.05% (4)
to add - 0.05% (4)
value is - 0.05% (4)
the power - 0.05% (4)
to place - 0.05% (4)
matrices and - 0.05% (4)
when n - 0.05% (4)
rev. a, - 0.05% (4)
superpermutations have - 0.05% (4)
see this - 0.05% (4)
mixed quantum - 0.04% (3)
using the - 0.04% (3)
in its - 0.04% (3)
is often - 0.04% (3)
superpermutations on - 0.04% (3)
2008. e-print: - 0.04% (3)
n, and - 0.04% (3)
open problems - 0.04% (3)
of mixed - 0.04% (3)
start by - 0.04% (3)
as well - 0.04% (3)
it’s not - 0.04% (3)
that minimal - 0.04% (3)
are exactly - 0.04% (3)
smaller than - 0.04% (3)
this quantity - 0.04% (3)
length of - 0.04% (3)
this post, - 0.04% (3)
inequality >> - 0.04% (3)
can take - 0.04% (3)
large as - 0.04% (3)
% coefficients - 0.04% (3)
superpermutation on - 0.04% (3)
more than - 0.04% (3)
coefficients of - 0.04% (3)
integer sequences - 0.04% (3)
of and - 0.04% (3)
decomposition of - 0.04% (3)
the other - 0.04% (3)
terms of - 0.04% (3)
>> bellinequalitymax(coeffs, - 0.04% (3)
variety of - 0.04% (3)
us about - 0.04% (3)
a_coe, b_coe, - 0.04% (3)
a_val, b_val, - 0.04% (3)
decomposition tells - 0.04% (3)
proving a - 0.04% (3)
shortest string - 0.04% (3)
the string - 0.04% (3)
idea is - 0.04% (3)
superpermutation is - 0.04% (3)
the two - 0.04% (3)
superpermutation must - 0.04% (3)
superpermutations are - 0.04% (3)
six new - 0.04% (3)
orderings in - 0.04% (3)
see that - 0.04% (3)
now we - 0.04% (3)
superpermutations that - 0.04% (3)
that every - 0.04% (3)
length at - 0.04% (3)
then it - 0.04% (3)
the permutation - 0.04% (3)
update [feb. - 0.04% (3)
it seemed - 0.04% (3)
to construct - 0.04% (3)
of golomb - 0.04% (3)
have found - 0.04% (3)
the trace - 0.04% (3)
gives the - 0.04% (3)
wasted characters, - 0.04% (3)
found the - 0.04% (3)
in terms - 0.04% (3)
norm as - 0.04% (3)
check that - 0.04% (3)
in particular, - 0.04% (3)
a separable - 0.04% (3)
fit in - 0.04% (3)
in all - 0.04% (3)
one that - 0.04% (3)
coefficients in - 0.04% (3)
i won’t - 0.04% (3)
about the - 0.04% (3)
norm is - 0.04% (3)
difficult to - 0.04% (3)
exists a - 0.04% (3)
there exists - 0.04% (3)
three special - 0.04% (3)
an n-symbol - 0.04% (3)
for n ≤ - 0.04% (3)
if and - 0.04% (3)
do not - 0.04% (3)
quantum entanglement, - 0.04% (3)
however, in - 0.04% (3)
good idea - 0.04% (3)
realignment criterion. - 0.04% (3)
been implemented - 0.04% (3)
previous two - 0.04% (3)
problem here - 0.04% (3)
bound of - 0.04% (3)
to find - 0.04% (3)
essentially the - 0.04% (3)
of entanglement - 0.04% (3)
a multiple - 0.04% (3)
for quantum - 0.04% (3)
of functions - 0.04% (3)
are also - 0.04% (3)
found in - 0.04% (3)
positive semidefinite. - 0.04% (3)
has operator-schmidt - 0.04% (3)
corresponds to - 0.04% (3)
complex phases - 0.04% (3)
separable or - 0.04% (3)
rows and - 0.04% (3)
place the - 0.04% (3)
counting the - 0.04% (3)
are decreasing. - 0.04% (3)
where each - 0.04% (3)
this matrix - 0.04% (3)
part of - 0.04% (3)
the upper-triangular - 0.04% (3)
columns of - 0.04% (3)
vectors as - 0.04% (3)
so there - 0.04% (3)
the rows - 0.04% (3)
induced schatten - 0.04% (3)
and columns - 0.04% (3)
vector of - 0.04% (3)
orderings is - 0.04% (3)
of singular - 0.04% (3)
implemented in - 0.04% (3)
from a - 0.04% (3)
with operator-schmidt - 0.04% (3)
). this - 0.04% (3)
of possible - 0.04% (3)
as large - 0.04% (3)
arbitrary number - 0.04% (3)
same as - 0.04% (3)
since is - 0.04% (3)
multiple of - 0.04% (3)
entangled state - 0.04% (3)
for entanglement - 0.04% (3)
for computing - 0.04% (3)
to check - 0.04% (3)
us that - 0.04% (3)
of theorem - 0.04% (3)
exactly equal - 0.04% (3)
entanglement in - 0.03% (2)
of such - 0.03% (2)
different ways - 0.03% (2)
will use - 0.03% (2)
which contradicts - 0.03% (2)
detects the - 0.03% (2)
witness that - 0.03% (2)
quantum entanglement: - 0.03% (2)
be done - 0.03% (2)
if then - 0.03% (2)
integer sequences, - 0.03% (2)
exactly the - 0.03% (2)
completes the - 0.03% (2)
witness, we - 0.03% (2)
is indeed - 0.03% (2)
possible products - 0.03% (2)
where the - 0.03% (2)
pairwise multiplication - 0.03% (2)
case, and - 0.03% (2)
real numbers - 0.03% (2)
above on - 0.03% (2)
pham. enumeration - 0.03% (2)
by this - 0.03% (2)
have which - 0.03% (2)
an entanglement - 0.03% (2)
between these - 0.03% (2)
case that - 0.03% (2)
all and - 0.03% (2)
how many - 0.03% (2)
toolbox for - 0.03% (2)
such orderings - 0.03% (2)
separable. proof. if - 0.03% (2)
eigenvalues of - 0.03% (2)
to sometimes - 0.03% (2)
of that - 0.03% (2)
that and - 0.03% (2)
entries that - 0.03% (2)
can use - 0.03% (2)
real scalar - 0.03% (2)
cases where - 0.03% (2)
a similar - 0.03% (2)
contained within - 0.03% (2)
conway's game - 0.03% (2)
let have - 0.03% (2)
anything fancy: - 0.03% (2)
of life - 0.03% (2)
bound to - 0.03% (2)
criterion, which - 0.03% (2)
only if - 0.03% (2)
score in - 0.03% (2)
the game - 0.03% (2)
entanglement of - 0.03% (2)
form orthonormal - 0.03% (2)
decomposition is - 0.03% (2)
does not - 0.03% (2)
imply “true”: - 0.03% (2)
we see - 0.03% (2)
bound on - 0.03% (2)
can also - 0.03% (2)
be phrased - 0.03% (2)
upper bounds - 0.03% (2)
matrix is - 0.03% (2)
semidefinite, and - 0.03% (2)
on five - 0.03% (2)
have used - 0.03% (2)
symbols have - 0.03% (2)
of pairwise - 0.03% (2)
1, which - 0.03% (2)
sometimes prove - 0.03% (2)
matrix in - 0.03% (2)
how the - 0.03% (2)
decomposition. however, - 0.03% (2)
the equality - 0.03% (2)
some . - 0.03% (2)
the possible - 0.03% (2)
formula for - 0.03% (2)
without loss - 0.03% (2)
however, multiplying - 0.03% (2)
this, we - 0.03% (2)
orderings are - 0.03% (2)
under the - 0.03% (2)
some matrix - 0.03% (2)
bound is - 0.03% (2)
follows from - 0.03% (2)
write a - 0.03% (2)
define a - 0.03% (2)
and notice - 0.03% (2)
any value - 0.03% (2)
standard continuity - 0.03% (2)
case. i - 0.03% (2)
have the - 0.03% (2)
both negative - 0.03% (2)
of generality - 0.03% (2)
semidefinite, we - 0.03% (2)
the minimum - 0.03% (2)
shown in - 0.03% (2)
the state - 0.03% (2)
negative semidefinite - 0.03% (2)
such example. - 0.03% (2)
can write - 0.03% (2)
all states - 0.03% (2)
with and - 0.03% (2)
verify that - 0.03% (2)
state with - 0.03% (2)
that then - 0.03% (2)
so on. - 0.03% (2)
gives , - 0.03% (2)
multiplying the - 0.03% (2)
inequalities: , - 0.03% (2)
following three - 0.03% (2)
seem to - 0.03% (2)
if they - 0.03% (2)
are done. - 0.03% (2)
gauge function - 0.03% (2)
functions of - 0.03% (2)
comes from - 0.03% (2)
the interval - 0.03% (2)
a more - 0.03% (2)
better upper - 0.03% (2)
the proof. - 0.03% (2)
which completes - 0.03% (2)
value in - 0.03% (2)
gives us - 0.03% (2)
entanglement detection - 0.03% (2)
7 case - 0.03% (2)
4 case, - 0.03% (2)
beyond the - 0.03% (2)
are orthonormal - 0.03% (2)
to conclude - 0.03% (2)
criterion. phys. - 0.03% (2)
entangled if - 0.03% (2)
matrix above - 0.03% (2)
d. cariello. - 0.03% (2)
is one - 0.03% (2)
realignment map - 0.03% (2)
are 12 - 0.03% (2)
detected by - 0.03% (2)
operator-schmidt decomposition. - 0.03% (2)
since each - 0.03% (2)
separable, which - 0.03% (2)
is separable, - 0.03% (2)
entangled based - 0.03% (2)
in has - 0.03% (2)
that either - 0.03% (2)
are entangled - 0.03% (2)
in these - 0.03% (2)
state in - 0.03% (2)
part are - 0.03% (2)
these two - 0.03% (2)
entangled. the - 0.03% (2)
improved the - 0.03% (2)
norm (i.e., - 0.03% (2)
that upper-triangular - 0.03% (2)
the integers - 0.03% (2)
left-hand side - 0.03% (2)
formulation of - 0.03% (2)
nathaniel johnston - 0.03% (2)
in disguise - 0.03% (2)
, raised - 0.03% (2)
each iteration. - 0.03% (2)
made after - 0.03% (2)
gains are - 0.03% (2)
until negligible - 0.03% (2)
2. repeat - 0.03% (2)
to step - 0.03% (2)
and return - 0.03% (2)
. increment - 0.03% (2)
a constant - 0.03% (2)
singular values are - 0.03% (2)
same left - 0.03% (2)
hilbert–schmidt inner - 0.03% (2)
the matrix attaining - 0.03% (2)
raised to - 0.03% (2)
that  for - 0.03% (2)
values and - 0.03% (2)
constant so - 0.03% (2)
values are such - 0.03% (2)
whose singular - 0.03% (2)
matrix  attaining - 0.03% (2)
matrix attaining this - 0.03% (2)
that . compute - 0.03% (2)
scaled so - 0.03% (2)
as before: - 0.03% (2)
a time, - 0.03% (2)
one at - 0.03% (2)
is again - 0.03% (2)
to deal - 0.03% (2)
double maximization, - 0.03% (2)
we start - 0.03% (2)
almost identical - 0.03% (2)
, respectively. - 0.03% (2)
diagonal entries - 0.03% (2)
you want - 0.03% (2)
other matlab - 0.03% (2)
to quantum - 0.03% (2)
i will - 0.03% (2)
more advanced - 0.03% (2)
happy to - 0.03% (2)
matlab toolbox - 0.03% (2)
qetlab: a - 0.03% (2)
quantum states. - 0.03% (2)
are np-hard - 0.03% (2)
geometric measure - 0.03% (2)
where we - 0.03% (2)
find lower - 0.03% (2)
in qetlab - 0.03% (2)
out for - 0.03% (2)
a lower - 0.03% (2)
quick to - 0.03% (2)
over all - 0.03% (2)
then maximize - 0.03% (2)
and and - 0.03% (2)
a double - 0.03% (2)
with quantum - 0.03% (2)
the central - 0.03% (2)
making use - 0.03% (2)
of what - 0.03% (2)
and is - 0.03% (2)
as with - 0.03% (2)
this algorithm, - 0.03% (2)
downside of - 0.03% (2)
each step - 0.03% (2)
run, since - 0.03% (2)
good estimates - 0.03% (2)
np-hard to - 0.03% (2)
or entangled. - 0.03% (2)
maximization over - 0.03% (2)
setting and - 0.03% (2)
well, we - 0.03% (2)
is np-hard - 0.03% (2)
some other - 0.03% (2)
. when - 0.03% (2)
maximum absolute - 0.03% (2)
largest singular - 0.03% (2)
the usual - 0.03% (2)
is defined - 0.03% (2)
induced p → - 0.03% (2)
start with - 0.03% (2)
to write - 0.03% (2)
deal with - 0.03% (2)
the unit - 0.03% (2)
a convex - 0.03% (2)
, scaled - 0.03% (2)
norm can - 0.03% (2)
the basic - 0.03% (2)
estimates of - 0.03% (2)
a general - 0.03% (2)
look at - 0.03% (2)
norms, such - 0.03% (2)
computation of - 0.03% (2)
however, the - 0.03% (2)
value decomposition. - 0.03% (2)
matrix norms, - 0.03% (2)
many different - 0.03% (2)
a wide - 0.03% (2)
no comments - 0.03% (2)
hard-to-compute matrix - 0.03% (2)
fixing a - 0.03% (2)
so that . - 0.03% (2)
and operator - 0.03% (2)
extremely quick - 0.03% (2)
theory (especially - 0.03% (2)
defined as - 0.03% (2)
called the - 0.03% (2)
2, which - 0.03% (2)
norm” or - 0.03% (2)
often called - 0.03% (2)
the qetlab - 0.03% (2)
presented in - 0.03% (2)
get an - 0.03% (2)
thousand times - 0.03% (2)
fast enough - 0.03% (2)
is smaller - 0.03% (2)
the downside - 0.03% (2)
to run, - 0.03% (2)
after each - 0.03% (2)
inequality tells - 0.03% (2)
are made - 0.03% (2)
negligible gains - 0.03% (2)
repeat until - 0.03% (2)
step 2. - 0.03% (2)
return to - 0.03% (2)
increment by - 0.03% (2)
whose magnitudes - 0.03% (2)
those of - 0.03% (2)
step 2, - 0.03% (2)
identical to - 0.03% (2)
we take - 0.03% (2)
magnitudes are - 0.03% (2)
phases that - 0.03% (2)
with complex - 0.03% (2)
whether a - 0.03% (2)
when the - 0.03% (2)
is just - 0.03% (2)
the symbols - 0.03% (2)
consecutive “wasted” - 0.03% (2)
in such - 0.03% (2)
to append - 0.03% (2)
no way - 0.03% (2)
add the - 0.03% (2)
the character - 0.03% (2)
we append - 0.03% (2)
append the - 0.03% (2)
new superpermutations - 0.03% (2)
the six - 0.03% (2)
the second - 0.03% (2)
the eight - 0.03% (2)
this case, - 0.03% (2)
length 153, - 0.03% (2)
five symbols - 0.03% (2)
discussed in - 0.03% (2)
all minimal - 0.03% (2)
tags: combinatorics, - 0.03% (2)
problem is - 0.03% (2)
due to - 0.03% (2)
the conjectured - 0.03% (2)
that is, - 0.03% (2)
n ≥ 6. - 0.03% (2)
out that - 0.03% (2)
it turns - 0.03% (2)
people had - 0.03% (2)
problem was - 0.03% (2)
or less - 0.03% (2)
seemed to - 0.03% (2)
(n-1)! + - 0.03% (2)
depth-first search - 0.03% (2)
known superpermutation - 0.03% (2)
this for - 0.03% (2)
available here. - 0.03% (2)
and form - 0.03% (2)
scalar and - 0.03% (2)
a real - 0.03% (2)
each is - 0.03% (2)
decomposition theorem - 0.03% (2)
of minimal - 0.03% (2)
houston has - 0.03% (2)
2014]: robin - 0.03% (2)
than one - 0.03% (2)
has more - 0.03% (2)
property that - 0.03% (2)
has found - 0.03% (2)
18, 2014]: - 0.03% (2)
update [august - 0.03% (2)
120 permutations - 0.03% (2)
permutations of - 0.03% (2)
the results - 0.03% (2)
up the - 0.03% (2)
to speed - 0.03% (2)
we find - 0.03% (2)
strings that - 0.03% (2)
speed up - 0.03% (2)
2 wasted - 0.03% (2)
10 permutations - 0.03% (2)
are allowed - 0.03% (2)
can find - 0.03% (2)
wasted characters. - 0.03% (2)
trying to - 0.03% (2)
problem of - 0.03% (2)
must be - 0.03% (2)
(see a - 0.03% (2)
since there - 0.03% (2)
map is - 0.03% (2)
and of - 0.03% (2)
and bell - 0.03% (2)
set of - 0.03% (2)
bell inequalities - 0.03% (2)
similarly, there - 0.03% (2)
an arbitrary - 0.03% (2)
not on - 0.03% (2)
projection on - 0.03% (2)
the symmetric - 0.03% (2)
of computing - 0.03% (2)
function that - 0.03% (2)
this type - 0.03% (2)
that i’ve - 0.03% (2)
realignment criterion, - 0.03% (2)
tests are - 0.03% (2)
quantum inf. - 0.03% (2)
quantity on - 0.03% (2)
recognizing entanglement. - 0.03% (2)
matrix realignment - 0.03% (2)
and l.-a. - 0.03% (2)
k. chen - 0.03% (2)
>> rho - 0.03% (2)
wide variety - 0.03% (2)
construct a - 0.03% (2)
function, which - 0.03% (2)
state that - 0.03% (2)
the separability - 0.03% (2)
prove the - 0.03% (2)
separability criteria - 0.03% (2)
just a - 0.03% (2)
it. however, - 0.03% (2)
example, consider - 0.03% (2)
value as - 0.03% (2)
+ (n-1)! - 0.03% (2)
the origin - 0.03% (2)
additional character - 0.03% (2)
n!, since - 0.03% (2)
the right - 0.03% (2)
the length - 0.03% (2)
some lower - 0.03% (2)
not difficult - 0.03% (2)
seemed like - 0.03% (2)
immediately gives - 0.03% (2)
repeat this - 0.03% (2)
with this - 0.03% (2)
computer search - 0.03% (2)
of “123” - 0.03% (2)
was so - 0.03% (2)
this conjecture - 0.03% (2)
through the - 0.03% (2)
via the - 0.03% (2)
“true”: the - 0.03% (2)
not imply - 0.03% (2)
“obvious” does - 0.03% (2)
you have - 0.03% (2)
a computer - 0.03% (2)
no-signalling value - 0.03% (2)
also a - 0.03% (2)
npa hierarchy - 0.03% (2)
inequality is - 0.03% (2)
the classical - 0.03% (2)
% values - 0.03% (2)
[-1 1]; - 0.03% (2)
measurements >> - 0.03% (2)
[0 0]; - 0.03% (2)
“entanglement” is - 0.03% (2)
the realignment criterion - 0.17% (13)
the number of - 0.13% (10)
the fact that - 0.12% (9)
the minimal superpermutation - 0.12% (9)
there is a - 0.1% (8)
superpermutation of length - 0.09% (7)
that is entangled - 0.09% (7)
the operator-schmidt decomposition - 0.09% (7)
that we can - 0.08% (6)
is straightforward to - 0.08% (6)
a state is - 0.08% (6)
it can be - 0.07% (5)
we know that - 0.07% (5)
conjecture is false - 0.07% (5)
singular value decomposition - 0.07% (5)
it is straightforward - 0.07% (5)
there is no - 0.07% (5)
minimal superpermutation conjecture - 0.07% (5)
the operator-schmidt rank - 0.07% (5)
quantum information theory - 0.07% (5)
this maximum is - 0.07% (5)
that there is - 0.07% (5)
the upper bound - 0.07% (5)
in this case - 0.07% (5)
possible orderings of - 0.07% (5)
from the fact - 0.07% (5)
can be written - 0.07% (5)
let be the - 0.05% (4)
this maximum. by - 0.05% (4)
that is separable - 0.05% (4)
induced matrix norms - 0.05% (4)
that we have - 0.05% (4)
minimal superpermutations have - 0.05% (4)
fixed, and let - 0.05% (4)
the bell inequality - 0.05% (4)
vector attaining this - 0.05% (4)
be used to - 0.05% (4)
number of orderings - 0.05% (4)
p → q norm - 0.05% (4)
and right singular - 0.05% (4)
conclude that is - 0.05% (4)
to show that - 0.05% (4)
in a string - 0.05% (4)
on the left - 0.05% (4)
is as follows: - 0.05% (4)
the previous section - 0.05% (4)
of the realignment - 0.05% (4)
keeping fixed, and - 0.05% (4)
is positive semidefinite, - 0.05% (4)
maximum is the - 0.05% (4)
the sets and - 0.05% (4)
the value of - 0.05% (4)
the vector attaining - 0.05% (4)
the one with - 0.05% (4)
are both positive - 0.05% (4)
unextendible product bases - 0.05% (4)
. furthermore, the - 0.05% (4)
right singular vectors - 0.05% (4)
lower bounds on - 0.05% (4)
permutations that we - 0.05% (4)
are easy to - 0.05% (4)
, and whose - 0.05% (4)
that is a - 0.05% (4)
converge to some - 0.04% (3)
>> bellinequalitymax(coeffs, a_coe, - 0.04% (3)
bellinequalitymax(coeffs, a_coe, b_coe, - 0.04% (3)
values of the - 0.04% (3)
rank of is - 0.04% (3)
a_coe, b_coe, a_val, - 0.04% (3)
lower bound of - 0.04% (3)
maximum number of - 0.04% (3)
good idea of - 0.04% (3)
that for all - 0.04% (3)
and are both - 0.04% (3)
of is then - 0.04% (3)
have length at - 0.04% (3)
has operator-schmidt rank - 0.04% (3)
that is entangled, - 0.04% (3)
be written in - 0.04% (3)
since is positive - 0.04% (3)
in terms of - 0.04% (3)
there exists a - 0.04% (3)
we have found - 0.04% (3)
as large as - 0.04% (3)
. since is - 0.04% (3)
% coefficients of - 0.04% (3)
a mixed state - 0.04% (3)
in the bell - 0.04% (3)
bell inequality >> - 0.04% (3)
an n-symbol superpermutation - 0.04% (3)
the previous two - 0.04% (3)
b_coe, a_val, b_val, - 0.04% (3)
of permutations that - 0.04% (3)
that the rows - 0.04% (3)
this maximum value - 0.04% (3)
the singular values - 0.04% (3)
here is that - 0.04% (3)
and the sets - 0.04% (3)
is the positive - 0.04% (3)
is a multiple - 0.04% (3)
that a state - 0.04% (3)
of golomb rulers - 0.04% (3)
tells us that - 0.04% (3)
is exactly equal - 0.04% (3)
it follows that - 0.04% (3)
it is not - 0.04% (3)
superpermutation conjecture is - 0.04% (3)
a superpermutation of - 0.04% (3)
the positive real - 0.04% (3)
three special cases - 0.04% (3)
in this post, - 0.04% (3)
what the operator-schmidt - 0.04% (3)
decomposition tells us - 0.04% (3)
the norm as - 0.04% (3)
as a maximization - 0.04% (3)
of the coefficients - 0.04% (3)
number of possible - 0.04% (3)
in quantum information - 0.04% (3)
essentially the same - 0.04% (3)
the maximum number - 0.04% (3)
and columns of - 0.04% (3)
the upper-triangular part - 0.04% (3)
value of the - 0.04% (3)
the shortest string - 0.04% (3)
the rows and - 0.04% (3)
can fit in - 0.04% (3)
if the operator-schmidt - 0.04% (3)
exactly equal to - 0.04% (3)
maximum value is - 0.04% (3)
know that this - 0.04% (3)
corresponds to the - 0.04% (3)
tells us about - 0.04% (3)
we can fit - 0.04% (3)
the induced matrix - 0.04% (3)
in its operator-schmidt - 0.04% (3)
upper-triangular part of - 0.04% (3)
vector of singular - 0.04% (3)
proving a state - 0.04% (3)
has been implemented - 0.04% (3)
the same as - 0.04% (3)
smaller than the - 0.04% (3)
side of theorem - 0.03% (2)
but i will - 0.03% (2)
then is entangled. - 0.03% (2)
to compute hard-to-compute - 0.03% (2)
operator-schmidt decomposition if - 0.03% (2)
value in the - 0.03% (2)
that the sets - 0.03% (2)
completes the proof. - 0.03% (2)
formulation of the - 0.03% (2)
the trace norm - 0.03% (2)
that is entangled. - 0.03% (2)
the coefficients in - 0.03% (2)
its operator-schmidt decomposition. - 0.03% (2)
detected by the - 0.03% (2)
if we can - 0.03% (2)
entangled based on - 0.03% (2)
be the case - 0.03% (2)
loss of generality - 0.03% (2)
exists a separable - 0.03% (2)
separable state with - 0.03% (2)
of the matrices - 0.03% (2)
and for all - 0.03% (2)
: the state - 0.03% (2)
is one such - 0.03% (2)
state with and - 0.03% (2)
for all : - 0.03% (2)
the state is - 0.03% (2)
one such example. - 0.03% (2)
furthermore, it is - 0.03% (2)
we have which - 0.03% (2)
see that we - 0.03% (2)
use the value - 0.03% (2)
of to conclude - 0.03% (2)
trace norm (i.e., - 0.03% (2)
we can use - 0.03% (2)
notice that for - 0.03% (2)
to sometimes prove - 0.03% (2)
to place the - 0.03% (2)
multiplying the first - 0.03% (2)
inequalities: , , - 0.03% (2)
the following three - 0.03% (2)
problem here is - 0.03% (2)
the above matrix - 0.03% (2)
that upper-triangular part - 0.03% (2)
bound on the - 0.03% (2)
, which contradicts - 0.03% (2)
immediately gives us - 0.03% (2)
ways to place - 0.03% (2)
number of such - 0.03% (2)
formula for the - 0.03% (2)
the matrix above - 0.03% (2)
to the case - 0.03% (2)
matrix above on - 0.03% (2)
gives , so - 0.03% (2)
orderings of the - 0.03% (2)
columns of that - 0.03% (2)
“true”: the minimal - 0.03% (2)
score in the - 0.03% (2)
on the maximum - 0.03% (2)
in the game - 0.03% (2)
the maximum score - 0.03% (2)
game of life - 0.03% (2)
orderings of pairwise - 0.03% (2)
does not imply - 0.03% (2)
are in fact - 0.03% (2)
a matlab toolbox - 0.03% (2)
pham. enumeration of - 0.03% (2)
t. pham. enumeration - 0.03% (2)
this case, and - 0.03% (2)
upper bound to - 0.03% (2)
possible orderings in - 0.03% (2)
which contradicts the - 0.03% (2)
upper-triangular part are - 0.03% (2)
part of a - 0.03% (2)
prove that a - 0.03% (2)
it turns out - 0.03% (2)
and notice that - 0.03% (2)
of the terms - 0.03% (2)
and so on. - 0.03% (2)
then it can - 0.03% (2)
is separable. proof. if - 0.03% (2)
with operator-schmidt rank - 0.03% (2)
both negative semidefinite - 0.03% (2)
. thus and - 0.03% (2)
we are done. - 0.03% (2)
if they are - 0.03% (2)
positive semidefinite, it - 0.03% (2)
then we can - 0.03% (2)
then is separable. - 0.03% (2)
is the number - 0.03% (2)
we will use - 0.03% (2)
and only if - 0.03% (2)
we define a - 0.03% (2)
in the upper-triangular - 0.03% (2)
mean by this - 0.03% (2)
1, which is - 0.03% (2)
this matrix is - 0.03% (2)
this quantity is - 0.03% (2)
orderings in this - 0.03% (2)
so there are - 0.03% (2)
the case that - 0.03% (2)
and it is - 0.03% (2)
of pairwise multiplication - 0.03% (2)
entanglement witness, we - 0.03% (2)
the possible orderings - 0.03% (2)
[quant-ph] d. cariello. - 0.03% (2)
criterion. phys. rev. - 0.03% (2)
states with operator-schmidt - 0.03% (2)
all states with - 0.03% (2)
that is separable, - 0.03% (2)
follows that is - 0.03% (2)
for all and - 0.03% (2)
the one that - 0.03% (2)
to see that - 0.03% (2)
is a constant - 0.03% (2)
vectors as , - 0.03% (2)
the same left - 0.03% (2)
the matrix  attaining - 0.03% (2)
, where is - 0.03% (2)
raised to the - 0.03% (2)
values of , - 0.03% (2)
so that  for - 0.03% (2)
such that there - 0.03% (2)
values are such that - 0.03% (2)
whose singular values are - 0.03% (2)
same left and - 0.03% (2)
one with the - 0.03% (2)
matrix  attaining this - 0.03% (2)
be the matrix attaining - 0.03% (2)
that . compute keeping - 0.03% (2)
as a double - 0.03% (2)
and whose singular - 0.03% (2)
constant so that  - 0.03% (2)
that they are - 0.03% (2)
of the operator - 0.03% (2)
toolbox for quantum - 0.03% (2)
qetlab: a matlab - 0.03% (2)
used to find - 0.03% (2)
find lower bounds - 0.03% (2)
it has been - 0.03% (2)
all vectors and - 0.03% (2)
then maximize over - 0.03% (2)
the left and - 0.03% (2)
for all . - 0.03% (2)
can be done - 0.03% (2)
over all vectors - 0.03% (2)
and then maximize - 0.03% (2)
dealing with quantum - 0.03% (2)
making use of - 0.03% (2)
extremely quick to - 0.03% (2)
almost identical to - 0.03% (2)
good estimates of - 0.03% (2)
theory (especially when - 0.03% (2)
of functions for - 0.03% (2)
number such that - 0.03% (2)
are the same - 0.03% (2)
complex phases that - 0.03% (2)
to . furthermore, - 0.03% (2)
so that . compute - 0.03% (2)
fixing a randomly-chosen - 0.03% (2)
by setting and - 0.03% (2)
maximize over and - 0.03% (2)
the maximum absolute - 0.03% (2)
to , where - 0.03% (2)
is the maximum - 0.03% (2)
the usual operator - 0.03% (2)
special cases of - 0.03% (2)
is defined as - 0.03% (2)
a maximization over - 0.03% (2)
post, we will - 0.03% (2)
such as the - 0.03% (2)
and whose magnitudes - 0.03% (2)
real number such - 0.03% (2)
(especially when p - 0.03% (2)
is fast enough - 0.03% (2)
is the usual - 0.03% (2)
often called the - 0.03% (2)
2, which is - 0.03% (2)
which is often - 0.03% (2)
cases of the - 0.03% (2)
is a natural - 0.03% (2)
value of . - 0.03% (2)
downside of this - 0.03% (2)
as those of - 0.03% (2)
each of the - 0.03% (2)
quick to run, - 0.03% (2)
are made after - 0.03% (2)
until negligible gains - 0.03% (2)
step 2. repeat - 0.03% (2)
and return to - 0.03% (2)
increment by 1 - 0.03% (2)
magnitudes are such - 0.03% (2)
i am happy - 0.03% (2)
separable or entangled. - 0.03% (2)
detects the entanglement - 0.03% (2)
a wide variety - 0.03% (2)
superpermutations have length - 0.03% (2)
we can find - 0.03% (2)
discussed in the - 0.03% (2)
such a way - 0.03% (2)
to add the - 0.03% (2)
then we append - 0.03% (2)
the six new - 0.03% (2)
153, and there - 0.03% (2)
we are allowed - 0.03% (2)
am happy to - 0.03% (2)
of minimal superpermutations - 0.03% (2)
the symbols “1” - 0.03% (2)
as a contiguous - 0.03% (2)
have been found - 0.03% (2)
on five symbols - 0.03% (2)
all minimal superpermutations - 0.03% (2)
a string if - 0.03% (2)
if we are - 0.03% (2)
for all n ≥ - 0.03% (2)
and form orthonormal - 0.03% (2)
entanglement witness that - 0.03% (2)
decomposition if then - 0.03% (2)
mixed state is - 0.03% (2)
that the singular - 0.03% (2)
form orthonormal bases of - 0.03% (2)
real scalar and - 0.03% (2)
each is a - 0.03% (2)
a real scalar - 0.03% (2)
to speed up - 0.03% (2)
where each is - 0.03% (2)
in the form - 0.03% (2)
is available here. - 0.03% (2)
has more than - 0.03% (2)
found a superpermutation - 0.03% (2)
robin houston has - 0.03% (2)
2 wasted characters - 0.03% (2)
this problem is - 0.03% (2)
turns out that - 0.03% (2)
which says that - 0.03% (2)
an arbitrary number - 0.03% (2)
on a value - 0.03% (2)
left can take - 0.03% (2)
quantity on the - 0.03% (2)
says that if - 0.03% (2)
example, consider the - 0.03% (2)
for dealing with - 0.03% (2)
arbitrary number of - 0.03% (2)
the realignment criterion, - 0.03% (2)
a value as - 0.03% (2)
tests for entanglement - 0.03% (2)
if you want - 0.03% (2)
entanglement. quantum inf. - 0.03% (2)
method for recognizing - 0.03% (2)
a matrix realignment - 0.03% (2)
and l.-a. wu. - 0.03% (2)
the realignment criterion. - 0.03% (2)
can take on - 0.03% (2)
0]; % coefficients - 0.03% (2)
that this problem - 0.03% (2)
with this property. - 0.03% (2)
this problem was - 0.03% (2)
is no way - 0.03% (2)
+ (n-1)! + - 0.03% (2)
1 additional character - 0.03% (2)
+ n!, since - 0.03% (2)
must have length - 0.03% (2)
the length of - 0.03% (2)
that it is - 0.03% (2)
[-1 1]; % - 0.03% (2)
string that contains - 0.03% (2)
is the shortest - 0.03% (2)
. there is - 0.03% (2)
imply “true”: the - 0.03% (2)
“obvious” does not - 0.03% (2)
if you have - 0.03% (2)
the npa hierarchy - 0.03% (2)
1]; % values - 0.03% (2)
game “entanglement” is - 0.03% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.