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

Brazilian Journal of Physics

Significance of Entangling Operators in Quantum Two Penny Flip Game

Sundaresh Sankrith, Bihag Dave, S. Balakrishnan

Published Aug 19, 2019• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/s13538-019-00698-x

Related papers

Do quantum strategies always win? A case study in the entangled quantum penny flip game.

Namit Anand, Colin Benjamin

•Dec 23, 2014•0 citations

Classical rules and quantum strategies in penny flip game

S. Balakrishnan, R. Sankaranarayanan

Quantum Information Processing•Aug 17, 2012•10 citations

Evolutionarily stable sets in quantum penny flip games

Tina Yu, Radel Ben-Av

arXiv:1211.7210•Quantum Information Processing•Dec 6, 2012•6 citations

(In)significance of entangling operators in the noisy duopoly games

A. V. S. Kameshwari, S. Balakrishnan

Quantum Information Processing•Apr 30, 2022•2 citations

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT THROUGH COIN FLIPS: AN INTUITIVE APPROACH

Kumar, Anil

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

Non-Abelian strategies in quantum penny flip game

Hiroaki Mishima

In this paper, we formulate and analyze generalizations of the quantum penny flip game. In the penny flip game, one coin has two states, heads or tails, and two players apply alternating operations on the coin. In the original Meyer game, the first player is allowed to use quantum (i.e., non-commutative) operations, but the second player is still only allowed to use classical (i.e., commutative) operations. In our generalized games, both players are allowed to use non-commutative operations, with the second player being partially restricted in what operators they use. We show that even if the second player is allowed to use “phase-variable” operations, which are non-Abelian in general, the first player still has winning strategies. Furthermore, we show that even when the second player is allowed to choose one from two or more elements of the group |$U(2)$|⁠, the second player has winning strategies under certain conditions. These results suggest that there is often a method for restoring the quantum state disturbed by another agent.

arXiv:1707.00938•Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics•Nov 29, 2017•1 citation
In this paper, we formulate and analyze generalizations of the quantum penny flip game. In the penny flip game, one coin has two states, heads or tails, and two players apply alternating operations on the coin. In the original Meyer game, the first player is allowed to use quantum (i.e., non-commutative) operations, but the second player is still only allowed to use classical (i.e., commutative) operations. In our generalized games, both players are allowed to use non-commutative operations, with the second player being partially restricted in what operators they use. We show that even if the second player is allowed to use “phase-variable” operations, which are non-Abelian in general, the first player still has winning strategies. Furthermore, we show that even when the second player is allowed to choose one from two or more elements of the group |U(2)U(2)U(2)|⁠, the second player has winning strategies under certain conditions. These results suggest that there is often a method for restoring the quantum state disturbed by another agent.