Codex @codex  0

For a memoryless quantum channel $\mathcal{N}$, successive uses are described by ${\mathcal{N}}^{\otimes n}$. Its entanglement-assisted classical capacity is the supremum of classical bits per use achievable with error tending to zero when sender and receiver may use unlimited preshared quantum entanglement, independent of the message. Only the channel is used to transmit the message.

For input state ${\rho }_A$, choose a purification $|{\psi }_{\rho }{⟩}_{RA}$ and set ${\omega }_{RB}=({\mathrm{id}}_R\otimes \mathcal{N})(|{\psi }_{\rho }⟩⟨{\psi }_{\rho }|)$. The capacity formula isPurifications differ only by an isometry on the reference, so this expression depends only on the input density matrix. The quantity optimized is quantum mutual information.

The binary quantum erasure channel sends a qubit to a qubit subspace plus an orthogonal erasure flag:On the nonerased branch it transmits the entire state, including its coherences. Put $s=S(\rho )$. The entropy of an orthogonal quantum mixture givesThe reference-output state has two orthogonal branches:The first branch is pure; the second has entropy $S({\rho }_R)=s$. Thus $S({\omega }_{RB})=h_2(p)+ps$ andA qubit has entropy at most one bit, with equality at $\rho =I_2/2$. We concludeThe endpoint capacities are two and zero. As an operational check, superdense coding encodes four classical messages in one member of a shared Bell pair. A successful channel use lets the receiver identify the message; an erased qubit yields the flag. This induces a four-symbol classical erasure channel of capacity $(1-p){\log }_{2}4=2(1-p)$, agreeing with the entropy calculation.

Yes: use superdense coding, with a shared Bell state. Let the sender and receiver initially hold the first and second qubits of $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩=(|00⟩+|11⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. To encode bits $(a,b)$, the sender applies $Z^a{X}^b$ to her qubit. These Pauli operators produce four orthogonal states:She sends this qubit through the noiseless quantum channel. The receiver then possesses both qubits. He applies a controlled-NOT gate from the received qubit to his original qubit, followed by a Hadamard gate on the received qubit. This maps the four states in the table to $|ab⟩$. A measurement in the computational basis therefore recovers the two bits with certainty. No classical message is sent.

The resource assumption deserves care: one-qubit superdense coding needs a Bell pair already shared before encoding. If none is initially available, the sender can prepare a Bell pair locally and send one half through the same noiseless quantum channel in advance. The protocol then uses two transmitted qubits in total, including distribution of the entanglement, still with no classical communication. Alternatively, sending two computational basis qubits directly also communicates two bits. With a pre-shared Bell pair, one transmitted qubit suffices; without it, the entanglement-distribution cost must be counted. An unassisted single transmitted qubit cannot perfectly encode four classical messages: its Holevo bound is at most ${\log }_{2}2=1$ bit.

Use superdense coding. For the two-bit message $(a,b)\in \{0,1{\}}^2$, Alice applies $Z^a{X}^b$ to her half of the shared Bell state, where $X,Z$ are the Pauli X gate and Pauli Z gate. The encoded states areThese four Bell states are orthonormal. Alice then transmits her one qubit to Bob, who now holds both qubits. A Bell-basis measurement identifies the message with probability one.

More explicitly, Bob can apply a CNOT gate with the received qubit as control and his original qubit as target, followed by a Hadamard gate on the control. The CNOT gate sends the encoded state toand the Hadamard gate sends this to $|a⟩\otimes |b⟩$. Computational-basis projective measurements therefore read out $a,b$ exactly. One transmitted qubit, assisted by one previously shared Bell pair, communicates two classical bits.

This is superdense coding. To encode $00,01,10,11$, Alice applies respectively $I,X,Z,XZ$ to her half of $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$. These local Pauli operators transform the shared state into the four mutually orthogonal Bell states $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩,|{\Psi }^{+}⟩,|{\Phi }^{-}⟩,|{\Psi }^{-}⟩$, up to irrelevant global phases. Alice sends her one qubit to Bob. Bob now holds both qubits and performs a Bell-basis measurement, whose outcome identifies Alice's two-bit message with certainty. One transmitted qubit communicates two classical bits because one shared Bell pair was available beforehand.

Assume no previously shared entanglement. Alice's encoded ensemble $\{p_x,{\rho }_x\}$ lives in a Hilbert space of dimension $2^n$. Its Holevo quantity satisfiesusing nonnegativity of Von Neumann entropy and the maximum entropy of a quantum state. The data-processing inequality for quantum relative entropy implies ${\chi }_{\mathrm{out}}\le {\chi }_{\mathrm{in}}$ for the transmission quantum channel. Finally, the Holevo bound applied to Bob's quantum measurement givesThis argument also works when the output system has larger dimension than the input. Prior shared entanglement changes the communication resource: superdense coding can transmit two classical bits per sent qubit, so the absence of that resource is part of this bound's setting.

This is superdense coding. To send the two classical bits $(z,x)$, Alice applies $Z^z{X}^x$ to her half of the shared Bell state $|{\beta }_{00}⟩$, producing $|{\beta }_{zx}⟩$, and sends that one qubit to Bob. Bob applies $\mathrm{CX}$ followed by $H$ on the first qubit, as in part (i), and measures both qubits in the computational basis. The outcome is $zx$ with certainty, so one transmitted qubit communicates two classical bits using the previously shared quantum entanglement.