Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The New Scientist

Definitely not maybe

David Deutsch

Published Oct 1, 2015• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/s0262-4079(15)31319-1

Related papers

Or Maybe Not

James Francis Burke

Scientific American•Sep 1, 1999•12 citations

Entanglement : the end of a long mystery ?

Youssef El Fidali

Since the advent of quantum physics, many experiments, theories and models helped to lay the foundationsfor the understanding of interaction between light and matter or the behavior of microscopic (subatomic)particles. However, many questions remain unanswered or at least not fully understood. One of the mostdebated topics since the last century concerns the entanglement between two or more particles. This paperwill deal with this issue and maybe give a definitive answer to this problematic.

•May 5, 2023•0 citations

Regular quantum grammars and regular grammars

Wei Cheng, Jue Wang

To study quantum computation, Moore and Crutchfield (Theoret. Comput. Sci. vol. 237, pp. 275-306, 2000) proposed quantum versions of finite-state and push-down automata, as well as regular and context-free grammars. In this note, we show that the languages generated by regular quantum grammars are equivalent to the languages generated by regular grammars. Therefore, from the perspective of generating languages, regular quantum grammars are not more powerful than classical regular grammars. This implies that it may be necessary to look for more well-formed definitions of quantum grammars and maybe those of quantum automata.

International Conference on Communications, Circuits and Systems•Jan 1, 2004•1 citation

Not What It Seems

James Francis Burke

Scientific American•Jul 1, 2000•5 citations

If this, why not that?

Charles Day

Physics Today•Feb 1, 2022•0 citations

Holographic Calculation of Boundary Entropy

Tatsuo Azeyanagia, Andreas Karchb, Tadashi Takayanagia +1 more

We use the holographic proposal for calculating entanglement entropies to determine the boundary entropy of defects in strongly coupled two-dimensional conformal field theories. We study several examples including the Janus solution and show that the boundary entropy extracted from the entanglement entropy as well as its more conventional definition via the free energy agree with each other. Maybe somewhat surprisingly we find that, unlike in the case of a conformal field theory with boundary, the entanglement entropy for a generic region in a theory with defect carries detailed information about the microscopic details of the theory. We also argue that the g-theorem for the boundary entropy is closely related to the strong subadditivity of the entanglement entropy.

•Aug 18, 2016•99 citations
To study quantum computation, Moore and Crutchfield (Theoret. Comput. Sci. vol. 237, pp. 275-306, 2000) proposed quantum versions of finite-state and push-down automata, as well as regular and context-free grammars. In this note, we show that the languages generated by regular quantum grammars are equivalent to the languages generated by regular grammars. Therefore, from the perspective of generating languages, regular quantum grammars are not more powerful than classical regular grammars. This implies that it may be necessary to look for more well-formed definitions of quantum grammars and maybe those of quantum automata.
We use the holographic proposal for calculating entanglement entropies to determine the boundary entropy of defects in strongly coupled two-dimensional conformal field theories. We study several examples including the Janus solution and show that the boundary entropy extracted from the entanglement entropy as well as its more conventional definition via the free energy agree with each other. Maybe somewhat surprisingly we find that, unlike in the case of a conformal field theory with boundary, the entanglement entropy for a generic region in a theory with defect carries detailed information about the microscopic details of the theory. We also argue that the g-theorem for the boundary entropy is closely related to the strong subadditivity of the entanglement entropy.