text:
# Regularization of Legendre Function Series for Charged Particles Improved Nearside-Farside Subamplitudes

(August 20, 2002)

## Abstract

A simple regularization procedure is proposed for the Legendre function series of improved nearside-farside subamplitudes for charged particles elastic scattering. The procedure is the extension of the usual one which defines the partial wave series for the scattering amplitude in the presence of a long range Coulomb term in the potential, and it provides the same convergence rate.

The nearside-farside (NF) method proposed by Fuller Fuller (1975) is an effective tool to separate the full elastic scattering amplitude $`f(\theta )`$, where $`\theta `$ is the scattering angle, into simpler subamplitudes Hussein and McVoy (1984); Brandan and Satchler (1997). The Fuller NF subamplitudes are usually more slowly varying and less structured then $`f(\theta )`$. This allows one to explain the complicated patterns appearing in some cross sections, $`\sigma (\theta )=|f(\theta )|^2`$, as interference effects between simpler nearside (N) and farside (F) subamplitudes. These subamplitudes can often be interpreted as contributions from simple scattering mechanisms allowing a physical understanding of the scattering process Hussein and McVoy (1984).

Sometimes, particularly when applied to scattering of $`\alpha `$ particles and light heavy-ions at intermediate and high energies, the Fuller NF subamplitudes are biased by the presence of unphysical contributions, making the NF subamplitudes more structured then desired. Recently an improved NF method has been proposed Anni et al. (2001, 2002) to further extend the effectiveness of the original Fuller technique. The improved NF method is based on a modified Whiteley et al. (2001) Yennie, Ravenall, and Wilson (YRW) Yennie et al. (1954) resummation identity, which holds for Legendre polynomial series (LPS). The increased effectiveness descends from using resummation parameters with values reducing the unphysical contributions to the Fuller NF subamplitudes.

The Legendre function series (LFS) for the improved NF subamplitudes are, however, not convergent in the usual sense. A resummation technique Anni and Renna (1981), named in the following extended YRW (EYRW) resummation, was used in Refs. Anni et al. (2001, 2002) to obtain convergent series. At forward angles, the rate of convergence of the EYRW series is not satisfactory in the presence of a long range Coulomb term in the potential. For $`\alpha `$ particles, light and heavy ions scattering this fact is disturbing, because it compels one to use more partial waves then necessary in standard optical potentials calculations and in the usual Fuller NF method. Here we present a regularization procedure that, if applied to LFS of improved NF subamplitudes, makes these series as rapidly convergent as those of more conventional approaches.

The starting point for the improved NF method is the quantum mechanical partial wave series (PWS) of the elastic scattering amplitude

$$f(\theta )=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_lP_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(1)
where $`x=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`P_l(x)`$ is the Legendre polynomial of degree $`l`$, $`x1`$, and $`a_l`$ is given in terms of the scattering matrix element $`S_l`$ by

$$a_l=\frac{1}{2ik}(2l+1)S_l,$$
(2)
where $`k`$ is the wavenumber.

To obtain the improved NF subamplitudes, one substitutes the usual factor $`S_l1`$ with $`S_l`$ on the r.h.s. of (2). The dropped term ensured the convergence of (1) for scattering by short range potentials, for which $`S_l1`$ exponentially for $`l\mathrm{}`$ (Alfaro and Regge (1965), p. 82). In this case, having omitted a term $`\delta (1x)`$, where $`\delta `$ indicates the Dirac distribution (e.g. see Brink (1985), p. 52), the sum in (1) is defined only in a distributional sense. In the presence of a long range Coulomb term in the potential the dropped 1 is not relevant for convergence. With or without the 1, the sum in (1) is convergent only in a distributional sense. In Taylor (1974); Garibotti and Grinstein (1979); Gesztesy and Lang (1980); Goodmanson and Taylor (1980); gui Lin (2000), and in references therein, one can find more or less recent discussions on the convergence of the Coulombic PWS, and of the different techniques (Padè approximants, Abel summation, or different regularization procedures) solving the problem.

The improved NF subamplitudes are obtained by using for $`f(\theta )`$, in place of (1), its resummed form

$$f(\theta )=\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{1+\beta _ix}\right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n^{(r)}P_n(x),$$
(3)
$`r=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, where

$$\alpha _n^{(i)}=\beta _i\frac{n}{2n1}\alpha _{n1}^{(i1)}+\alpha _n^{(i1)}+\beta _i\frac{n+1}{2n+3}\alpha _{n+1}^{(i1)},$$
(4)
with $`\beta _0=0`$, $`\alpha _n^{(0)}=a_n`$, and $`\alpha _1^{(i)}=0`$. The resummed form (3) is an exact mathematical identity deriving from the recurrence property of the Legendre polynomials. It holds for real or complex values of the resummation parameters $`\beta _i(i0`$), restricted only by the condition $`1+\beta _ix0`$, for $`1x<1`$. The integer index $`r`$ is the order of the resummation, and $`r=0`$ means no resummation of the original PWS. In (3) we changed the index of the sum (1) (from $`l`$ to $`n`$) to remark that the index of the resummed Legendre polynomial series (LPS) in (3) has not, for $`r0`$, the physical meaning of orbital quantum number, differently from the index of the original PWS (1). Similarly the terms $`\alpha _n^{(i)}`$ have not the physical meaning of partial wave amplitudes. The usual YRW resummed form Yennie et al. (1954) for $`f(\theta )`$ is obtained by setting $`\beta _i=1`$ ($`i0`$) in (3).

We note that for pure Coulomb scattering, for which

$$\alpha _n^{C(0)}a_n^C=\frac{1}{2ik}(2n+1)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1+i\eta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1i\eta )}$$
(5)
where $`\eta `$ is the Sommerfeld parameter, by using (4) one obtains, for large $`n`$ values,

$$\alpha _n^{C(1)}=[1+\beta _1+O(n^2)]\alpha _n^{C(0)}.$$
(6)
This means that for $`\beta _i1`$ the asymptotic Coulombic behavior of $`\alpha _n^{C(r)}`$ does not depend, apart from a renormalization factor, on the resummation order $`r`$. On the other hand, given a resummed LPS of order $`r`$ (eventually 0), by applying an additional YRW ($`\beta _{r+1}=1`$) resummation one obtains a convergent series for asymptotically Coulombic $`\alpha _n^{(r)}`$. Any successive YRW resummation improves the LPS convergence by a factor $`O(n^2)`$.

The improved NF subamplitudes are obtained by splitting in (3) the $`P_n(x)`$ into traveling angular components

$$P_n(x)=Q_n^{()}(x)+Q_n^{(+)}(x),$$
(7)
where (for $`x\pm 1`$)

$$Q_n^{()}(x)=\frac{1}{2}[P_n(x)\pm \frac{2i}{\pi }Q_n(x)],$$
(8)
with $`Q_n(x)`$ the Legendre function of the second kind of degree $`n`$. By inserting (7) into (3), $`f(\theta )`$ is separated into the sum of two subamplitudes

$$f(\theta )=f_{\{\beta \}}^{()}(\theta )+f_{\{\beta \}}^{(+)}(\theta ),$$
(9)
with

$$f_{\{\beta \}}^{()}(\theta )=\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{1}{1+\beta _ix}\right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n^{(r)}Q_n^{()}(x).$$
(10)
In (10), with the subscript $`\{\beta \}`$ we indicate that the N ($`f_{\{\beta \}}^{()}`$) and F ($`f_{\{\beta \}}^{(+)}`$) subamplitudes depend, differently from $`f(\theta )`$, on the resummation order $`r`$ and parameters $`\beta _i`$. This occurs because the resummed form of series (LFS) of linear combination of first and second kind Legendre functions, of integer degree, is different from (3). In fact, let us indicate with

$$(\theta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d_n_n(x)$$
(11)
a LFS in $`_n(x)=pP_n(x)+qQ_n(x)`$, with $`p`$ and $`q`$ independent of $`n`$. Owing to the property $`nQ_{n1}(x)1`$ as $`n0`$ Anni and Renna (1981), the resummed form of $`(x)`$, of order $`s`$ and parameters $`\gamma _i`$, is Anni et al. (2002)

$`(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{s}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\gamma _ix}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\delta _n^{(s)}_n(x)`$ (12)
$`+`$ $`q{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{s}{}}}\gamma _i\delta _0^{(i1)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\gamma _jx}}.`$
Equation (12) is an exact mathematical identity extending the validity of (3) to more general LFS, and it reduces to (3) for LPS ($`q=0`$). The conditions of validity of (12), and the recurrence relation for the resummed coefficients, are the same as those for (3), after substituting $`r,\beta ,\alpha `$, and $`a`$ with $`s,\gamma ,\delta `$, and $`d`$, respectively.

Because the $`Q_n^{()}(x)`$ used to split $`P_n(x)`$ in (7) are a particular case of the more general $`_n(x)`$ (with $`p=1/2`$, and $`q=\pm i/\pi `$), the presence of the last term in (12) is responsible for the dependence of $`f_{\{\beta \}}^{()}(\theta )`$ on $`r`$ and $`\beta _i`$. The last term on the r.h.s. of (12) gives a contribution if the splitting (7) is inserted in (1). This contribution is absent if the splitting is inserted in (3).

In Refs. Anni et al. (2001, 2002) it was observed that unphysical contributions, when appearing in the Fuller NF subamplitudes ($`r=0`$ in (10)), decrease by increasing $`r`$ in (10) (the values $`r=1`$, and $`2`$ were tested), if the $`\beta _i`$ are selected to make null the coefficients $`\alpha _0^{(r)},\alpha _1^{(r)},\mathrm{}\alpha _{r1}^{(r)}`$ of the resummed LFS ($`\alpha _0^{(1)}`$, and $`\alpha _{0,1}^{(2)}`$ for the cases tested). In this way one drops the contributions to the NF resummed subamplitudes from low $`n`$ values for which the splitting (7), though exact by construction, is not expected to be physically meaningful.

The $`\alpha _n^{(r)}`$ in (3) and (10) go asymptotically to a constant for short range potentials, or are Coulombic in the presence of a Coulomb term in the potential. Because of this the corresponding LFS are not convergent in the usual sense. In Refs. Anni et al. (2001, 2002) the convergence was forced, and accelerated, by applying to the improved LFS a final (EYRW) resummation (12), of order $`s1`$, with $`d_n=\alpha _n^{(r)}`$, $`\gamma _i=1`$, and $`i0`$. The final EYRW resummation ensures the numerical convergence of the LFS, with a convergence rate increasing with $`s`$. The increased rate of convergence costs, however, the cancellation of significant digits (see Anni and Renna (1981) for details), and numerically the procedure may results not convenient or even impossible, using arithmetic with a fixed digit number.

These troubles can be avoided by investigating the properties of the resummation identity (12) with $`d_n`$ equal to the pure Coulomb $`a_n^C`$ given by (5). In this case we explicitly know the l.h.s. of (12) for the relevant $`p`$ and $`q`$ values. In fact, if $`p=1`$ and $`q=0`$ it is the Rutherford scattering amplitude $`f_R(\theta )`$, while for $`p=1/2`$ and $`q=\pm i/\pi `$ one obtains the Fuller-Rutherford NF subamplitudes $`f_{FR}^{()}(\theta )`$ (Fuller (1975) Eqs. 14 a, b). Because (12) is exact it holds for arbitrary $`\gamma _i`$, and therefore also for $`\gamma _i=\beta _i`$, with $`\beta _i`$ obtained by applying the improved resummation method to the exact $`S_l`$. With this choice the pure Coulomb resummed coefficients $`\alpha _n^{C(r)}`$ asymptotically approach $`\alpha _n^{(r)}`$ as rapidly as the pure Coulomb $`S`$-matrix elements, $`S_l^C`$, approach $`S_l`$ in the usual optical potential calculations.

With the change of notation $`f^{(0)}f`$, $`f^{(1)}f_{\{\beta \}}^{()}`$, $`f_R^{(0)}f_R`$, $`f_R^{(1)}f_{FR}^{()}`$, $`_n^{(0)}P_n`$, and $`_n^{(1)}Q_n^{()}`$, by subtracting from (3), or (10), the corresponding resummed forms (12) applied to pure Coulomb scattering ($`s=r,\gamma _i=\beta _i,\delta _n^{(s)}=\alpha _n^{C(r)}`$ and $`q=0,1`$), one obtains the final result

$`f^{(m)}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\beta _ix}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[\alpha _n^{(r)}\alpha _n^{C(r)}]_n^{(m)}(x)`$
$`+`$ $`f_R^{(m)}(\theta )+m{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}\beta _i\alpha _0^{C(i1)}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\beta _jx}},`$
with $`m=0`$ for the full amplitude and $`m=1`$ for the NF subamplitudes. For $`r=0`$ and $`m=0`$, or $`m=1`$, Eq. (LABEL:EqFin) is the usual regularization procedure defining the r.h.s of (3), or (10), in the presence of a long range Coulomb term in the potential. This procedure is based on adding the explicit expression of $`f_R(\theta )`$, or $`f_{FR}^{()}(\theta )`$, and subtracting its formal PWS, or LFS, for the full amplitude (Ref. Messiah (1961), p. 428), or the Fuller NF subamplitudes Fuller (1975). For $`r1`$, Eq. (LABEL:EqFin) is the generalization of this regularization procedure to resummed forms of the full amplitude, or NF subamplitudes. The sum appearing in this term is as rapidly convergent as the usual sum with $`r=0`$.

Before showing the effectiveness of our regularization procedure in a physically interesting case, we show the difficulties met by the EYRW technique Anni and Renna (1981) to ensure, and speed up, the convergence of improved, or not, LFS for pure Coulomb scattering. In this case $`a_na_n^C`$, and the LFS on the r.h.s. of (LABEL:EqFin) is identically null, with arbitrary choice of $`\beta _i`$. For $`r=0`$, Eq. (LABEL:EqFin) trivially states that the scattering amplitude ($`m=0`$) is the Rutherford amplitude, and the NF subamplitudes ($`m=1`$) are the usual Fuller-Rutherford ones. For $`r>0`$, by choosing $`\beta _i`$ accordingly with the improved resummation method, Eq. (LABEL:EqFin) gives the explicit expression of the improved NF subamplitudes ($`m=1`$) in term of the usual Fuller-Rutherford ones, and of simple functions depending on $`\beta _i`$ and $`\alpha _0^{C(i1)}`$. For simplicity we will name exact this explicit expression for pure Coulomb improved NF subamplitudes.

In Fig. 1 the thick curves show the ratio to the Rutherford cross section, $`\sigma _R(\theta )`$, of the exact pure Coulomb improved F cross sections, of order $`r=0,1,`$ and 2 ($`r=0`$ meaning the original Fuller method). In the same figure the thin curves show the F cross sections obtained by forcing, and accelerating, the convergence of (10) with an additional EYRW resummation of order $`s=4`$, and fixing the maximum number of the summed partial waves to $`l_{\text{max}}=100`$ and $`1000`$. The results were obtained with $`\eta =10`$, which is a typical value of the Sommerfeld parameter for heavy-ion scattering. For this $`\eta `$ value the improved resummation parameters are $`\beta _1=0.9802+0.1980i`$ (for $`r=1`$), $`\beta _1=1.0072+0.1166i`$ and $`\beta _2=0.7804+0.6052i`$ (for $`r=2`$). Figure 1 shows that the final EYRW resummation Anni and Renna (1981) ensures the convergence of the LFS (10), but the convergence rate is low. For $`\theta 5^{}`$ a numerically satisfactory result is not obtained even with $`l_{\text{max}}=1000`$. By fixing $`l_{\text{max}}`$ and the final resummation order, the angle at with the truncated LFS disagrees with the exact result increases with the improved resummation order.

Figure 1 also shows that the improved resummation method reduces, particularly at forward angles, the unphysical F contribution present in the original Fuller NF method. However it does not suppress it, and is ineffective at $`\theta 180^{}`$. This is an insurmountable difficulty connected with the NF splitting (7), mathematically continuing (at $`\theta =180^{}`$) the N subamplitude into a F one, or vice versa. This also in absence of physically meaningful subamplitudes justifying this continuation. In these situations the only practical suggestion we can give is to not take seriously the NF subamplitudes at $`\theta 180^{}`$, if in a neighbourood of this angle the cross section and the LIP of the full amplitude have a non oscillatory behavior, suggesting the dominance of a single side (positive LIP for F and negative for N) contribution. We remember that in Anni et al. (2001) the LIP (local impact parameter) is defined as the derivative of the argument of the scattering amplitude with respect to the scattering angle, named LAM (local angular momentum) by FullerFuller (1975), divided by the wavenumber $`k`$.

As a second example of the effectiveness of our regularization procedure, we consider the first order improved F cross section and LIP of the phenomenological optical potential WS2, used to fit Khoa et al. (2000) the 16O + 16O elastic cross section at $`E_{\text{lab}}=145`$ MeV. The improved resummation parameter is in this case $`\beta _1=.99970.0798i`$ Anni et al. (2002). The upper panel of Fig. 2 shows, for $`\theta <30^{}`$ and $`l_{\text{max}}=150`$, the F LIP calculated using our regularization procedure (thick curve) and different order (thin lines) EYRW resummations Anni and Renna (1981). The lower panel shows the corresponding F cross sections. Symmetrization effects were ignored.

Note that 150 partial waves are more than really necessary to obtain reliable scattering amplitudes using our regularization procedure. Using an EYRW resummation of order 1 (thin dotted curves), this partial wave number is not sufficient to obtain a satisfactory result. By increasing the EYRW resummation order it decreases the angular width of the region where the thin curves differ from the corresponding thick ones. However, for $`\theta 5^{}`$, the 150 partial waves used are not enough, even using a fourth order final EYRW resummation.

These results show, in practical examples, that EYRW resummed LFS for asymptotically Coulombic $`S_l`$ are convergent, with a convergence rate increasing by increasing the resummation order. Compared with the extension here given of the usual regularization procedure for asymptotically Coulombic $`S_l`$ the EYRW resummation technique effectiveness is, however, computationally poor. The regularization procedure here described can be easily extended to make rapidly convergent the LFS in (3) and (10) for scattering by short range potentials. In these cases, however, also an additional first order EYRW resummation makes the LFS convergent with the same rapidity, and there is no practical advantage in using a different procedure.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author is indebted to J. N. L. Connor for stimulating and helpfull discussions.


format: text

text:
# ON ENTANGLED INFORMATION AND QUANTUM CAPACITY.

## 1. Introduction

Quantum theory, which celebrated its 100 years anniversary last December, gives new possibilities for transmission of information which cannot be explained in the framework of information theory based on the classical (Kolmogorovian) probability theory. These possibilities are due to the *entanglements*, the specifically quantum (q-) correlations which were first studied by Schrödinger who introduced this term in his analysis of EPR paradox (for more details of this history see the anniversary review paper ).

Many authors have recently suggested to use the entanglements for quantum information processes in quantum computation, quantum teleportation, and quantum cryptography . The mathematical study of entanglement as a special type of quantum correlations from an operational point of view has been initiated in . In these papers the entangled mutual information was introduced as the von Neumann entropy of the entangled compound state related to the product of marginal states in the sense of Lindblad, Araki and Umegaki relative entropy . The corresponding quantum mutual information leads to an entropy bound for quantum capacity, the additivity of which is not obvious for non-trivial quantum channels.

In this paper we will use another possibility to define the entangled mutual entropy, based on the alternative definition of relative entropy first introduced in \[10, Be\_Sta84\]. As it was proved in  our relative entropy is larger than the LAU relative entropy, so that based on it quantum mutual information will give a larger entropy bound for quantum capacity.

We are going to prove that this bound for quantum capacity is in a sense additive, so that there is no need to consider under certain conditions this mutual information for the powers of quantum channel in order to guarantee that this entropy bound gives the real upper bound for long quantum block encodings. As far as we know this is first such measure of quantum capacity, although it is larger of  and all other earlier suggested measures.

For the benefit of reader we repeat all needed definitions and notations related to the entanglement from  in the first part of this paper. As in these papers we shall use the word entanglement in the generalized sense including the classical (c-) correlations as c-entanglements, and calling non-classical correlations as true quantum entanglements.

We shall show that any compound state can be achieved by a generalized entanglement, and the classically (c-) entangled states of c-q encodings and q-c decodings can be achieved by d-entanglements, the diagonal c-entanglements for these disentangled states. The pure orthogonal disentangled compound states are most informative among the c-entangled states in the sense that the maximum of mutual information over all c-entanglements is achieved on the extreme c-entangled states as the von Neumann entropy S$`\left(\varsigma \right)`$ of a given normal state $`\varsigma `$. Thus the maximum of mutual entropy over all classical couplings, described by c-entanglements of a classical probe systems $`𝒜`$ to the system $``$, is bounded by the c-capacity $`𝖢=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{rank}`$, where $`\mathrm{rank}`$ is the dimensionality of a maximal Abelian subalgebra $`𝒜`$.

We prove that the truly entangled states are most informative in the sense that the maximum of mutual entropy over all entanglements to the quantum system $``$ is achieved by an extreme entanglement of the probe system $`𝒜=`$, called standard for a given $`\varsigma `$. The mutual information for such extreme q-compound state defines another type of entropy, the q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)2`$S$`\left(\varsigma \right)`$. The maximum of mutual entropy over all quantum couplings, described by true quantum entanglements of probe systems $`𝒜`$ to the system $``$ is bounded by $`𝖢_q=\mathrm{log}dim`$.

In this paper we consider the case of a discrete decomposable W\*-algebra $``$ for which the results are achieved by relatively simple proofs. The purely quantum case of a simple algebra $`=\left(\right)`$, for which some proofs are rather obvious, will be also published elsewhere.

## 2. Compound States and Entanglements

Let $``$ denote a separable Hilbert space of quantum system, and $`\left(\right)`$ be the algebra of all linear operators $`B:`$ having the Hermitian adjoints $`B^{}`$ on $``$. In order to include the classical discrete systems as a particular quantum case, we shall fix a decomposable subalgebra $`\left(\right)`$ of bounded observables $`B`$ of the block-diagonal form $`B=\left[B\left(i\right)\delta _i^k\right]`$, where $`B\left(i\right)\left(_i\right)`$ are arbitrary bounded operators in Hilbert subspaces $`_i`$ corresponding to an orthogonal decomposition $`=_i_i`$.

A normal state on $``$ is a positive linear functional $`\varsigma :`$ which can be expressed as

(2.1)
$$\varsigma \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\chi ^{}B\chi =\mathrm{Tr}B\sigma ,\text{ }B\text{.}$$

Here $`𝒢`$ is another separable Hilbert space, $`\chi `$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator from $`𝒢`$ to $``$, $`\chi ^{}`$ is its adjoint $`𝒢`$, and $`\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢`$ (or simply $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ if there is no ambiguity) denotes trace in $`𝒢`$ (or in $``$). This $`\chi `$ is called the amplitude operator (just amplitude if $`𝒢`$ is one dimensional space $``$, $`\chi =\psi `$ with $`\chi ^{}\chi =\psi ^2=1`$ in which case $`\chi ^{}`$ is the functional $`\psi ^{}`$ from $``$ to $`)`$. If the normal state $`\varsigma `$ is pure on the decomposable algebra $``$, then the density operator $`\sigma =\chi \chi ^{}`$ is uniquely defined as one dimensional projector $`P=\psi \psi ^{}`$. For mixed states the $`\sigma `$ in (2.1) may not be unique, but it is uniquely defined as a positive trace one operator ($`\sigma 0`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}\sigma =1`$) by an additional condition $`\sigma `$, and is called in this case the *probability operator on* $``$, denoted as $`\sigma =`$PB.

The amplitude operator is not unique, however it is defined uniquely up to a unitary transform $`\chi ^{}U\chi ^{}`$ in $`𝒢`$ as a *probability amplitude* by the additional condition $`\chi \chi ^{}`$. Such a $`\chi `$ always exists as square root of the decomposable probability operator $`\mathrm{P}_{}=\mathrm{P}_{}\left(i\right)`$ with the components P$`{}_{}{}^{}\left(i\right)\left(_i\right)`$ normalized as

$$p\left(i\right)=\mathrm{Tr}__i\mathrm{P}_{}\left(i\right)0,\underset{i}{}p\left(i\right)=1.$$

We denote by $`_{}`$ the predual space to $``$ identified with the Banach subspace $`𝒯\left(\right)=𝒯\left(_i\right)`$ of trace class operators $`\sigma =\sigma _i`$, where $`\sigma _i𝒯\left(_i\right)`$. The probability operators (the unique densities) $`\mathrm{P}_𝒜`$, $`\mathrm{P}_{}`$ of the states $`\varrho `$, $`\varsigma `$ on different algebras $`𝒜\left(𝒢\right)`$, $`\left(\right)`$ will be usually denoted by the variables $`\rho 𝒜_{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ corresponding to their Greek variations $`\varrho `$ and $`\varsigma `$.

In general, $`𝒢`$ is not one dimensional, the dimensionality $`dim𝒢`$ must not be less than $`\mathrm{rank}\rho `$, the dimensionality of the range $`\mathrm{ran}\chi ^{}`$ of the density operator $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\chi ^{}\chi `$ coinciding with $`\mathrm{rank}\sigma `$ of the probability operator $`\sigma =\chi \chi ^{}`$. This implies that the $`\mathrm{rank}𝒜`$ of any discretely decomposable subalgebra $`𝒜\left(𝒢\right)`$ having $`\rho `$ as the probability operator $`\rho 𝒜`$ must not be less than $`\mathrm{rank}\sigma `$ if $`\sigma =\chi \chi ^{}`$.

We can always equip $``$ (and we will equip the other Hilbert spaces) with an isometric involution $`J=J^{}`$, $`J^2=I`$, having the properties of complex conjugation on $``$,

$$J\lambda _j\eta _j=\overline{\lambda _j}J\eta _j,\lambda _j,\eta _j\text{,}$$

with respect to which the fixed density $`\sigma `$ is invariant, $`J\sigma J=\sigma `$, as a real element of an invariant Abelian subalgebra $`𝒜=J𝒜J`$of $`\left(\right)`$. The latter can also be expressed as the symmetricity property $`\stackrel{~}{\varsigma }=\varsigma `$ of the state $`\varsigma \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}B\sigma `$ given by the real Hermitian and so symmetric density operator $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\overline{\sigma }`$ on $``$ with respect to the complex conjugation $`\overline{B}=JBJ`$ and the tilde operation (transposition) $`\stackrel{~}{B}=JB^{}J`$ on $``$. One can always assume that $`J`$ is the standard complex conjugation in an eigen-representation of $`\sigma `$, and take the maximal Abelian subalgebra $`𝒜\left(\right)`$ of all diagonal operators in this basis.

Given the amplitude operator $`\chi `$, one can define not only the states $`\varsigma `$ by $`\sigma =\chi \chi ^{}`$ on the algebra $``$ but also a *pure compound* state $`\varpi `$ on the algebra of all bounded operators on the tensor product Hilbert space $`𝒢`$ by

$$\varpi \left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}B\chi \stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\chi ^{}B\chi \stackrel{~}{A}.$$

Thus defined $`\varpi `$ is uniquely extended by linearity to a normal state on the algebra $`\left(𝒢\right)`$ generated by all the linear combinations $`C=\lambda _jA_jB_j`$ due to $`\varpi \left(II\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\chi ^{}\chi =1`$ and

$`\varpi \left(C^{}C\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,k}{}}\overline{\lambda }_i\lambda _k\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\stackrel{~}{A}_k\stackrel{~}{A}_i^{}\chi ^{}B_i^{}B_k\chi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,k}{}}\overline{\lambda }_i\lambda _k\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\stackrel{~}{A}_i^{}\chi ^{}B_i^{}B_k\chi \stackrel{~}{A}_k=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢X^{}X0,`$
where $`X=_j\lambda _jB_j\chi \stackrel{~}{A}_j`$.

This compound state $`\varpi `$ is pure on $`\left(𝒢\right)`$, and it is entangled unless its marginal state $`\varsigma `$ is also pure. Indeed, $`\varpi `$ corresponds to the amplitude $`\psi 𝒢`$ defined by an involution $`J`$ in $`𝒢`$ as

$$\left(\zeta \eta \right)^{}\psi =\eta ^{}\chi J\zeta ,\zeta 𝒢,\eta .$$

This definition implies

$$\psi ^{}\left(AB\right)\psi =\mathrm{Tr}B\chi JA^{}J\chi ^{}A\left(𝒢\right),B\left(\right)$$

as it can be easily seen for $`A=\zeta \zeta ^{}`$, $`B=\eta \eta ^{}`$, and $`\varsigma `$ and $`\varrho `$ are the marginals of $`\varpi `$ defined as

(2.2)
$$\psi ^{}\left(IB\right)\psi =\mathrm{Tr}_{}B\sigma ,\psi ^{}\left(AI\right)\psi =\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢A\rho .$$

As follows from the next theorem, any pure compound state

$$\varpi \left(AB\right)=\psi ^{}\left(AB\right)\psi ,A𝒜,B$$

given on the decomposable $`𝒜`$ by a probability amplitude $`\psi 𝒢`$ with $`\psi \psi ^{}𝒜`$, can be achieved as described by a unique entanglement of its marginal states $`\varrho `$ and $`\varsigma `$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\varpi :𝒜`$ be a compound state

(2.3)
$$\varpi \left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon ^{}\left(AB\right)\upsilon ,$$

defined by an amplitude operator $`\upsilon :𝒢`$ on a separable Hilbert space $``$ into the tensor product Hilbert space $`𝒢`$ with

$$\upsilon \upsilon ^{}𝒜,\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon ^{}\upsilon =1.$$

Then this state is achieved by an entangling operator $`\chi :𝒢`$ as

(2.4)
$$\varpi \left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left(IB\right)\chi \stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\chi ^{}\left(IB\right)\chi \stackrel{~}{A}$$

of the states (2.2) with $`\rho =J\chi ^{}\chi J`$ and $`\sigma =\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi \chi ^{}`$, where $`\chi `$ is an operator $`𝒢`$ satisfying the conditions

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi 𝒜\chi ^{},\chi ^{}\left(I\right)\chi 𝒜.$$

The amplitude operator $`\chi `$ is uniquely defined by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }U=\upsilon `$, where

(2.5)
$$\left(\zeta \eta \right)^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }\xi =\left(J\xi \eta \right)^{}\chi J\zeta ,\xi ,\zeta 𝒢,\eta ,$$

up to a unitary transformation $`U`$ of the minimal space $`=\mathrm{ran}\upsilon ^{}`$ equipped with an isometric involution $`J`$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we can assume that the space $``$ is a subspace of $`\mathrm{}^2\left(𝐍\right)`$ for the diagonal representation of $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$ equipped with the standard complex conjugation $`C`$ just as the space $`𝒢`$ is in a diagonal representation of $`\chi ^{}\chi `$. In these canonical basises of $``$ and $`𝒢`$ the amplitude operator $`\chi =\chi \left(n\right)n|`$ can be defined as the block-matrix $`|k\chi _k\left(n\right)n|`$ transposed to $`|n\chi _k\left(n\right)k|`$, where the amplitudes $`\psi _k\left(n\right)`$ are given by the matrix elements $`\eta ^{}\chi _k\left(n\right)=\left(n|\eta ^{}\right)\upsilon |k`$:

$`\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}\left(IB\right)\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}n\left|\stackrel{~}{A}\right|m\chi _k^{}\left(m\right)B\chi _k\left(n\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}\chi _k^{}\left(m\right)m\left|A\right|nB\chi _k\left(n\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon ^{}\left(AB\right)\upsilon \text{ .}`$
In any other ortho-normal basis $`\left\{\xi _k\right\}`$ the involution $`J:`$ satisfying $`J\xi _k=\xi _k`$ is defined as $`U^{}CU`$, and $`\upsilon =|n\psi _k\left(n\right)\xi _k^{}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }U`$, where $`U=|k\xi _k^{}`$. The isometric transformation $`U`$ of $`\left\{\xi _k\right\}`$ into the canonical basis $`\left\{|k\right\}\mathrm{}^2\left(𝐍\right)`$ is real in the sense $`\overline{U}:=CUJ=U`$, and thus $`\stackrel{~}{U}:=CU^{}J=U^{}`$. Hence amplitude operator $`\chi :𝒢`$ which was defined above by the transposition of $`\upsilon U^{}=\upsilon \stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, is equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }`$: $`\chi =\left(UI\right)\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }`$. Thus

$$J\chi ^{}\chi J=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon \upsilon ^{}=\rho ,\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi \chi ^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\upsilon \upsilon ^{}=\sigma .$$

Moreover, it satisfies the conditions (2.3) since $`\omega =\upsilon \upsilon ^{}𝒜`$:

$$J\chi ^{}\left(IB\right)^{}\chi J=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left(IB\right)\omega 𝒜,\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi \stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\left(AI\right)\omega .$$

The uniqueness up to the $`U`$ follows from the obvious isometricity of the families

$$\{\underset{k}{}|k\eta ^{}\psi _k\left(n\right):n,\eta \},\{\underset{k}{}\eta ^{}\psi _k\left(n\right)\xi _k^{}:n,\eta \}$$

of vectors $`\left(I\eta ^{}\right)\chi |n`$ in $`\mathrm{}^2\left(𝐍\right)`$ and of $`\left(n|\eta ^{}\right)\upsilon `$ in $`^{}`$ which follows from

$$\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢|nm|\chi ^{}\left(I\eta \eta ^{}\right)\chi =\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon ^{}\left(|mn|\eta \eta ^{}\right)\upsilon .$$

Thus they are unitary equivalent in the minimal space $``$. So the entangling operator $`\chi `$ is defined in the minimal $``$ up to unitary equivalence corresponding to the unitary operator $`U`$ in $``$ intertwining the involutions $`C`$ and $`J`$.

Note that the entangled state (2.4) is written as

$$\varpi \left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}B\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢A\pi \left(B\right),$$

where the operator $`\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi \stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}`$, bounded by $`A\sigma _{}`$, is in the predual space $`_{}`$ for any $`A\left(𝒢\right)`$, and

(2.6)
$$\pi \left(B\right)=J\chi ^{}\left(IB^{}\right)\chi J=\stackrel{~}{\chi ^{}\left(IB\right)\chi }$$

is in $`𝒜_{}`$ as a trace-class operator in $`𝒢`$, bounded by $`B\rho 𝒜_{}`$. The linear map $`\pi `$ is written in the Steinspring form  of the normal completely positive map $`B\stackrel{~}{\pi \left(B\right)}`$, while $`\pi ^{}:𝒜_{}`$ is written in the Kraus form  of the normal CP map $`A\pi ^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\right)`$ in the canonical orthonormal basis $`|k`$ of $`\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$:

$$\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\underset{k}{}\left(k|I\right)\chi \stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}\left(|kI\right).$$

A linear map $`\pi :𝒜`$ is called completely positive (CP) if the operator matrix

$$\pi \left(𝐁\right)=\pi \left(\left[B_{ik}\right]\right)=\left[\pi \left(B_{ik}\right)\right]$$

is positive (in the sense of non-negative definiteness) for every positive operator-matrix $`𝐁=\left[B_{ik}\right]`$ (which is thus Hermitian, $`B_{ik}^{}=B_{ki}`$). But the defined in (2.6) $``$-map $`\pi \left(B^{}\right)=\pi \left(B\right)^{}`$ is not necessarily CP but *tilde-completely positive* (TCP) in the sense that the map $`𝐁\pi ^\mathrm{~}\left(𝐁\right)`$ given by the transposed operator-matrix

$$\pi ^\mathrm{~}\left(𝐁\right):=\left[J\pi \left(B_{ik}\right)^{}J\right]=\left[J\pi \left(B_{ki}\right)J\right]\pi ^{}\left(𝐁^{}\right)$$

is positive (in the sense of non-negative definiteness) for every positive operator-matrix $`\left[B_{ik}\right]=\left[B_{ki}^{}\right]`$. Obviously every tilde-positive $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$ as $`\pi ^{}\left(B\right)=J\pi \left(B\right)J`$ is positive for every positive $`B`$, but it is not necessarily CP even if it is TCP unless $`𝒜`$ (or $``$) is Abelian. The TCP maps can be obtained simply by partial tracing

(2.7)
$$\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\left(\left(AI\right)\omega \right),\pi \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\left(\left(IB\right)\omega \right).$$

in terms of the compound density operator $`\omega =\upsilon \upsilon ^{}`$ for the entangled state

$$\varpi \left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(AB\right)\omega .$$

###### Definition 1.

The normal TCP map $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$ (and its dual map $`\pi ^{}:𝒜_{}`$) normalized to a probability operator $`\rho =\pi \left(I\right)`$ as $`\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\pi \left(I\right)=1`$ (to $`\sigma =\pi ^{}\left(I\right)`$ as $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}\pi ^{}\left(I\right)=1`$) is called coupling of the state $`\varsigma `$ on $``$ to $`\varrho `$, (or generalized entanglement of the state $`\varrho `$ on $`𝒜`$ to $`\varsigma `$). The coupling $`\pi `$ (or entanglement $`\pi ^{}`$) is called truly quantum if it is not CP, i.e. if there exists a positive operator-matrix $`𝐁=\left[B_{ik}\right]`$ with $`B_{ik}`$ for which $`\pi \left(𝐁\right)=\left[\pi \left(B_{ik}\right)\right]`$ is not positive. The copling (entanglement) $`\pi =\pi ^q=\pi ^{}`$ by

(2.8)
$$\pi ^q\left(B\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2},B$$

of the state $`\varrho =\varsigma `$ on the algebra $`𝒜=`$ is called standard for the system $`(,\varsigma )`$.

Note that the standard entanglement is true as soon as the reduced algebra $`_\sigma =E_\sigma E_\sigma `$ on the support $`_\sigma =E_\sigma `$ of the state $`\varsigma `$ is not Abelian. (Here $`E_\sigma `$ is the minimal orthoprojector $`E𝒜`$ with $`\varsigma \left(E\right)=1`$.) In the case of the simple algebra $`=\left(\right)`$ it is obvious as $`\pi ^q`$ restricted to $`_\sigma `$ is the composition of the nondegenerated multiplication $`_\sigma B\sigma ^{1/2}B`$ $`\sigma ^{1/2}`$ (which is CP) and the transposition $`\stackrel{~}{B}=JB^{}J`$ on $`_\sigma `$ (which is TCP but not CP if $`dim_\sigma >1`$).

The *standard compound state*

$$\varpi _q\left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}B\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{A}\sigma ^{1/2}=\mathrm{Tr}_{}A\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2}$$

on the algebra $``$ is pure in this case, given by the amplitude $`\upsilon |\sigma ^{1/2}\psi `$, where $`|\sigma ^{1/2}=\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ with $`\chi =\sigma ^{1/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ defined in (2.5) as $`\left(\zeta \eta \right)^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\eta ^{}\chi J\zeta `$. In particular, any pure compound state is truly entangled if $`\mathrm{rank}\rho =\mathrm{rank}\sigma `$ is not one because $`\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\chi \stackrel{~}{A}\chi ^{}`$ can be decomposed as

$$\chi A\chi ^{}=J\sigma ^{1/2}U^{}JAJU\sigma ^{1/2}J=\pi ^q\left(U^{}\stackrel{~}{A}U\right),$$

where $`U:\sigma ^{1/2}J\eta J\chi ^{}\eta `$ is a unitary operator from $`_\sigma `$ onto the support of $`\rho `$ in $`𝒢`$ with nonabelian $`_\sigma =U^{}𝒜U=\left(_\sigma \right)`$.

In the general case of a discretely decomposable $`(,\varsigma )`$ with the density operator $`\sigma =\sigma \left(i\right)`$ having more than one components $`\sigma \left(i\right)=\sigma _ip\left(i\right)`$ with nonzero probability $`p\left(i\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \left(i\right)`$ and positive trace one $`\sigma _i𝒯\left(_i\right)`$, the standard compound state is mixed, described by the decomposable density operator

(2.9)
$$\omega _q=_{i,j}p\left(j\right)\delta _j^i|\sigma _j^{1/2}\sigma _j^{1/2}|,A,B$$

with zero components $`\omega _q(i,j)=\delta _j^ip\left(j\right)\omega _j`$ at $`ij`$, corresponding to the pure compound states $`\omega _j=\psi _j\psi _j^{}`$. The amplitudes $`\upsilon _j|\sigma _j^{1/2}\psi _j_j_j`$ define the orthogonal decomposition

$$\upsilon _q=_{i,j}p\left(j\right)^{1/2}|\sigma _j^{1/2}\delta _j^ii|=_{ij}\psi \left(i\right)\delta _j^ii|$$

of the standard amplitude operator $`\upsilon _q:_i_j`$ on $`=\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$ with the components

$$\upsilon _q(i,j)=\upsilon _q\left(j\right)\delta _j^i,\upsilon _q\left(j\right)=\psi \left(j\right)i|,$$

where $`\psi \left(j\right)=p\left(j\right)^{1/2}\psi _j`$. It corresponds to the block-diagonal entangling operator $`\chi =\left[\chi \left(j\right)\delta _j^i\right]`$ with

$$\chi \left(j\right)=|j\sigma \left(j\right)^{1/2}=\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_q\left(j\right).$$

The so called *separable* compound states, which are given by convex combinations

$$\varpi _c\left(AB\right)=\underset{n}{}\varrho _n\left(A\right)\varsigma _n\left(B\right)\mu \left(n\right)$$

of the product states $`\varrho _n\varsigma _n`$, are obviously not true entangled as the corresponding map

(2.10)
$$\pi ^c\left(B\right)=\underset{n}{}\varsigma _n\left(B\right)\rho _n\mu \left(n\right)$$

is both CP and TCP.

## 3. Quantum Entropy via Entanglements

As we shall prove in this section, the most informative for a quantum system $`(,\varsigma )`$ is the standard entanglement $`\pi _q=\pi ^q=\pi _q^{}`$ to the probe system $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)=(,\varsigma )`$, described in (2.8).

Let us consider the entangled information and quantum entropies of states by means of the entangled compound states. To define the quantum information, we need to apply a quantum version of the relative entropy to compound state on the algebra $`𝒜`$. In classical information theory the relative entropy is defined as the expectation of the logarithm of the derivation of the state $`\varpi `$ with respect to a reference measure $`\phi `$. The relative entropy measures the information divergence of the state $`\varpi `$ with respect to $`\phi `$. This information divergence is equal to the expectation of $`\mathrm{ln}\omega \varphi ^1=\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}\varphi `$ in the state $`\varpi `$, where $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the densities of $`\varpi `$ and $`\phi `$ with respect to Lebesgue or any other appropriate measure (with respect to which $`\varphi `$ is invertible, $`\varphi ^1\varphi =I=\varphi \varphi ^1`$). Such defined, it should be better called the relative information rather than entropy: indeed many authors reserve the term relative entropy for the expectation of $`\mathrm{ln}\omega \varphi ^1`$ such that it coincides with Boltzmann entropy if $`\varphi =1`$.

In quantum case, however,

$$\mathrm{ln}\omega \varphi ^1\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}\varphi \mathrm{ln}\varphi ^1\omega $$

for noncommuting density operators $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$, thus giving different possibilities for definition of relative entropy for quantum state $`\varpi `$ with respect to $`\phi `$. In  we investigated the possibility for entangled mutual information based on the most common definition of quantum relative entropy (information) as the quantum expectation of the difference $`\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}\varphi `$, but it was hard to prove the additivity of the corresponding estimate for quantum capacity of the nontrivial channels.

Here we take another choice

(3.1)
$$𝖱(\varpi :\phi )=\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{ln}\omega ^{1/2}\varphi ^1\omega ^{1/2}$$

suggested in \[10, Be\_Sta84\] for quantum relative entropy of the state $`\varpi `$ on an algebra $``$ with respect to a weight $`\phi `$, given by a positive invertible operator $`\varphi `$. Note that this quantum information divergence is well defined as

$$𝖱(\varpi :\phi )=\mathrm{Tr}\varphi \eta \left(\varphi ^1\omega \right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \mathrm{ln}\upsilon ^{}\varphi ^1\upsilon \text{,}$$

where $`\eta \left(x\right)=x\mathrm{ln}x`$, $`\omega =\upsilon \upsilon ^{}`$ and

$$\eta \left(\varphi ^1\omega \right):=\varphi ^{1/2}\eta \left(\varphi ^{1/2}\omega \varphi ^{1/2}\right)\varphi ^{1/2}$$

as soon as the quantum Radon-Nicodim derivative $`\varphi ^{1/2}\omega \varphi ^{1/2}`$ of the state $`\varpi `$ with respect to $`\phi `$ is defined as a positive operator in the Hilbert space. This definition can be extended to any state $`\varpi `$ absolutely continuous with respect to $`\phi `$ , i.e. if $`\varpi \left(E\right)=0`$ for the maximal null-orthoprojector $`E\varphi =0`$ (otherwise the entropy is infinite by definition). As proved in , it gives a larger relative entropy than the expectation of $`\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}\varphi `$, and it has a positive value $`𝖱(\varpi :\phi )[0,\mathrm{}]`$ if the states are equally normalized, say (as usually) $`\mathrm{Tr}\omega =1=\mathrm{Tr}\varphi `$.

The most important property of the information divergence $`𝖱`$ is its monotonicity property , i. e. nonincrease of the divergence $`𝖱(\varpi _0:\phi _0)`$ after the application of the pre-dual $`\mathrm{K}_{}`$ of a normal completely positive unital map $`\mathrm{K}:^0`$ to the state $`\varpi _0`$ and $`\phi _0`$ on a von Neumann algebra $`^0`$:

(3.2)
$$\varpi =\varpi _0\mathrm{K},\phi =\phi _0\mathrm{K}𝖱(\varpi :\phi )𝖱(\varpi _0:\phi _0).$$

A quantum statistical morphism $`\mathrm{K}`$ can only decrease their information divergence; it can even be made zero by $`\varpi _0\mathrm{K}=\phi _0\mathrm{K}.`$

Let $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$ be an entanglement of the state $`\varrho `$ corresponding to the density operator $`\rho =\pi \left(I\right)`$. We shall define the entangled *entropy* (or, better, entangled information) $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)`$ as the relative entropy (information) (3.1) of the achieved compound state $`\varpi `$ on $`=𝒜`$ with respect to the weight $`\phi =\varrho \mathrm{Tr}`$ corresponding to the density operator $`\varphi =\rho I`$:

(3.3)
$$𝖤\left(\pi \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{ln}\omega ^{1/2}\left(\rho I\right)^1\omega ^{1/2}=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \mathrm{ln}\upsilon ^{}\left(\rho I\right)^1\upsilon ,$$

where $`\rho ^1`$ is quasiinverse to $`\rho `$ in the case of $`\mathrm{rank}\rho dim𝒢`$.

If $`\omega =\psi \psi ^{}`$ is one dimensional orthoprojector (corresponding to a pure state on the decomposable algebra $`𝒜`$ with $`\upsilon \psi 𝒢`$), then $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon =1`$, and

$$\upsilon ^{}\left(\rho I\right)^1\upsilon =\mathrm{Tr}\chi \rho ^1\chi ^{}=\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\rho ^{1/2}\rho ^1\rho ^{1/2}=\mathrm{rank}\rho .$$

In this case $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\rho 0`$, where $`\mathrm{rank}\rho =\mathrm{rank}\sigma `$ is the dimensionality of the range $`\mathrm{ran}\chi `$ or $`\mathrm{ran}\chi ^{}`$. Thus for quantum entanglements $`\pi `$ corresponding to pure $`\omega `$ but mixed $`\rho =\chi ^{}\chi `$ and $`\sigma =\chi \chi ^{}`$ (with $`\mathrm{rank}>1`$) the entangled entropy is strictly positive. However it might be negative as it is in the case of an Abelian $`𝒜`$ when

(3.4)
$$\pi \left(B\right)=|n\varsigma _n\left(B\right)n|\mu \left(n\right)\pi ^d\left(B\right).$$

In this case $`\omega =|n\sigma \left(n\right)n|`$, $`\rho =|n\mu \left(n\right)n|`$, and $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)=`$S$`\left(\pi \right)`$, where

$$𝖲\left(\pi \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega }{\rho I}=\mu \left(n\right)𝖲\left(\frac{\varsigma \left(n\right)}{\mu \left(n\right)}\right)0$$

is the mean of the conditional von Neumann entropy

$$𝖲\left(\varsigma _n\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\sigma _n\mathrm{ln}\sigma _n$$

on $``$ corresponding to $`\sigma _n=\sigma \left(n\right)/\mu \left(n\right)`$. We can call the (mixed) state $`\omega `$ *essentially disentangled* (or separable) if $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)0`$; if $`\omega `$ is pure and $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)>0`$, it is truly entangled as the entangling map $`\pi `$ is obviously not CP in this case.

The total *entangled information* $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$ is defined as the sum of the von Neumann entropy

(3.5)
$$𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \mathrm{ln}\sigma $$

corresponding to the state $`\varsigma \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\pi \left(B\right)`$ and the entangled entropy (information) $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)`$:

(3.6)
$$𝖨\left(\pi \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\omega (\mathrm{ln}(\rho I)^1\omega \mathrm{ln}(I\sigma )).$$

Note that $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)0`$, but in general $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)𝖨\left(\pi ^{}\right)`$ unless $`\rho I`$ commutes with $`\omega `$ as in the case of d-entanglement or Abelian $`𝒜`$ when the total information $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)=𝖨\left(\pi ^{}\right)`$ coincides with the mutual information $`𝖨_{𝒜;}\left(\pi \right)=𝖨_{;𝒜}\left(\pi ^{}\right)`$ defined in . In the classical case when both algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are Abelian, $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$ coincides with the Shannon mutual information $`𝖨_{𝒜;}\left(\pi \right)`$.

The following proposition follows from the monotonicity property (3.2) of the relative entropy on $`=𝒜`$ with respect to the predual $`\mathrm{K}_{}\left(\omega _0\right)=\varpi _0\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}\right)`$ to the ampliation $`\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}`$ of a normal completely positive unital map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$ be an entanglement of $`(,\varsigma )`$ of a state $`\varsigma \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\pi \left(B\right)`$, $`B`$ to $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ with the density operator $`\rho =\pi \left(I\right)`$, and $`\pi _0:𝒜^0_{}`$ be an entanglement defining $`\pi `$ by the composition $`\pi ^{}=\pi _0\mathrm{K}`$ with a normal completely positive unital map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$. Then $`𝖤\left(\pi \right)𝖤\left(\pi ^0\right)`$, where $`\pi ^0=\pi _0^{}`$, and thus $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)𝖨\left(\pi ^0\right)`$. In particular, for any separable $`\pi =\pi ^c`$ where $`\pi ^c`$ is the convex combination (2.10) with $`\varsigma _n\mu \left(n\right)=\varsigma `$, there exists a not less informative entanglement $`\pi ^d:𝒜^0`$ with the same $`\varsigma \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\pi ^d\left(B\right)`$ and Abelian $`𝒜^0`$, and the standard entanglement $`\pi ^0=\pi ^q`$ to $`\varrho _0=\varsigma `$ with $`𝒜^0=`$ is the maximal one in the sense that for any entanglement $`\pi `$ there exists not less informative q-entanglement with the same $`(,\varsigma )`$.

###### Proof.

The first proposition follows from the monotonicity property (3.4) applied to the ampliation $`\mathrm{K}\left(AB\right)=\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)B`$ of the CP map $`\mathrm{K}`$ from $`𝒜𝒜^0`$ to $`𝒜𝒜^0`$, with the compound state $`\mathrm{K}_{}\left(\omega _0\right)=\varpi _0\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}\right)`$ ($`\mathrm{I}`$ denotes the identity map $``$) corresponding to the entanglement $`\pi ^{}=\pi _0\mathrm{K}`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{}\left(\varphi _0\right)=\varrho \varsigma `$ with $`\varrho =\varrho _0\mathrm{K}`$ corresponding to $`\phi _0=\varrho _0\varsigma `$.

If $`\pi `$ is separable entanglement (2.10), $`\pi _c=\pi ^{}`$ can be decomposed as

$$\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_n\left(A\right)\sigma _n\mu \left(n\right)=\pi _0\left(\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)\right).$$

Here $`\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)=|n\varrho _n\left(A\right)n|`$ is a normal unital CP map on $`𝒜`$ into the Abelian algebra $`𝒜^0`$ of diagonal operators on $`𝒢^0=\mathrm{}^2\left(\right)`$, and $`\pi ^0=\pi _0^{}=\pi ^d`$ is the diagonalizing entanglement (3.4).

The inequality (3.4) can be also applied to the standard entanglement corresponding to the compound state (2.6) on $`=_{i,j}\left(i\right)\left(j\right)`$, where $`\left(i\right)=\left(_i\right)`$. It is described by the density operator

(3.7)
$$\omega _q=_{i,j}\mathrm{P}_{}(i,j)=_i\psi _i\psi _i^{}p\left(i\right)\text{,}$$

where $`\mathrm{P}_{}(i,j)=\delta _i^j\omega _ip\left(i\right)`$ is concentrated on the diagonal $`_i\left(i\right)\left(i\right)`$ of $``$. The amplitudes $`\psi _i_i_i`$ are defined in (2.6) as $`\psi _i=|\sigma _i^{1/2}`$ by the components $`\chi _0\left(i\right)=|i\sigma \left(i\right)^{1/2}`$ of the standard entangling operator $`\chi _0`$ on $`𝒢_0=`$ into $`\mathrm{}^2(𝐍)`$. Indeed, any entanglement $`\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi A\chi ^{}`$ as a normal CP map $`𝒜`$ normalized to the density operator $`\sigma =\mathrm{Tr}_{}\chi \chi ^{}`$ can be represented as the composition $`\pi _0\mathrm{K}`$ of the standard entanglement $`\pi ^0=\pi ^q`$ on $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)=(,\varsigma )`$ and a normal unital CP map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜`$. The CP map $`\mathrm{K}`$ is defined by $`\sigma ^{1/2}\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)\sigma ^{1/2}=\pi ^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\right)`$. It has the form

$$\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}X^{}AX,A𝒜$$

where $`X`$ is an operator $`_{}𝒢`$, $`\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}X^{}X=I`$ defining the entangling operator $`\chi =\left(I^{}\chi _0\right)X^{}`$ for $`\pi `$. Thus the standard entanglement $`\pi ^q\left(B\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2}`$ corresponds to the maximal mutual information.

Note that the supremum of the information gain (3.6) over all c-entanglements to the system $`(,\varsigma )`$ is the von Neumann entropy (3.5). It is achieved on any extreme entanglement $`\pi ^0`$ with an Abelian $`𝒜^0`$, given by a decomposition $`\varsigma =\varsigma _n\mu \left(n\right)`$ into pure states $`\varsigma _n`$. For example by a Schatten decomposition $`\sigma =_n|nn|\nu \left(n\right)`$, corresponding to $`\varsigma _n\left(B\right)=n|B|n`$ and $`\mu \left(n\right)=\nu \left(n\right)`$. The maximal value $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}`$ of the von Neumann entropy on the algebra $``$ is restricted by $`\mathrm{ln}dim`$ as $`\left(dim\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{rank}dim`$.

###### Definition 2.

The maximal total information

(3.8)
$$𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=\underset{\pi \left(I\right)=\sigma }{sup}𝖨\left(\pi \right)=𝖨\left(\pi _q\right),$$

achieved on $`𝒜^0=`$ by the standard q-entanglement $`\pi ^q\left(B\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2}`$ for a fixed state $`\varsigma \left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}B\sigma `$, is called q-entropy of the state $`\varsigma `$. The difference

$$𝖧\left(\pi \right)=𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)𝖨\left(\pi \right)$$

is called the q-conditional entropy on $``$ with respect to $`𝒜`$.

Obviously, $`𝖧\left(\pi \right)`$ is positive in contrast to $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)𝖨\left(\pi \right)=𝖤\left(\pi \right)`$ which is positive as the averaged conditional entropy $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)`$ in the case of Abelian $`𝒜`$, but which can achieve also the negative value

(3.9)
$$𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=\mathrm{ln}dim\sigma $$

the following theorem states.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $``$ be a discrete decomposable algebra on $`=_i_i`$, with the state $`\varsigma =\varsigma _ip\left(i\right)`$ given by normal states $`\varsigma _i`$ on $`\left(_i\right)`$, and $`𝒞`$ be its center with the state $`p=\varsigma |𝒞`$ induced by the probability distribution $`p\left(i\right)`$. Then the q-entropy is given by

(3.10)
$$𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)+\underset{i}{}p\left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i=𝖧\left(p\right)+\underset{i}{}𝖧\left(\varsigma _i\right)p\left(i\right),$$

where $`𝖧\left(p\right)=_ip\left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}p\left(i\right)=𝖲\left(p\right)`$, and

$$𝖧\left(\varsigma _i\right)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i\mathrm{Tr}__i\sigma _i\mathrm{ln}\sigma _i=𝖲\left(\varsigma _i\right)+\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i.$$

It is positive, $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)[0,\mathrm{}]`$, and if the reduced algebra $`_\sigma =E_\sigma E_\sigma `$ is finite dimensional, it is bounded, with the maximal value $`𝖧\left(\varsigma ^{}\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim_\sigma `$, achieved on the tracial $`\sigma ^{}=\left(dim_\sigma \right)^1E_\sigma `$, with $`_\sigma =E_\sigma `$.

###### Proof.

The q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$ is the supremum (3.8) of the mutual information (3.6) which is achieved on the standard entanglement, corresponding to the density operator (3.7) of the standard compound state (2.6) with $`𝒜=`$, $`\rho =\sigma `$. Thus $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖤\left(\pi ^q\right)+`$S$`\left(\varsigma \right)`$, where

$$𝖤\left(\pi ^q\right)=\underset{i}{}\psi \left(i\right)^{}\psi \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\psi \left(i\right)^{}\left(\sigma \left(i\right)I\right)^1\psi \left(i\right)=\underset{i}{}p\left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i$$

as $`\sigma \left(i\right)=\sigma _ip\left(i\right)`$, $`\upsilon _q\left(i\right)=\psi \left(i\right)i|`$, $`\psi \left(i\right)=|\sigma _i^{1/2}p\left(i\right)^{1/2}`$, and

$`\psi \left(i\right)^{}\left(\sigma \left(i\right)I_i\right)^1\psi \left(i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _i^{1/2}|\left(\sigma ^1I_i\right)|\sigma _i^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}\sigma \left(i\right)^{1/2}\sigma \left(i\right)^1\sigma \left(i\right)^{1/2}=\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i.`$
Decomposing the von Neumann entropy as

$$𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)=\underset{i}{}\left(𝖲\left(\varsigma _i\right)\mathrm{ln}p\left(i\right)\right)p\left(\iota \right),$$

we obtain the corresponding decomposition for q-entropy

$$𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=\underset{i}{}\left(𝖧\left(\varsigma _i\right)\mathrm{ln}p\left(i\right)\right)p\left(\iota \right),$$

where $`𝖧\left(\varsigma _i\right)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i+𝖲\left(\varsigma _i\right)`$. Due to $`0𝖲\left(\varsigma _i\right)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i`$, each $`𝖧\left(\varsigma _i\right)`$ is positive, and it is bounded by $`2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i=\mathrm{ln}dim_i`$, where we took into account that $`_i=E_\sigma \left(_i\right)E_\sigma =\left(_i\right)`$ has the squared dimensionality $`dim_i=\mathrm{rank}\sigma _i`$ of $`_i=E_\sigma _i`$. This gives the dimensional bound

$$𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)\mathrm{ln}\underset{i}{}\left(dim_i\right)^2=\mathrm{ln}dim_\sigma $$

for the q-entropy of a state on the reduced algebra $`_\sigma =_i`$. Actually this boundary is achievable, as well as dimensional capacity

$`𝖢_q\left(\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{p}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p\left(i\right)\left(2\underset{\varsigma _i}{sup}𝖲\left(\varsigma _i\right)\mathrm{ln}p\left(i\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{p}{inf}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p\left(i\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}p\left(i\right)2\mathrm{ln}dim_i\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim.`$
of the algebra $``$ (in case of finitedimensional $``$). Here we used the fact that the supremum of von Neumann entropies

$$𝖲\left(\varsigma _i\right)=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{Tr}__i\sigma _i\mathrm{ln}\sigma _i$$

for the simple algebras $`\left(i\right)=\left(_i\right)`$ with $`dim\left(i\right)=\left(dim_i\right)^2<\mathrm{}`$ is achieved on the tracial density operators $`\sigma _i=\left(dim_i\right)^1I^i\sigma _i^{}`$, and the infimum of the relative entropy

$$𝖨(p;p^{})=\underset{i}{}p\left(i\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}p\left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}p^{}\left(i\right)\right),$$

where $`p^{}\left(i\right)=dim\left(i\right)/dim`$, is zero, achieved at $`p=p^{}`$.

## 4. Quantum Channel and its Q-Capacity

Let $`_1`$ be a Hilbert space describing a quantum input system and $``$ describe its output Hilbert space. A quantum channel is an affine operation sending each input state defined on $`_1`$ to an output state defined on $``$ such that the mixtures of states are preserved. A *deterministic* (noiseless) quantum channel is defined by a linear isometry $`Y:_1`$ with $`Y^{}Y=I^1`$ ($`I^1`$ is the identify operator in $`_1`$) such that each input state vector $`\eta _1_1`$, $`\eta _1=1`$, is transmitted into an output state vector $`\eta =Y\eta _1`$, $`\eta =1`$. The orthogonal mixtures $`\sigma _1=_n\sigma _1\left(n\right)`$ of the pure input states $`\sigma _1\left(n\right)=\eta _1\left(n\right)\eta _1\left(n\right)^{}`$ are sent into the orthogonal mixtures $`\sigma =_n\sigma \left(n\right)`$ of the corresponding pure states $`\sigma \left(n\right)=Y\sigma _1\left(n\right)Y^{}`$.

A *noisy quantum channel* sends pure input states $`\varsigma _1`$ on the algebra $`^1=\left(_1\right)`$ into mixed ones $`\varsigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ given by the predual $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}|_{}^1`$ to a normal completely positive unital map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:^1`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right)=\mathrm{Tr}__1Y^{}BY,B$$

where $`Y`$ is a linear operator from $`_1_+`$ to $``$ with $`\mathrm{Tr}__+Y^{}Y=I`$, and $`_+`$ is a separable Hilbert space of quantum noise in the channel. Each input mixed state $`\varsigma _1`$ is transmitted into an output state $`\varsigma =\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by the density operator

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\sigma _1\right)=Y\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)Y^{}_{}$$

for each density operator $`\sigma _1_{}^1`$, where $`I^+`$ is the identity operator in $`_+`$.

The input entanglements $`\pi ^1=𝒜_{}^1`$ dual to $`\pi _1:^1𝒜`$ will be denoted as $`\pi ^1=\kappa =\pi _1^{}`$. They define the quantum-quantum correspondences (q-encodings) of probe systems $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ with the density operator $`\rho =\kappa ^{}\left(I^1\right)`$, to the input $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ of the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\sigma _1=\kappa \left(I\right)`$. If $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$ is a normal completely positive unital map

$$\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}X^{}AX,A𝒜,$$

where $`X`$ is a bounded operator $`_{}𝒢_0𝒢`$ with $`\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}X^{}X=I^0`$, the compositions $`\kappa =\pi _0^1\mathrm{K}`$, $`\pi =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\kappa `$ are the entanglements of the probe system $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ with the channel input $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ and to the output $`(,\varsigma )`$ via this channel. The state $`\varrho =\varrho _0\mathrm{K}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{K}^{}\left(\rho _0\right)=X\left(I^{}\rho _0\right)X^{}𝒜_{}$$

for each density operator $`\rho _0𝒜_{}^0`$, where $`I^{}`$ is the identity operator in $`_{}`$. The resulting entanglement $`\pi =\lambda ^{}\mathrm{K}`$ defines the compound state $`\varpi =\varpi _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ on $`𝒜`$ with

$$\varpi _{01}\left(A^0B^1\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{A}^0\pi _1^0\left(B^1\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\upsilon _{01}^{}\left(A^0B^1\right)\upsilon _{01}$$

on $`𝒜^0^1`$. Here $`\upsilon _{01}:_{01}𝒢_0_1`$ is the amplitude operator, uniquely defined by the input compound state $`\varpi _{01}𝒜_{}^0_{}^1`$ up to a unitary operator $`U^0`$ on $`_{01}`$, and the effect of the input entanglement $`\kappa `$ and the output channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be written in terms of the amplitude operator of the state $`\varpi `$ as

$$\upsilon =\left(XY\right)\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}I^+\right)U$$

up to a unitary operator $`U`$ in $`=_{}_{01}_+`$. Thus the density operator $`\omega =\upsilon \upsilon ^{}`$ of the input-output compound state $`\varpi `$ is given by $`\varpi _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ with the density

(4.1)
$$\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{}\left(\omega _{01}\right)=\left(XY\right)\omega _{01}\left(XY\right)^{},$$

where $`\omega _{01}=\upsilon _{01}\upsilon _{01}^{}`$.

Let $`𝒦_q^1`$ be the set of all normal TCP maps $`\kappa :𝒜_{}^1`$ with any probe algebra $`𝒜`$, normalized as $`\mathrm{Tr}\kappa \left(I\right)=1`$, and $`𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ be the subset of all $`\kappa 𝒦_q^1`$ with $`\kappa \left(I\right)=\varsigma _1`$. Each $`\kappa 𝒦_q^1\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ can be decomposed as $`\kappa _0\mathrm{K}`$, where $`\kappa _0^{}=\pi _1^q=\kappa _0𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ is the standard entanglement on $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)=(^1,\varsigma _1)`$, and $`\mathrm{K}`$ is a normal unital CP map $`𝒜^1`$. Further let $`𝒦_c^1`$ be the set of all c-entanglements $`\kappa `$ described by $`\kappa \left(A\right)=_n\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_n\left(A\right)\sigma _1\left(n\right)`$, i.e.. $`\kappa ^{}=\pi _1^c`$ are convex combinations (LABEL:2.10) on $`_1`$, and $`𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ denotes the subset of $`𝒦_c`$ corresponding to a fixed $`\kappa \left(I\right)=\varsigma _1`$. Each $`\kappa 𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ can be represented as $`\kappa =\kappa _0\mathrm{K}`$, where $`\kappa _0^{}=\pi _1^d`$ is an extreme d-entanglement of an Abelian $`𝒜^0`$ to $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$, by a proper choice of the CP map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜^1`$.

Now, let us maximize the entangled mutual entropy for a given quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (and a fixed input state $`\varsigma _1`$) by means of the above two types of quantum (true) and classical (not true) entanglements $`\kappa `$. The entangled entropy (3.3) was defined in the previous section by the derivative of the probability operator $`\omega `$ of the corresponding compound state $`\varpi `$ on $`𝒜`$ with respect to the density operator $`\rho I`$ of the product $`\phi =\varrho \mathrm{Tr}_{}`$. In each case

$$\varpi =\varpi _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),\phi =\varrho _0\mathrm{K}\mathrm{Tr},$$

where $`\mathrm{K}`$ is a CP map $`𝒜𝒜^0=^1`$, $`\varpi _{01}`$ is one of the corresponding extreme compound states $`\varpi _{q1}`$, $`\varpi _{d1}`$ on $`^1^1`$, and $`\varrho _0\left(A^0\right)=\varpi _{01}\left(A^0I^1\right)`$.

###### Proposition 2.

The entangled information achieves the following maximal values

(4.2)
$$𝖤_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\underset{\kappa 𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖤\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖤\left(\pi _1^q\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$

$$𝖤_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\underset{\kappa 𝒦^c\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖤\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖲(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

Here $`𝖲(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the minimal von Neumann mean conditional entropy

$$𝖲(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{\pi _d^1}{sup}𝖲\left(\pi _1^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖲\left(\pi _1^o\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$

which is achieved on an extreme (optimal) diagonalizing map $`\pi _1^o=\pi _1^d`$ with $`\mathrm{Tr}\pi _1^o=\varsigma _1`$ for all $`B^1`$. The total entangled information achieves respectively the following maximal values

$$𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\underset{\kappa 𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)+𝖤\left(\pi _1^q\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$

$$𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\underset{\kappa 𝒦^c\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖲\left(\pi _1^o\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

They are ordered as

(4.3)
$$𝖤_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝖤_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

###### Proof.

Owing to the monotonicity

$$𝖱(\varpi _{01}(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }):\varrho _0\mathrm{K}\mathrm{Tr})𝖱(\varpi _{01}(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Lambda }):\varrho _0\mathrm{Tr}),$$

the supremum of over all $`\kappa 𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ is achieved on the standard entanglement $`_1𝒜^0`$ given by $`\kappa ^{}=\pi _1^q\kappa ^0`$. Due to the same reason the supremum over all c-entanglements $`\kappa 𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ coincides with the supremum over all normal unital maps $`\kappa _0`$ on an Abelian $`𝒜^0`$ satisfying the condition $`\kappa _0\left(I^0\right)=\sigma _1`$. However the entangled information $`𝖤\left(\pi _1^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ for the not true entanglements $`\kappa _0^{}=\pi _1^d\kappa ^0`$ is not positive, coinciding with the minus the averaged conditional von Neumann entropy $`𝖲\left(\pi _1^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$. The minimum of $`𝖲\left(\pi _1^d\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ over all diagonalizing maps $`\pi _1^d`$ is achieved on an optimal pure d-entanglement $`\kappa ^0=\pi _1^o`$ on $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$.

The same arguments apply also for the total informations $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)=𝖤\left(\pi \right)+𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$, however the suprema $`𝖨_q(\varsigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`𝖨_c(\varsigma ,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be obtained now straightforward as $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ does not depend on the input entanglements with a fixed $`\kappa \left(I\right)=\sigma _1`$. The inequalities in (4.3) simply follow from $`𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$

###### Definition 3.

The suprema

$$𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right):=\underset{\kappa 𝒦_q^1}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{\varsigma _1}{sup}𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

(4.4)
$$𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right):=\underset{\kappa 𝒦_c^1}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{\varsigma _1}{sup}𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

are called the q- and c-capacities respectively for the quantum channel defined by a normal unital CP map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:^1`$.

Obviously the capacities (4.4) satisfy the inequalities

$$𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right)=Y^{}BY`$ be a unital CP map $`^1`$ describing a quantum deterministic (noiseless) channel. Then

$$𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right),𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖧\left(\varsigma _1\right),$$

and thus in this case

$$𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}^1,𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim^1$$

###### Proof.

It was proved in the previous section for the case of the identity channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{I}`$, and thus it is also valid for any isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ described by a unitary operator $`Y`$. In the case of non-unitary $`Y`$ we can use the identity

$$\mathrm{Tr}Y\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)Y^{}\mathrm{ln}Y\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)Y^{}=\mathrm{Tr}S\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)\mathrm{ln}S\left(\sigma _1I^+\right),$$

where $`S=Y^{}Y`$. Due to this S$`\left(\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{Tr}S\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)\mathrm{ln}S\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)`$. However in the case of the noiseless channel $`I^+=1`$, $`S=I`$, and thus

$$𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right).$$

Moreover, as $`\upsilon =\left(XY\right)\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}\right)`$, $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon =\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}\right)^{}\left(RI\right)\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}\right)=\upsilon _1^{}\upsilon _1`$, where $`R=X^{}X`$, $`\upsilon _1=\left(XI\right)\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}\right)`$, and

$$\upsilon ^{}\left(\rho I\right)^1\upsilon =\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}\right)^{}\left(X^{}\rho ^1XI\right)\left(I^{}\upsilon _{01}\right)=\upsilon _1^{}\left(\rho I\right)^1\upsilon _1,$$

where $`\rho =X\left(I^{}\rho _0\right)X^{}`$. Hence

$$𝖤\left(\pi _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{Tr}_{}\upsilon _1^{}\upsilon _1\mathrm{ln}\upsilon _1^{}\left(\rho I\right)^1\upsilon _1=𝖤\left(\pi _1\right),$$

where $`\pi _1=\kappa ^{}`$. Thus $`𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=sup_{\varsigma _1}𝖧\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$, $`𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=sup_{\varsigma _1}𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ due to

$$\underset{\kappa 𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖤\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖧\left(\varsigma _1\right),\underset{\kappa 𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖤\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right).$$

Therefore $`𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim^1=𝖢_q\left(^1\right)`$, $`𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}^1=𝖢_c\left(^1\right)`$.

In order to consider block entanglements let us introduce the product systems $`(^n,\varsigma ^n)`$ on the tensor product $`^n=_{l=1}^n_l`$ of identical spaces $`_l=`$, and the product channels $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^n:_{}^n_{}^n`$, the preduals of the normal unital CP product maps

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^n:^n^n=_{l=1}^n_l^1,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\left(B^n\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right)^n,$$

where $`_l=^1`$ for all $`l`$. Obviously

$`𝖲\left(\varsigma ^n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`n𝖲\left(\varsigma \right),𝖢_c\left(^n\right)=n𝖢_c\left(\right),`$
$`𝖧\left(\varsigma ^n\right)`$ $`=`$ $`n𝖧\left(\varsigma \right),𝖢_q\left(^n\right)=n𝖢_q\left(\right).`$
However it not obvious that this additivity should take place for

$`𝖨_c^n(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`𝖨_c(\varsigma _1^n,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n),𝖢_c^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\right),`$
$`𝖨_q^n(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`𝖨_q(\varsigma _1^n,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n),𝖢_q^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\right).`$
the suprema of the mutual information $`𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\right)`$ over the set $`𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1^n\right)`$ of all input entanglements $`\kappa :𝒜_{}^n`$ with any probe algebra $`𝒜`$, normalized as $`\kappa \left(I\right)=\sigma _1^n`$, and with any such normalization respectively, $`\kappa 𝒦_q^n`$. It is easily seen, by applying the monotonicity property (3.2) with respect to the normal unital CP map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0=^n`$ in the decomposition $`\kappa =\pi _q^n\mathrm{K}`$, where

$$\pi _q^n\left(A^0\right)=\left(\sigma _1^n\right)^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{A}^0\left(\sigma _1^n\right)^{1/2},A^0^n,$$

that the quantities $`𝖨_q^n(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are additive:

$$𝖨_q^n(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=n𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝖢_q^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=n𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\text{.}$$

Note that if the supremum $`sup_{\varsigma _n}𝖨_q(\varsigma _n,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n)`$ is taken over all states $`\varsigma _n_{}^n`$ but not just over $`\varsigma _1^n`$, it might be possible to achieve more than $`n𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$. However for the classical entanglements this additivity cannot be proved even in the case of $`\varsigma _n=\varsigma _1^n`$:

$$𝖨_c^n(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })n𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝖢_c^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)n𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

The superadditivity implies that the quantities $`𝗂_c^n=𝖨_c^n/n,𝖼_c^n=𝖢_c^n/n`$ have the limits

$$𝗂_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}𝖨_c^n\left((\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝖼_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}𝖢_c^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖢_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)$$

which are usually taken as the bounds of classical information and capacity  for a quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As it has been recently proved in  under a certain regularity condition, the upper bound $`𝖢\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ is indeed asymptotically achievable by long block classical-quantum encodings. Note that the c-quantities $`𝗂_c^n`$, $`𝖼_c^n`$ are not easy to evaluate for each $`n`$, but they all are bounded by the corresponding q-quantities $`𝗂_q=\frac{1}{n}𝖨_q^n=𝖨_q`$ and $`𝖼_q=lim\frac{1}{n}𝖢_q^n`$:

$$𝗂_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝗂_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝖼_c\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖼_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

In order to measure the ”real” entangled information of quantum channels ”without the classical part”, another quantity, the ”coherent information” was introduced in . It is defined in our notations as

$$𝖨_s(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝖲\left(\varsigma \right),𝖢_s^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{\varsigma _1}{sup}𝖨_s(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

Obviously $`𝖨_s(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝖤(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, and $`𝖢_s^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖢_e^1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=sup_{\varsigma _1}𝖤(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The supremum $`𝖢_s^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖢_s\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\right)`$ of $`𝖨_s(\varsigma _1^n,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n)`$ over all states $`\varsigma _1^n_1^n_{}^1`$ in general is not additive but superadditive, and the coherent capacity is defined as the limit

$$𝖼_s\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}𝖢_s^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}𝖢_e^n\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖼_e\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

Obviously this capacity has the bounds $`𝖼_s\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖼_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ as $`𝖼_e\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖼_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ due to $`𝖤_s(\varsigma _1^n,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n)𝖨_q(\varsigma _1^n,\mathrm{\Lambda }^n)0`$ for each input state $`\varsigma _1`$.

Thus the entangled information $`𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ for a single channel corresponding to the standard entanglement $`\kappa `$ gives upper bound of all other informations and is good analog of the corresponding classical quantities.