Physical review. E

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement’ ”

Kamel Ourabah, Mouloud Tribeche

Published Aug 12, 2016• 0 citations

Abstract

We rely on our proof of the nondecreasing character of quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement [Phys. Rev. E 92, 032114 (2015)PLEEE81539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.92.032114], and we put it into perspective with the results of Bosyk et al. [Quantum Inf Process 15, 3393 (2016)10.1007/s11128-016-1329-5]. Our method, adopted for the proof that Kaniadakis entropy does not decrease under a projective measurement, is based on Jensen's inequalities, while the method proposed by the authors of the Comment represents another alternative and clearly correct method to prove the same thing. Furthermore, we clarify that our interest in Kaniadakis entropy is due to the fact that this entropy has a transparent physical significance, emerging within the special relativity.

DOI: 10.1103/physreve.94.026104

Related papers

Comment on “Quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement”

G. M. Bosyk, Steeve Zozor, Federico Holik +2 more

We comment on the main result given by Ourabah et al. [Phys. Rev. E 92, 032114 (2015)PLEEE81539-375510.1103/PhysRevE.92.032114], noting that it can be derived as a special case of the more general study that we have provided in [Quantum Inf Process 15, 3393 (2016)10.1007/s11128-016-1329-5]. Our proof of the nondecreasing character under projective measurements of so-called generalized (h,ϕ) entropies (that comprise the Kaniadakis family as a particular case) has been based on majorization and Schur-concavity arguments. As a consequence, we have obtained that this property is obviously satisfied by Kaniadakis entropy but at the same time is fulfilled by all entropies preserving majorization. In addition, we have seen that our result holds for any bistochastic map, being a projective measurement a particular case. We argue here that looking at these facts from the point of view given in [Quantum Inf Process 15, 3393 (2016)10.1007/s11128-016-1329-5] not only simplifies the demonstrations but allows for a deeper understanding of the entropic properties involved.

Physical review. EAug 12, 20161 citation

Quantum Kaniadakis entropy under projective measurement

Kamel Ourabah, Amel Hiba Hamici-Bendimerad, Mouloud Tribeche

It is well known that the von Neumann entropy of a quantum state does not decrease with a projective measurement. This property holds for Tsallis and Rényi entropies as well. We show that the recently introduced quantum version of the Kaniadakis entropy preserves this property.

Physical Review ESep 10, 201517 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum string seal is insecure’ ”

H. F. Chau

In Phys. Rev. A 76, 056301 (2007), He claimed that the proof in my earlier paper [Phys. Rev. A 75, 012327 (2007)] is insufficient to conclude the insecurity of all quantum string seals because my measurement strategy cannot obtain nontrivial information on the sealed string and escape detection at the same time. Here, I clarify that our disagreement comes from our adoption of two different criteria on the minimum amount of information a quantum string seal can reveal to members of the public. I also point out that He did not follow my measurement strategy correctly.

arXiv:0711.2768Physical Review ANov 16, 20074 citations

Reply to ``Comment on `Similarity between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics: Entropy, temperature, and Carnot cycle' ''

Sumiyoshi Abe

In their Comment on the paper [Abe and Okuyama, Phys. Rev. E 83, 021121 (2011)], González-Díaz and Díaz-Solórzano discuss that the initial state of the quantum-mechanical analog of the Carnot cycle should be not in a pure state but in a mixed state due to a projective measurement of the system energy. Here, first the Comment is shown to miss the point. Then, second, multiple projective measurements are discussed as a generalization of the Comment, although they are not relevant to the work commented.

Physical Review EMay 26, 20151 citation

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

Physical Review AJun 2, 20251 citation

Reply to “Comment on ‘Semiquantum-key distribution using less than four quantum states’ ”

Xiangfu Zou, Daowen Qiu

In the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A 83, 046301 (2011)], Boyer and Mor pointed out that the first conclusion of Lemma 1 in our paper [X. Zou, D. Qiu, L. Li, L. Wu, and L. Li, Phys. Rev. A 79, 052312 (2009)] is not correct, and therefore, the proof of Theorem 5 based on Lemma 1 is wrong. Furthermore, they gave a direct proof for Theorem 5 and affirmed the conclusions in our original paper. In this Reply, we admit the first conclusion of Lemma 1 is not correct, but we need to point out that the second conclusion of Lemma 1 is correct. Accordingly, all the proofs for Lemma 2, Lemma 3, and Theorems 3--6 are based only on the second conclusion of Lemma 1 and therefore are correct.

arXiv:1010.4233Physical Review AApr 11, 201123 citations