text:
# ENTANGLEMENT, QUANTUM ENTROPY AND MUTUAL INFORMATION

## 1. Introduction

The entanglements, as specifically quantum correlations yet first considered by Schrödinger in , now are used to study quantum information processes, in particular, quantum computations, quantum teleportation and quantum cryptography . There have been mathematical studies of the entanglements in , in which the entangled state of two quantum systems is defined as a compound state which is not a convex combination $`_n\varrho _n\varsigma _np\left(n\right)`$ with some states $`\varrho _n`$ and $`\varsigma _n`$ on the corresponding algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$. However, it is obvious that there exist several types of correlated states, written as ‘separable’ forms above. Such correlated, or classically entangled states have also been discussed in several contexts in quantum probability, such as quantum measurement and filtering , quantum compound states  and lifting .

In this paper, we study the mathematical structure of classical-quantum and quantum-quantum couplings to provide a finer classification of quantum separable and entangled states. We also discuss the informational degree of entanglement and entangled quantum mutual entropy and quantum capacity. The latter are treated here solely as quantities arising in certain maximization problems for quantum mutual information which is generalized here for arbitrary semifinite algebras.

The term entanglement was introduced by Schrödinger in 1935 out of the need to describe correlations of quantum states not captured by mere classical statistical correlations which are always the convex combinations of noncorrelated states. In this spirit the by now standard definition  of the entanglement in physics is the state of a compound quantum system ‘which cannot be prepared by two separated devices with only correlated classical data as their inputs’. We show that the entangled states can be achieved by quantum (q-) encodings, the nonseparable couplings of states, in the same way as the separable states can be achieved by classical (c-) encodings.

The compound states, called o-coupled, are defined by orthogonal decompositions of their marginal states. This is a particular case of a so called diagonal (d-compound) state of a compound system which is achieved by the classical-quantum correspondences called encodings. The d-compound states as convex combination of the special product states are most informative among c-compound states, in the sense that maximum of the mutual entropy over all c-couplings of probe systems $`𝒜`$ to the quantum system $``$ with a given normal state $`\varsigma `$ is achieved on the extreme d-coupled (even o-coupled) states. This maximum is the von Neumann entropy, which is bound by the rank-capacity $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}`$, the supremum of $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ over all $`\varsigma `$. The rank $`\mathrm{rank}`$ of the algebra $``$ is a topological characteristic of $``$ defined as the dimensionality of the maximal Abelian subalgebra $`𝒜`$ (in the case of the simple $``$ it coincides with the dimensionality $`dim`$ of the Hilbert space $``$ of representation for $``$). The von Neumann capacity defined as the maximal von Neumann entropy, i.e. as the maximum $`𝖢_c=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}`$ of mutual entropy over all c-couplings of the classical probe systems $`𝒜`$ to the quantum system $``$, is finite only if $`\mathrm{rank}<\mathrm{}`$. Due to $`dim\left(\mathrm{rank}\right)^2`$ (the equality is only for the simple algebras $``$) it is achieved on the normal tracial density operator $`\sigma =\left(\mathrm{rank}\right)^1I`$ only in the case of finite dimensional $``$.

We prove that the truly entangled compound states are most informative, in the sense that, the maximum of the mutual entropy over all couplings including entanglements of the quantum probe systems $`𝒜`$ to the quantum system $``$ is achieved on a non-separable q-compound state. It is given by the standard entanglement, an extreme entanglement of $`𝒜=\stackrel{~}{}`$ with the marginal state $`\varrho =\stackrel{~}{\varsigma }`$, where $`(\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{\varsigma })`$ is the transposed (time inversed) system to $`(,\varsigma )`$. The maximal information gained for such extreme q-compound states defines another type of entropy, the q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$, which is bigger than the von Neumann entropy $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ in the case of mixed $`\varsigma `$. The maximum of the q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$ over all states $`\varsigma `$ defines the dimensional capacity $`\mathrm{ln}dim`$. The dimensionality $`dim`$ of the algebra $``$ is the major topological characteristic of $``$, and it gives true quantum capacity of $``$ achieved at the standard entanglement with the maximal chaotic $`\varsigma `$. Thus, the true quantum capacity is the maximum $`𝖢_q=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}dim`$ of the mutual entropy over all, not only classical-quantum couplings of the probe systems $`𝒜`$ to the quantum system $``$, and it is finite only for the finite dimensional algebra $``$. The q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$, called also the dimensional entropy, can be considered as the true quantum entropy, in contrast to the von Neumann entropy $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$, called also rank-entropy, or c-entropy (semi-classical entropy) as the supremum of mutual entropy over couplings only with only classical probe systems $`𝒜`$. The capacity $`𝖢_q`$ coincides with $`𝖢_c`$ only in the classical case of the Abelian $``$, and it is strictly larger then the semi-classical capacity $`𝖢_c=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}`$ for any noisless quantum channel. We shall show that the capacity $`𝖢_q=\mathrm{ln}dim`$ is achieved as the supremum of the quantum Shannon information for the noisless channel over the entanglements as q-encodings similar to the capacity $`𝖢_c`$ which is achieved as the supremum over c-encodings described by the classical-quantum correspondences $`𝒜`$.

In this paper we consider the case of semifinite quantum systems which are described by the von Neumann algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$ with normal faithful semifinite trace. Such quantum systems include all simple quantum systems described by full operator algebras as well as all classical systems as the commutative case. The particular cases of simple and discrete decomposable algebras are considered in .

## 2. Pairings, Couplings and Entanglements

In this section we give mathematical characterization of entanglement in terms of quantum coupling which is described in terms of transpose-completely positive operations extending individual states to compound state of a composed quantum system. We show how any normal compound state can be achieved in this way, and introduce the standard entanglement as an operation giving rise to the standard entangled compound state.

Let $``$ denote the Hilbert space of a quantum system, and $`=\left(\right)`$ be the algebra of all linear bounded operators on $``$. Note that $``$ consists of all operators $`A:`$ having the adjoints $`A^{}`$ on $``$. A linear functional $`\varsigma `$ on $``$ with complex-values $`\varsigma \left(B\right)`$ is called a state on $``$ if it is positive (i.e., $`\varsigma \left(B\right)0`$ for any positive operator $`B=A^{}A`$ in $``$) and normalized (i.e., $`\varsigma (I)=1`$ for the identity operator $`I`$ in $`𝒜`$). A *normal* state can be expressed as,

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

where $`\varkappa `$ is a linear Hilbert-Schmidt operator from $``$ to (another) Hilbert space $`𝒢`$, and $`\varkappa ^{}`$ is the adjoint operator from $`𝒢`$ to $``$. Here $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ stands for the usual trace in $`𝒢`$ (in the case of ambiguity it will also be denoted as $`\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢`$). This $`\varkappa `$ is called the *amplitude operator* which can always be considered on $`𝒢=`$ as the square root of the operator $`\varkappa \varkappa ^{}`$ (it is called simply the amplitude, if $`𝒢`$ is the one dimensional space $``$, $`\varkappa =\eta `$ with $`\varkappa ^{}\varkappa =\eta ^2=1`$, in which case $`\varkappa ^{}`$ is the functional $`\eta ^{}`$ from $``$ to $``$).

We can always equip $``$ (and will equip all auxiliary Hilbert spaces, e.g. $`𝒢`$) with an isometric involution $`J=J^{}`$, $`J^2=I`$ having the properties of complex conjugation

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

and denote by $`B,\sigma `$ the tilde-pairing $`\mathrm{Tr}B\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ of $``$ with the trace class operators $`\sigma 𝒯\left(\right)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=J\sigma ^{}J`$. We shall call $`\sigma =J\varkappa \varkappa ^{}J=\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }`$ the probability density of the state (2.1) with respect to this pairing and assume that the support $`E_\sigma `$ of $`\sigma `$ is the minimal projector $`E=E^{}`$ for which $`\varsigma \left(E\right)=1`$, i.e. that $`\overline{E_\sigma }:=JE_\sigma J=E_\sigma `$. The latter can also be expressed as the symmetricity property $`\stackrel{~}{E_\sigma }=E_\sigma `$ with respect to the tilde operation (transposition) $`\stackrel{~}{B}=JB^{}J`$ on $`\left(\right)`$. One can always assume that $`J`$ is the standard complex conjugation in an eigen-representation of $`\sigma `$ such that $`\overline{\sigma }=\varkappa \varkappa ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ coincides with $`\sigma `$ as the real element of the invariant maximal Abelian subalgebra $`𝒜\left(\right)`$ of all diagonal (and thus symmetric) operators in this basis.

The auxiliary Hilbert space $`𝒢`$ and the amplitude operator in (2.1) are not unique, however $`\varkappa `$ is defined uniquely up to a unitary transform $`\varkappa ^{}U\varkappa ^{}`$ in $`𝒢`$. $`𝒢`$ can always be taken to be minimal by identifying it with the support $`_\sigma =E_\sigma `$ for $`\sigma `$ defined as the closure of $`\sigma `$ ($`E_\sigma `$ is the minimal orthoprojector in $``$ such that $`\sigma E=\sigma )`$. In general, $`𝒢`$ is not one dimensional, the dimensionality $`dim𝒢`$ must not be less than $`\mathrm{rank}\varkappa ^{}=\mathrm{rank}\sigma `$, the dimensionality of the range $`\mathrm{ran}\rho =\mathrm{ran}\varkappa ^{}`$ of $`\rho =\varkappa ^{}\varkappa `$ coinciding with the support $`𝒢_\rho `$ for this $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$.

Given the amplitude operator $`\varkappa :𝒢`$, one can define not only the state $`\varsigma `$ but also the normal state,

(2.2)
$$\varrho \left(A\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}A\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }A,\rho ,A𝒜,$$

on $`𝒜=\left(𝒢\right)`$, as the marginal of the *pure compound* state

$$\omega \left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{A}\varkappa ^{}B\varkappa =\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}A\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\stackrel{~}{B},$$

where $`\omega `$ is defined on the algebra $`𝒜`$ of all bounded operators on the Hilbert tensor product space $`𝒢`$.

Indeed, the defined bilinear form, with $`\stackrel{~}{A}=JA^{}J`$, is uniquely extended to such a state given on $`\left(𝒢\right)`$ by the amplitude $`\psi =\varkappa ^{}`$, where $`\varkappa ^{}`$ is uniquely defined by $`\left(\zeta \eta \right)^{}\varkappa ^{}=\eta ^{}\varkappa J\zeta `$ for all $`\zeta 𝒢`$, $`\eta `$.

This pure compound state $`\omega `$ is the so called *entangled state*  unless its marginal state $`\varsigma `$ (and $`\varrho `$) is pure corresponding to a rank one operator $`\varkappa ^{}=\zeta \eta ^{}`$, in which case $`\omega =\varrho \varsigma `$ is given by the amplitude $`\upsilon =\zeta \eta `$. The amplitude operator $`\varkappa `$ corresponding to mixed states on $`𝒜`$ and $``$ will be called the *entangling operator* of $`\rho =\varkappa ^{}\varkappa `$ to $`\sigma =\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }`$.

As follows from the next theorem, any pure entangled state

$$\omega \left(AB\right)=\psi ^{}\left(AB\right)\psi ,AB\left(𝒢\right)$$

given by an amplitude $`\psi 𝒢`$, can be described by a unique entanglement $`\varkappa `$ to the algebra $`𝒜=\left(𝒢\right)`$ of the marginal state $`\varsigma `$ on $`=\left(\right)`$.

Before formulating this theorem in the generality required for further considerations, let us introduce the following notation.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $``$-algebra on $`𝒢`$ with a normal, faithful, semifinite trace $`\mu `$, $`𝒜^{^{}}`$ denote the commutant $`\{A^{}\left(𝒢\right):[A^{},A]=0,A𝒜\}`$ of $`𝒜`$, and $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒜},\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ denote the transposed algebra of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\left(A\right)=\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{A}\right)`$, which may not coincide with $`(𝒜,\mu )`$ (nor with $`𝒜^{}`$). We can always assume that $`\stackrel{~}{A}=JA^{}J`$ with respect to an involution $`J`$ on $`𝒢`$ representing $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ on the same Hilbert space $`𝒢`$ and in most cases $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}=𝒜`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu `$ but not in the *standard representation* unless $`𝒜`$ is Abelian algebra. We denote by $`𝒜_\mu 𝒜`$ the space of all operators $`A𝒜`$ in the form $`x^{}z`$, where $`x,z𝔞_\mu `$, with $`𝔞_\mu =\{x𝒜:\mu \left(x^{}x\right)<\mathrm{}\}`$. $`(𝒢_\mu ,\iota ,J_\mu )`$ denotes the standard representation $`\iota :𝒜\left(𝒢_\mu \right)`$ given by the left multiplication $`\iota \left(A\right)x=Ax`$ on $`𝔞_\mu `$, with the standard isometric involution $`J_\mu :xx^{}`$ defining the representation $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\right)=J_\mu \iota \left(A^{}\right)J_\mu `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ on the completion $`𝒢_\mu `$ of the module $`𝔞_\mu `$ with respect to the inner product $`\left(x|z\right)_\mu =\mu \left(x^{}z\right)`$. We recall that the von Neumann algebra $`𝒜`$ defined by $`𝒜^{\prime \prime }=𝒜`$ is anti-isomorphic to $`\iota \left(𝒜\right)^{}=J_\mu \iota \left(𝒜\right)J_\mu `$ and thus $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\iota \left(𝒜\right)^{}`$ and that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}=𝒜_\mu ^{}`$ as the space of all continuous functionals $`\stackrel{~}{A}:\varphi \varphi ,\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ with respect to the $``$-norm $`\varphi _{}=sup\left\{\right|\mu \left(A\varphi \right)|:A1\}`$ on $`𝒜_\mu `$ and the pairing

$$x^{}z,\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\mu \left(zAx^{}\right)=A,\stackrel{~}{x^{}z}_\mu ,x^{}z𝒜_\mu ,.\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{𝒜}.$$

The completion of $`𝒜_\mu `$ with respect to the norm $`_{}`$ is the predual Banach space, denoted as $`𝒜_{}`$ ( if $`\mu =\tau |𝒜`$ is the usual trace $`\tau =\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢`$ on $`𝒜`$, then $`𝒜_\mu `$ coincides with $`𝒜_{}`$ as the class $`𝒜_\tau =𝒜𝒯\left(𝒢\right)`$ of trace operators $`𝒯\left(𝒢\right)=\{x^{}z:x,z𝒮\left(𝒢\right)\}`$, where $`𝒮\left(𝒢\right)=\{x\left(𝒢\right):\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢x^{}x<\mathrm{}\}`$).

If $`𝒜`$ is not the algebra of all operators $`\left(𝒢\right)`$, the density operator $`\rho `$ for a normal state (2.2) is not unique with respect to $`\tau =\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢`$. However it is uniquely defined as the bounded *probability density* $`\rho =Jx^{}xJ=\overline{x}^{}\overline{x}`$ with respect to the restriction $`\mu =\tau |𝒜`$ (i.e. as the density operator with respect to $`\mu `$) describing this state as $`A,\rho _\mu =\mu \left(xAx^{}\right)`$ by the additional condition $`\varkappa =\overline{x}\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\mu }`$. Note that each probability density $`\rho \stackrel{~}{𝒜_\mu }`$ describing the normal state $`\varrho \left(A\right)=A,\rho _\mu `$ on $`𝒜A`$ is positive and normalized as $`I,\rho _\mu =1`$. However the predual space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{}`$ as the $``$-completion of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\mu }`$ may consist of not only the bounded densities with respect to $`\mu `$ (however each $`\rho \stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{}`$ can always be approximated by the bounded $`\rho _n\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\mu }`$).

In the following formulation $``$ can also be the more general von Neumann algebra, rather than $`\left(\right)`$, with a normal faithful semifinite trace $`\nu :_\nu `$ defining the pairing $`B,u^{}u_\nu =\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{u}^{}B\stackrel{~}{u}\right)`$, where $`u\stackrel{~}{𝔟_\nu }`$ ($`_\nu =𝔟_\nu ^{}𝔟_\nu `$ coincides with $`_{}`$ in the case of the standard trace $`\nu \left(B\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\right)=\mathrm{Tr}B\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=B,\sigma _\nu `$ when $`𝔟_\nu `$ is the space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators $`y`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}=`$).

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\omega :𝒜`$ be a normal compound state

(2.3)
$$\omega \left(AB\right)=\tau \left(\upsilon \stackrel{~}{\left(AB\right)}\upsilon ^{}\right):=AB,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon ,$$

described by an amplitude operator $`\upsilon :𝒢`$ on the tensor product of Hilbert spaces $``$ and $``$, satisfying the condition

$$\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \stackrel{~}{𝒜}\stackrel{~}{},\tau \left(\upsilon \upsilon ^{}\right)=1,$$

where $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ is the trace $`\tau \left(\upsilon \upsilon ^{}\right)=II,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$ defined in (2.3) by the pairing for $`𝒜`$ with respect to $`\mu \nu `$. Then this state is achieved by an entangling operator $`\varkappa :𝒢`$ as

(2.4)
$$A,\nu \left(\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa \right)_\mu =\omega \left(AB\right)=B,\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)_\nu $$

for all $`A𝒜`$ and $`B`$ such that

$$\nu \left(\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa \right)\stackrel{~}{𝒜},\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)\stackrel{~}{}.$$

The operator $`\varkappa `$ together with $`\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }=J\varkappa ^{}J`$ is uniquely defined by $`\upsilon =U\varkappa ^{}`$, where

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

up to a unitary transformation $`U`$ of the minimal subspace space $`\mathrm{ran}\upsilon `$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we can assume that $`=𝒢_\rho `$, $`=_\sigma `$ and $`\upsilon ^{}=\upsilon \left(E_\rho E_\sigma \right)`$ as the support $`\left(𝒢\right)_{\upsilon ^{}\upsilon }=\mathrm{ran}\upsilon ^{}`$ for $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$ is contained in $`𝒢_\rho _\sigma `$. Due to $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \left(\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}}\stackrel{~}{^{}}\right)^{}`$ the range of $`\upsilon `$ is invariant under the action

$$\left(AB\right)\upsilon =\upsilon \left(AE_\rho BE_\sigma \right),A\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}},B\stackrel{~}{^{}}$$

of the commutant $`\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}\stackrel{~}{}\right)^{}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}}\stackrel{~}{^{}}`$. Let us equip $`𝒢`$ and $``$ with the involutions $`J`$ leaving invariant $`𝒢_\rho =E_\rho 𝒢`$ and $`_\sigma =E_\sigma `$ denoting $`J_\rho =E_\rho J`$, $`J_\sigma =E_\sigma J`$, and $`=𝒢_\rho _\sigma `$ with the induced involution $`J\left(\zeta \eta \right)=J_\rho \zeta J_\sigma \eta `$. It is easy to check for such $`\upsilon `$ and $`\varkappa =\upsilon ^{}`$ defined by $`\upsilon =\varkappa ^{}`$ in (2.5) that for any $`A𝒜^{}`$ and $`B\stackrel{~}{^{}}`$

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\xi \eta \right)^{}\varkappa \left(\zeta \overline{B}J\eta ^{}\right)`$ $`=\left(\stackrel{~}{A}\xi B\eta ^{}\right)^{}\upsilon \left(\xi J\eta \right)=\left(\xi \eta ^{}\right)^{}\upsilon \left(\overline{A}\xi J\stackrel{~}{B}\eta \right)`$
$`=\left(\xi \stackrel{~}{B}\eta \right)^{}\varkappa \left(\overline{A}\zeta J\eta ^{}\right)`$
where $`\overline{A}=JAJ\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}}`$, $`\overline{B}=JBJ^{}`$. Hence for any $`B`$

$$\left(AB^{}\right)\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa =\varkappa ^{}\left(AB^{}B\right)\varkappa =\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa \left(AB^{}\right),$$

where $`A\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\rho ^{}}:=\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}}E_\rho `$, $`B^{}_\sigma ^{}:=^{}E_\sigma `$, and for any $`A𝒜`$

$$\left(A^{}B\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }=\varkappa \left(A^{}AB\right)\varkappa ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\left(A^{}B\right),$$

where $`A^{}𝒜^{}`$ and $`B\stackrel{~}{^{}}`$. Thus for all $`A𝒜`$ and $`B`$

$$\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa \left(\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\rho ^{}}_\sigma ^{}\right)^{},\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\left(𝒜_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{_\sigma ^{}}\right)^{}.$$

Moreover, due to $`𝒜_\rho ^{\prime \prime }=E_\rho 𝒜E_\rho 𝒜_\rho `$ and $`_\sigma ^{\prime \prime }=E_\sigma E_\sigma _\sigma `$

$$\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa J_\rho 𝒜_\mu J_\rho E_\sigma _\nu E_\sigma :=\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\rho }_\sigma \right)_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\nu },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }E_\rho 𝒜_\mu E_\rho J_\sigma _\nu J_\sigma :=\left(𝒜_\rho \stackrel{~}{_\sigma }\right)_{\mu \stackrel{~}{\nu }}$$

as bounded by $`B\varkappa ^{}\varkappa `$ and by $`A\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }`$ respectively. The partial traces $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ on these reduced algebras are defined as

(2.6)
$$\nu \left(\varkappa ^{}\left(IB\right)\varkappa \right)=B,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\nu ,\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)=A,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\mu ,$$

according to $`A,B,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\nu _\mu =AB,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon =B,A,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\mu _\nu `$, where

$$B,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\nu =\stackrel{~}{\nu \left(\left(IB\right)\stackrel{~}{\upsilon ^{}\upsilon }\right)},A,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\mu \stackrel{~}{=\mu \left(\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\upsilon ^{}\upsilon }\right)}$$

In particular

$$\nu \left(\varkappa ^{}\varkappa \right)=\stackrel{~}{\nu }\left(\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \right)=\rho ,\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }\left(\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \right)=\sigma .$$

Any other choice of $`\upsilon `$ with the minimal $`𝒢_\rho _\sigma `$ is unitary equivalent to $`\varkappa ^{}`$.

Note that the entangled state (2.3) is written in (2.4) as,

$$B,\varpi \left(A\right)_\nu =\omega \left(AB\right)=A,\varpi ^{}\left(B\right)_\mu ,$$

in terms of the mutually adjoint maps $`\varpi :𝒜\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ and $`\varpi ^{}:\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{}`$. These maps are given in (2.6) as

(2.7)
$$\varpi \left(A\right)=A,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\mu =\stackrel{~}{\pi ^{}\left(A\right)},\varpi ^{}\left(B\right)=B,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon _\nu =\stackrel{~}{\pi \left(B\right)},$$

where the linear map $`\pi :𝒜_\mu `$ and the adjoint $`\pi ^{}:𝒜_\nu `$ are defined as partial traces

$$\pi \left(B\right)=\nu \left(\left(IB\right)\stackrel{~}{\upsilon ^{}\upsilon }\right),\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\mu \left(\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\upsilon ^{}\upsilon }\right).$$

The linear normal map $`\varpi `$ in (2.6) is written in the Kraus-Stinespring form  and thus is completely positive (CP). It is not unital but normalized to the density operators $`\sigma =\omega \left(I\right)`$ with respect to the weight $`\nu `$.

A linear map $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$ is called *tilde-positive* if the map $`\pi ^\mathrm{~}`$ defined as $`\pi ^\mathrm{~}\left(B\right):=J\pi \left(B\right)^{}J`$ is positive for any positive (and thus Hermitian) operator $`B0`$ in the sense of non-negative definiteness of $`B`$. It is called *tilde-completely positive* (TCP) if the operator-matrix $`\pi ^\mathrm{~}\left(𝐁\right)=J\pi \left(𝐁\right)^{}J`$ is positive for every positive operator-matrix $`𝐁=\left[B_{ik}\right]=𝐁^{}`$, where $`𝐀^{}=\left[A_{ik}^{}\right]`$, $`𝐁^{}=\left[B_{ki}^{}\right]`$ (and thus $`𝐀^{}=\left[A_{ki}\right]`$ for $`𝐀=\left[A_{ik}\right]0`$, and $`𝐁^{}=𝐁`$ for $`𝐁0`$). Obviously every tilde-positive and tilde-completely positive $`\pi `$ is positive as positive is $`\stackrel{~}{A}=JA^{}J`$ for every positive $`A`$, but it is not necessarily completely positive unless $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A`$ for all $`A𝒜`$, in which case $`𝒜`$ is Abelian (or the Abelian is $``$).

The map $`\pi `$ defined in (2.8) as a TCP $``$-map, $`\pi \left(B^{}\right)=\pi \left(B\right)^{}`$, is obviously transpose-CP in the sense of positivity of $`\pi \left(𝐁\right)^{}=\left[\pi \left(B_{ki}\right)\right]=\pi \left(𝐁^{}\right)`$ for any $`𝐁0`$, but it is in general not CP. Because every transpose-CP map can be represented as tilde-CP: there might be a positive-definite matrix $`𝐁`$ for which $`\pi \left(𝐁\right)`$ is not positive. Note that the adjoint map $`\pi ^{}=\overline{\pi }^{}`$ is also TCP, as well as the maps $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }=\overline{\pi }`$ and $`\pi ^{}=\overline{\pi }^{}`$, where $`\overline{\pi }\left(B\right)=J\pi \left(\overline{B}\right)J`$, obtained from (2.6) as partial tracings

(2.8)
$$\overline{\pi }\left(B\right)=\nu \left(\varkappa ^{}\left(I\stackrel{~}{B}\right)\varkappa \right),\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{A}I\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right).$$

In these terms, the compound state (2.4) is written as,

$$A|\pi \left(B\right)_\mu =\omega \left(A^{}B\right)=\pi ^{}\left(A\right)|B_\nu ,$$

where $`x|y=y,\overline{x}`$ defines an inner product which coincides in the case of traces with the GNS product $`\left(x|y\right)`$.

In the following definition the predual space $`_{}=\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ (as well as $`𝒜_{}=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}_{}`$) is identified by the pairing $`B,\sigma _\nu =\varsigma \left(B\right)`$ with the space of generalized density operators $`\sigma `$ which are thus uniquely defined as selfadjoint, in general unbounded, operators in $``$. Note that $`_{}=_\nu `$ if $`=\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\nu =\mathrm{Tr}_{}=\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$.

###### Definition 1.

A TCP map $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$ (or $`𝒜_\mu 𝒜_{}`$) normalized as $`\mu \left(\pi \left(I\right)\right)=1`$ and having an adjoint with $`\pi ^{}\left(𝒜\right)_{}`$ ($`\pi ^{}\left(𝒜\right)_\nu `$) is called normal coupling (bounded coupling) of the state $`\varsigma =\mu \pi `$ on $``$ to the state $`\varrho =\nu \pi ^{}`$ on $`𝒜`$. The CP map $`\varpi :𝒜_{}`$ (or $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{_\nu }_{}`$) normalized to the probability density $`\sigma =\varpi \left(I\right)`$ of $`\varsigma `$ with $`\varpi ^{}\left(I\right)_{}`$ ($`\varpi ^{}\left(I\right)\stackrel{~}{𝒜_\mu }`$) will be called normal entanglement (bounded entanglement) of the system $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ with the probability density $`\rho =\varpi ^{}\left(I\right)`$ to $`(,\varsigma )`$. The coupling $`\pi `$ (entanglement $`\varpi `$) is called truly quantum if it is not CP (not TCP). The self-adjoint entanglement $`\varpi _q=\varpi _q^{}`$ on $`(𝒜,\varrho )=(\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{\varsigma })`$ (or symmetric coupling $`\pi _q=\pi _q^{}`$ into $`𝒜_{}=_{}`$) is called standard for the system $`(,\varsigma )`$ if it is given by

(2.9)
$$\varpi _q\left(A\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}A\sigma ^{1/2},\pi _q\left(B\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2}.$$

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, i.e. is not one-dimensional in the case $`=\left(\right)`$, corresponding to a pure normal $`\varsigma `$ on $`=\left(\right)`$. Indeed, $`\pi ^q`$ restricted to $`_\sigma `$ is the composition of the nondegenerated multiplication $`_\sigma B\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1/2}B`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1/2}`$ (which is CP) and the transposition $`\stackrel{~}{B}=JB^{}J`$ on $`_\sigma `$ (which is TCP but not CP if $`dim_\sigma >1`$).

The standard entanglement in the purely quantum case $`=\left(\right)=\stackrel{~}{}`$, $`\nu =\mathrm{Tr}=\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ corresponds to the pure *standard compound state*

(2.10)
$$\mathrm{Tr}A\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2}=\omega _q\left(AB\right)=\mathrm{Tr}B\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1/2}$$

on the algebra $``$. It is given by the amplitude $`\upsilon ^{}|\sigma ^{1/2})\psi `$, with $`|\sigma ^{1/2})^{}=\varkappa ^{}(\sigma ^{1/2}|`$ defined in (2.5) as $`\varkappa ^{}\left(\zeta J\eta \right)=\eta ^{}\varkappa \zeta `$ for $`\varkappa =\sigma ^{1/2}`$.

Any entanglement on $`𝒜=\left(𝒢\right)`$, $`\mu =\mathrm{Tr}`$ corresponding to a pure compound state is true if $`\mathrm{rank}\rho =\mathrm{rank}\sigma `$ is not one. If the space $`𝒢`$ is also minimal, $`𝒢=𝒢_\rho `$, $`\pi ^{}`$ is unitary equivalent to the standard one $`\pi _q`$. Indeed, $`\varpi \left(A\right)=\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}A\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }`$ can be decomposed as

$$\varpi \left(A\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}U^{}AU\sigma ^{1/2}=\varpi _q\left(U^{}AU\right),$$

where $`U:\sigma ^{1/2}\eta \stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\eta `$ is a unitary operator from $`_\sigma `$ onto the support $`𝒢_\rho `$ of $`\rho =U\sigma U^{}`$ with nonabelian $`𝒜_\rho =\left(𝒢_\rho \right)`$ and $`_\sigma =U^{}𝒜_\rho U=\left(_\sigma \right)`$.

Note that the compound state (2.4) with $`\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }=\sigma ^{1/2}`$ corresponding to the standard $`\varpi =\varpi _q`$ can always be extended to a vector state on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the standard representation $`(_\nu ,\iota ,J_\nu )`$ of $`\iota \left(\right)`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{}=J_\nu J_\nu =^{}`$. However it cannot be extended to a normal state on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the case of nonatomic $``$. If $``$ is a factor this state is pure, given in the standard representation $`\stackrel{~}{}=\left(_\nu \right)`$ by the unit vector $`y=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{1/2}_\nu `$; however it is not normal on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ unless $``$ is type I: $`\left(\right)`$.

## 3. C-, D- and O-Couplings and Encodings

In this section we discuss the operational meaning of couplings corresponding to different types of encodings which are treated here solely in terms of coupling maps on input of a quantum physical system. We hope that this mathematical treatment will provide a new physical insight for the corresponding asymptotic problems of quantum information.

The compound states play the role of joint input-output probability measures in classical information channels and can be pure in the quantum case, even if the marginal states are mixed. The pure compound states achieved by an entanglement of mixed input and output states exhibit new, non-classical type correlations, which are responsible for the EPR type paradoxes in the interpretation of quantum theory . However, mixed, so called *separable* states on $`𝒜`$, defined as convex product combinations

$$\omega _c\left(AB\right)=\underset{n}{}\varrho _n\left(A\right)\varsigma _n\left(B\right)p\left(n\right),$$

which we refer as the *c-compound states*, do not exhibit such paradoxical behavior. Here $`p\left(n\right)>0`$, $`p_n=1`$, is a probability distribution, and $`\varrho _n:𝒜`$, $`\varsigma _n:`$ are usually normal states defined by the product densities $`\rho _n\sigma _n`$ $`𝒜_{}_{}`$ of $`\omega _n=\varrho _n\sigma _n`$. Such compound states are achieved by *c-couplings* $`\pi _c:𝒜_{}`$ given by $`\pi _c^\mathrm{~}=\varpi _c^{}`$, where

$$\varpi _c\left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}\varrho _n\left(A\right)\sigma _np\left(n\right),\varpi _c^{}\left(B\right)=\underset{n}{}\varsigma _n\left(B\right)\rho _np\left(n\right),$$

Here $`\rho _n𝒜_{}`$ and $`\sigma _n_{}`$ are the probability densities for $`\varrho _n`$ and $`\varsigma _n`$ with respect to given traces $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ on $`𝒜`$ and $``$. Note that the *c-entanglement* $`\varpi _c`$, being the convex combinations of the primitive CP-TCP maps $`\varpi _n\left(A\right)=\varrho _n\left(A\right)\sigma _n_{}`$, is not truly quantum.

The separable states of the particular form

(3.1)
$$\omega _d\left(AB\right)=\underset{n}{}n|A|n\varsigma (n,B),$$

where $`\varrho _n\left(A\right)=n|A|n`$ are pure states on $`𝒜=\left(𝒢\right)=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ given by an ortho-normal system $`\left\{|n\right\}𝒢`$, and $`\varsigma (n,B)=B,\sigma \left(n\right)_\nu `$ with $`\sigma \left(n\right)=\sigma _np\left(n\right)`$, are usually considered as the proper candidates for the input-output states in the communication channels involving the classical-quantum (c-q) encodings. Such a separable state was introduced by Ohya  using a Schatten decomposition $`\rho =|nn|p\left(n\right)`$ of the input density operator $`\rho 𝒯\left(𝒢\right)`$ into the orthogonal one-dimensional projectors $`\rho _n=|nn|`$. Here we note that such a state is the mixture of the classical-quantum correspondences $`n|nn|\sigma _n`$ which can be described as the composition of quantum channeling $`|nn|\sigma _n`$ and the errorless *encodings* $`n|nn|`$ in the sense that they can be inverted by the measurements $`|nn|n`$ as input *decodings*. We shall call such separable states *d-compound* as they are achieved by the diagonal couplings $`\pi _d=\varpi _d^{}`$ (*d-couplings*) to the subalgebra $`𝒜_d𝒜`$ of the diagonal operators $`A=a\left(n\right)|nn|`$, where

(3.2)
$$\varpi _d\left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}n|A|n\sigma \left(n\right),\varpi _d^{}\left(B\right)=\underset{n}{}\varsigma (n,B)|nn|$$

with respect to the standard transposition $`n|\stackrel{~}{A}|m=m|A|n`$ in the eigenbasis of $`\rho `$.

Actually Ohya obtained the compound states $`\omega _d`$ as the result of the composition

$$\omega _d\left(AB\right)=\omega _o\left(A\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right)\right),$$

of quantum channels as normal unital CP maps $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:𝒜`$ and the special, *o-compound* states

(3.3)
$$\omega _o\left(AB\right)=\underset{n}{}n|A|np\left(n\right)n|B|n$$

corresponding to the orthogonal decompositions

(3.4)
$$\varpi _o\left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}n|A|np\left(n\right)|nn|=\varpi _o^{}\left(A\right)$$

such that $`\varsigma _n\left(B\right)=n|\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right)|n`$, $`\sigma _n=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(|nn|\right)`$, where $`B,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\rho \right)_\nu =\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right)\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$.

Assuming that $`A,\rho =\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢A\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, we can extend this construction to any discretely-decomposable algebra $`𝒜=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ on the Hilbert sum $`𝒢=𝒢_i`$ with invariant components $`𝒢_i`$ under the standard complex conjugation $`J`$ in the eigen-basis of the density operator $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=J\rho J=\rho `$. In particular, the von Neumann algebra $`𝒜`$ might be Abelian, as it is in the case $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A`$ for all $`A𝒜`$, e.g. when $`𝒜=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ is the diagonal algebra of pointwise multiplications $`Ag=ag=\stackrel{~}{A}g`$ by the bounded functions $`na\left(n\right)`$ on the functional Hilbert space $`𝒢=\mathrm{}^2g`$ with the standard complex conjugation $`Jg=\overline{g}`$. In this case the densities $`\rho 𝒜_{}`$ are given by the summable functions $`p\mathrm{}^1`$ with respect to the standard trace $`\mu \left(\rho \right)=p\left(n\right)`$, and any compound state has the separable form with $`\varrho _n\left(A\right)=a\left(n\right)`$ corresponding to the Kronecker $`\delta `$-densities $`\rho _n\delta _n`$. The normal states on the $`𝒜\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are described by the probability densities $`p\left(n\right)0`$, $`p\left(n\right)=1`$ with respect to the standard pairing

$$A,\rho _\mu =a\left(n\right)p\left(n\right),p\mathrm{}^1,a\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}$$

of $`𝒜_\mu =𝒜_{}`$ with the commutative algebra $`𝒜`$. Every normal compound state $`\omega `$ on $`𝒜`$ is defined by

$$\omega _c\left(AB\right)=\underset{n}{}a\left(n\right)B,\sigma \left(n\right)_\nu ,$$

where $`\sigma \left(n\right)=\sigma _np\left(n\right)`$ is the function with positive values $`\sigma \left(n\right)_{}`$ normalized to the probability density $`p\left(n\right)=I,\sigma \left(n\right)_\nu `$. Thus all normal compound states on $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are achieved by *c-couplings* $`\pi _c=\varpi _c^{}:\mathrm{}^1`$ with $`\pi _c^{}=\varpi _c`$ given by convex combinations of the primitive CP (and TCP) maps $`\varpi _n\left(a\right)=a\left(n\right)\sigma _n_{}`$,

$$\varpi _c\left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}a\left(n\right)\sigma \left(n\right),\varpi _c^{}\left(B\right)=\underset{n}{}\varsigma (n,B)\delta _n,$$

where $`\varsigma (n,B)=B,\sigma \left(n\right)_\nu `$.

Note that any d-coupling can be regarded as quantum-classical c-coupling, achieved by the identification $`a\left(n\right)=n|A|n`$ of $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}a`$ and the reduced diagonal algebra $`𝒜^0=\{|na\left(n\right)n|:A𝒜\}`$. This simply follows from the commutativity of the density operators $`\rho =|nn|p\left(n\right)`$ for the induced states $`\varrho \left(A\right)=\omega _d\left(AI\right)`$ identified with $`p\mathrm{}^1`$ .

In the case $`𝒜=\left(𝒢\right)`$ and pure elementary states $`\omega _n`$ described by probability amplitudes $`\upsilon _n=\chi _n\psi _n`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n|\chi _n𝒢`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n|\psi _n`$, we have density operators $`\rho _n=`$ $`\chi _n^{}\chi _n`$ and $`\sigma _n=\psi _n^{}\psi _n`$ of rank one. The total compound amplitude is obviously $`\upsilon =|n\upsilon \left(n\right)`$, where $`\upsilon \left(n\right)=\chi _n\psi _np\left(n\right)^{1/2}`$are the amplitude operators $`𝒢\mathrm{}^2`$ satisfying the orthogonality relations

$$\upsilon \left(n\right)^{}\upsilon \left(m\right)=\rho _n\sigma _np\left(n\right)\delta _n^m$$

corresponding to the decomposition $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon =\rho _n\sigma _np\left(n\right)`$. The “entangling” operator for the separable state $`\varkappa `$ can be chosen as either as $`\varkappa =|n\varkappa \left(n\right)`$ or as $`\varkappa =\varkappa \left(n\right)n|`$ or even as $`\varkappa =|n\varkappa \left(n\right)n|`$ with $`\varkappa \left(n\right)=\chi _n\stackrel{~}{\psi }\left(n\right)`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n\left(n\right)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_np\left(n\right)^{1/2}`$. In particular a d-entangling operator $`\varkappa `$ corresponding to d-encodings (3.2) is diagonal, $`\varkappa =|n\stackrel{~}{\psi }\left(n\right)n|`$ on $`𝒢=\mathrm{}^2`$, corresponding to the orthogonal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_n=|n`$. Thus, we have proved the Theorem 2 below in the case of pure states $`\varsigma _n`$ and $`\varrho _n`$. But, before formulating this theorem in a natural generality let us introduce the following notations.

The general c-compound states on $`𝒜`$ are defined as integral convex combinations

$$\omega \left(AB\right)=\varrho _x\left(A\right)\varsigma _x\left(B\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)$$

given by a probability distribution $`p`$ on the product-states $`\varrho _x\varsigma _x`$. Such compound states are achieved by convex combinations of the primitive CP (and TCP) maps $`\pi _x^\mathrm{~}=\varpi _x^{}`$ with $`\varpi _x\left(A\right)=\varrho _x\left(A\right)\sigma _x`$:

(3.5)
$$\varpi _c\left(A\right)=\varrho _x\left(A\right)\sigma _xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right),\varpi _c^{}\left(B\right)=\varsigma _x\left(B\right)\rho _xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right).$$

This is always the case when the von Neumann algebra $`𝒜`$ is Abelian, and thus can be identified with the diagonal algebra of multiplications $`\left(Ag\right)\left(x\right)=a\left(x\right)g\left(x\right)`$ by the functions $`aL_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ on the functional Hilbert space $`𝒢=L_\mu ^2`$ with respect to a (not necessarily finite) measure $`\mu `$ on $`X`$. It defines trace $`\mu `$ on $`𝒜_\mu L_\mu ^1L_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ as the integral $`\mu \left(\rho \right)=p\left(x\right)\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ for the bounded multiplication densities $`\left(\rho g\right)\left(x\right)=p\left(x\right)g\left(x\right)`$. The normal states on $`𝒜`$ are given by the probability densities $`pL_\mu ^1`$ with respect to the standard pairing

$$A,\rho _\mu =a\left(x\right)p\left(x\right)\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right),pL_\mu ^1,aL_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}$$

of $`𝒜_{}=𝒜_{}L_\mu ^1`$ and $`𝒜=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}L_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to the trivial transposition $`\stackrel{~}{a}=a`$. Any normal compound state $`\omega `$ on $`𝒜L_\mu ^{\mathrm{}}\left(X\right)`$ is the c-compound state, defined on the diagonal algebra $`𝒜`$ by

(3.6)
$$\omega _d\left(AB\right)=a\left(x\right)\varsigma (x,B)\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right),$$

where $`\varsigma (x,B)=B,\sigma \left(x\right)_\nu `$ is an absolutely integrable function with density operator values $`\sigma \left(x\right)=\sigma _xp\left(x\right)`$ normalized to the probability density $`p\left(x\right)=I,\sigma \left(x\right)_\nu =\varsigma (x,I)`$. It corresponds to d-couplings $`\pi _d=\varpi _d^{}=\pi _d^\mathrm{~}`$ with $`\pi _d^{}=\varpi _d`$ decomposing into $`\varpi (x,A)=a\left(x\right)\sigma \left(x\right)`$:

(3.7)
$$\varpi _d\left(A\right)=a\left(x\right)\sigma \left(x\right)\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right),\varpi _d^{}\left(B\right)=\varsigma (x,B)\delta _x\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right),$$

where $`\delta _x`$ is the (generalized) density operator of the Dirac state $`\varrho _x\left(A\right)=A,\delta _x_\mu =a\left(x\right)`$ on the diagonal algebra $`𝒜`$.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`\omega _c:𝒜`$ be a normal c-compound state given as

(3.8)
$$\omega _c\left(AB\right)=\mu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{}A\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\right)\nu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}^{}B\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right),$$

where $`\chi _x:𝒢_x`$, $`\psi _x:_x`$ are linear operators having bounded transpose $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}=J\chi _{}^{}J_{}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}=J\psi _{}^{}J_{}`$ on Hilbert spaces $`_{}=^{}_xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$, $`_{}=^{}_xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ with respect to pointwise involution $`J_{}=J_{}^{}`$. We also assume that

$$\chi _x^{}\chi _x\stackrel{~}{𝒜},\psi _x^{}\psi _x\stackrel{~}{},\mu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\right)=1=\nu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\right)$$

with respect to the traces

(3.9)
$$\mu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\right)=I,\chi _x^{}\chi _x_\mu ,\nu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\right)=I,\psi _x^{}\psi _x_\nu .$$

Then this state is achieved by a decomposable entangling operator $`\varkappa =^{}\chi _x\stackrel{~}{\psi }_xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ defining c-entanglement (3.5) with

(3.10)
$$\varrho _x\left(A\right)=\mu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}^{}A\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{}\right),\varsigma _x\left(B\right)=\nu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}^{}A\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\right),$$

corresponding to the probability densities $`\rho _x=\chi _x^{}\chi _x`$, $`\sigma _x=\psi _x^{}\psi _x`$. In particular, every d-compound state (3.6) corresponding to $`p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)=p\left(x\right)\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ with the Abelian algebra $`𝒜`$ can be achieved by the orthogonal sum of entangling operators $`\varkappa _x=\delta _x\stackrel{~}{\psi }_x`$ defining d-entanglement (3.7) with

$$\sigma \left(x\right)=\psi _x^{}\psi _xp\left(x\right),\varsigma (x,B)=\nu _x\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}^{}A\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{}\right)p\left(x\right).$$

###### Proof.

The amplitude operator $`\upsilon =^{}\upsilon _xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ corresponding to c-compound state (3.8) is defined as the orthogonal sum of $`\upsilon _x=\chi _x\psi _x`$ on $`𝒢`$ into $`^{}_x_xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $`_x=𝒢_\rho `$, $`_x=_\sigma `$ and $`\upsilon _x^{}=\upsilon _x\left(E_\rho E_\sigma \right)`$ because the support $`\left(𝒢\right)_{\upsilon _x^{}\upsilon _x}=\mathrm{ran}\upsilon _x^{}`$ for

$$\upsilon _x^{}\upsilon _x=\chi _x^{}\chi _x\psi _x^{}\psi _x=\rho _x\sigma _x$$

is in $`𝒢_\rho _\sigma `$. Due to $`\chi _x^{}\chi _x\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}}^{}`$, $`\psi _x^{}\psi _x\stackrel{~}{^{}}^{}`$ for almost all $`x`$, the operators $`\chi _x`$ and $`\psi _x`$ commute with $`A\stackrel{~}{𝒜^{}}`$ and $`B\stackrel{~}{^{}}`$ respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_x`$ commutes with $`B^{}`$ for almost all $`x`$. Thus,

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_x^{}A\stackrel{~}{\chi }_x𝒜,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_xB\stackrel{~}{\psi }_x$$

which defines the traces (3.9) on $`L_p^{\mathrm{}}𝒜`$ and $`L_p^{\mathrm{}}`$ for almost all $`x`$. The rest of the proof is a repetition of the proof of Theorem 1 for each $`x`$, with the addition that $`\varkappa _x`$ is the product $`\upsilon _x^{}=\chi _x\stackrel{~}{\psi }_x`$ for each $`x`$. The total entangling operator $`\varkappa :𝒢_{}_{}`$ acts componentwise as $`\varkappa _x\left(\zeta \eta _{}\right)=\chi _x\zeta \stackrel{~}{\psi }_x\eta _x`$.

In the case of d-compound state (3.6) one should take $`𝒢=L_\mu ^2`$, $`_x=`$, and $`\chi _xg=g\left(x\right)`$. Thus the entangling operator in this case is given as

$$\varkappa \left(g\eta _{}\right)=^{}g\left(x\right)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_x\eta _x\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right),gL_\mu ^2,\eta _{}=^{}\eta _x\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)_{}.$$

Note that c-entanglements $`\varpi _c`$ in (3.5) are both CP and TCP and thus are not true quantum entanglements. The map $`\varpi _c:𝒜_{}`$ with Abelian algebra $`𝒜`$ in (3.7) is described by a $`_{}`$-valued measure $`\sigma \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)=\sigma \left(x\right)\mu \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ normalized to the input probability measure as $`p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)=I,\sigma \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)_\nu `$. This gives the concise form for the description of random classical-quantum state correspondences $`x\sigma _x`$ with the given probability measure $`p`$, called *encodings* of $`\sigma =\sigma \left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$.

###### Definition 2.

Let both algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$ be non-Abelian. The map $`\varpi :𝒜_{}`$ is called a *c-encoding* of $`(,\varsigma )`$ if it is a convex combination of the primitive maps $`\sigma _n\varrho _n`$ given by the probability densities $`\sigma _n_{}`$ and normal states $`\varrho _n:𝒜`$. It is called *d-encoding* if it has the diagonalizing form (3.2) on $`𝒜`$, and it is called *o-encoding* if all density operators $`\sigma _n`$ are mutually orthogonal: $`\sigma _m\sigma _n=0`$ for all $`mn`$ as in (3.4). The entanglement which is described by non-separable CP map $`\varpi :𝒜_{}`$ will be called *q-encoding*.

Note that due to the commutativity of the operators $`AI`$ with $`IB`$ on $`𝒢`$, one can treat the encodings as nondemolition measurements  in $`𝒜`$ with respect to $``$. The corresponding compound state is the state prepared for such measurements on the input $`𝒢`$. It coincides with the mixture of the states corresponding to those after the measurement, without reading the message sent. The set of all d-encodings for a Schatten decomposition of the input state $`\rho `$ on $`𝒜`$ is obviously convex with the extreme points given by the pure output states $`\varsigma _n`$ on $``$, corresponding to the not necessarily orthogonal (not Schatten) decompositions $`\sigma =\sigma \left(n\right)`$ into the one-dimensional density operators $`\sigma \left(n\right)=p\left(n\right)\sigma _n.`$

The Schatten decompositions $`\sigma =_nq\left(n\right)\sigma _n`$ correspond to o-encodings, the extreme d-encodings $`\sigma _n=\eta _n\eta _n^{}`$, $`p\left(n\right)=q\left(n\right)`$ characterized by the orthogonality $`\sigma _m\sigma _n=0`$, $`mn`$ . For each Schatten decomposition of $`\sigma `$ they form a convex subset of d-encodings with mixed commuting $`\sigma _n`$ .

## 4. Quantum versus von Neumann Entropy.

As we have seen in the previous section, the encodings $`\varpi :𝒜_{}`$, which are described in (3.7) usually with a discrete Abelian $`𝒜`$, correspond to the case (3.2) when the general entanglement (2.7) is *d-encoding*, with the diagonal coupling $`\pi =\varpi ^{}`$ in the eigen-representation of a discrete probability density $`\rho `$ on non-Abelian $`𝒜`$. The true quantum entanglements with non-Abelian $`𝒜`$ cannot be achieved by d-, or more generally, c-encodings even in the case of discrete $`𝒜`$. The nonseparable, true entangled states $`\omega `$ called in  *q-compound* states, can be achieved by *q-encodings*, the quantum-quantum nonseparable correspondences (2.6) which are not diagonal in the eigen-representation of $`\rho `$.

As we shall prove in this section, the self-dual standard true entanglement $`\varpi _q=\varpi _q^{}`$ to the probe system $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)=(\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{\varsigma })`$, which is defined in (2.9), is the most informative for a quantum system $`(,\varsigma )`$, in the sense that it achieves the maximal mutual information in the coupled system $`(𝒜,\omega )`$ when $`\omega =\omega _q`$ is given in (2.10).

Let us consider entangled mutual information and quantum entropies of states by means of the above three types of compound states. To define the quantum mutual entropy we need to apply a quantum version of the relative entropy to compound states on the algebra $`=𝒜`$, called also the information divergency of the state $`\omega `$ with respect to a reference state $`\phi `$ on $``$. The relative entropy was defined in , even for the most general von Neumann algebra $``$, but for our purposes we need the following explicit formulation.

Let $``$ be a semi-finite algebra with normal states $`\omega `$ and $`\phi `$ having the density operator $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$ and $`\varphi \stackrel{~}{}`$ with respect to the pairing

$$M,\upsilon ^{}\upsilon =\tau \left(\upsilon \stackrel{~}{M}\upsilon ^{}\right),M,\upsilon \upsilon ^{}\stackrel{~}{}$$

given by a normal faithful trace $`\tau `$ on the transposed algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}=JJ`$ (not necessary decomposable as $`\tau =\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ in (2.3) in the case of $`=𝒜`$). Then the *relative entropy* $`𝖱(\omega ;\phi )`$ of the state $`\omega `$ with respect to $`\phi `$ is given by the formula

(4.1)
$$𝖱(\omega :\phi )=\tau \left(\upsilon (\mathrm{ln}\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \mathrm{ln}\varphi )\upsilon ^{}\right)=\tau \left(\omega (\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}\varphi )\right).$$

(For notational simplicity here and below we identify the state $`\omega `$ with its density operator $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$). It has a positive value $`𝖱(\omega :\phi )[0,\mathrm{}]`$ if the states are equally normalized, say (as usual) $`\tau \left(\omega \right)=1=\tau \left(\varphi \right)`$, and it can be finite only if the state $`\omega `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the reference state $`\phi `$, i.e. iff $`\omega \left(E\right)=0`$ for the maximal null-orthoprojector $`E`$, $`E\varphi =0`$. This definition does not depend on the choice of the semi-finite trace $`\tau `$, and it can be extended also to the arbitrary normal $`\omega `$ and $`\phi `$ with unbounded self-adjoint density operators $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$ and $`\varphi `$.

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

(4.2)
$$(\omega =\omega _0\mathrm{K},\phi =\phi _0\mathrm{K})𝖱(\omega :\phi )𝖱(\omega _0:\phi _0).$$

The *mutual information* $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)=𝖨\left(\pi ^{}\right)`$ in a compound state $`\omega `$, achieved by a coupling $`\pi :𝒜_{}`$, or by $`\pi ^{}:𝒜_{}`$ with the marginals

$$\varrho \left(A\right)=\omega \left(AI\right)=A,\rho _\mu ,\varsigma \left(B\right)=\omega \left(IB\right)=B,\sigma _\nu ,$$

is defined by the relative entropy

(4.3)
$$𝖨\left(\pi \right)=\tau \left(\omega (\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}(\rho I)\mathrm{ln}(I\sigma ))\right)=𝖱(\omega :\varrho \varsigma )$$

of the state $`\omega `$ on $`=𝒜`$ with respect to the product state $`\phi =\varrho \varsigma `$ for $`\tau =\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$. This quantity, generalizing the classical mutual information corresponding to the case of Abelian $`𝒜`$, $``$, describes an information gain in a quantum system $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ via the entanglement $`\varpi ^{}=\pi ^\mathrm{~}`$, or in $`(,\varsigma )`$ via an entanglement $`\varpi :𝒜_{}`$. It is naturally treated as a measure of the strength of the generalized entanglement having zero value only for completely disentangled states $`\omega =\varrho \varsigma `$.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`(𝒜^0,\mu _0)`$ be a quantum system with a normal faithful semifinite trace, and $`\pi _0:𝒜^0_{}`$ be a normal coupling of the state $`\varrho _0=\nu \pi _0`$ on $`𝒜^0`$ to $`\varsigma =\mu \pi `$, defining an entanglement $`\varpi =\pi ^\mathrm{~}`$ of $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ to $`(,\varsigma )`$ by the composition $`\pi ^{}=\pi _0\mathrm{K}`$ with a normal completely positive unital map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$. Then $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)𝖨\left(\pi ^0\right)`$, where $`\pi ^0=\pi _0^{}`$. In particular, for each normal c-coupling given by (3.5) such as $`\pi ^\mathrm{~}=\varpi _c^{}`$ there exists a not less informative d-coupling $`\pi ^0=\varpi _0^{}`$ with Abelian $`𝒜^0`$ corresponding to the encoding $`\varpi _0=\pi _0^\mathrm{~}`$of $`(,\varsigma )`$, and the standard q-coupling $`\pi ^0=\pi _q`$, $`\pi _q\left(B\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{B}\sigma ^{1/2}`$ to $`\varrho _0=\stackrel{~}{\varsigma }`$ on $`𝒜^0=\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the maximal coupling in this sense.

###### Proof.

The first follows from the monotonicity property (4.2) applied to the extension $`\mathrm{K}\left(AB\right)=\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)B`$ of the CP map $`\mathrm{K}`$ from $`𝒜𝒜^0`$ to $`𝒜𝒜^0`$. The compound state $`\omega _0\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}\right)`$ ($`\mathrm{I}`$ denotes the identity map $``$) is achieved by the entanglement $`\varpi =\varpi _0\mathrm{K}`$ and $`\phi _0\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}\right)=\varrho \varsigma `$ , $`\varrho =\varrho _0\mathrm{K}`$ corresponding to $`\phi _0=\varrho _0\varsigma `$. It corresponds to the coupling $`\pi =\mathrm{K}^{}\pi _0`$ which is defined by $`\mathrm{K}^{}:𝒜_{}^0𝒜_{}`$ as $`\mathrm{K}^{}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0=J\left(\mathrm{K}^{}\rho _0\right)^{}J`$, where

$$A,\mathrm{K}^{}\rho _0_\mu =\mathrm{K}A,\rho _0_{\mu _0},A𝒜,\rho _0𝒜_{}^0.$$

This monotonicity property proves, in particular, that for any separable compound state (3.8) on $`𝒜`$, which is prepared by the c-entanglement $`\pi _c^\mathrm{~}=\varpi _c^{}`$, there exists a d-entanglement $`\varpi _0^{}=\pi _0`$ with $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)`$ having the same, or even larger information gain (4.3). One can even take a classical system $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)`$, say the diagonal sublalgebra $`𝒜^0L_p^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`𝒢_0=`$ $`L_p^2`$ with the state $`\varrho _0`$, induced by the measure $`\mu =p`$, and consider the classical-quantum correspondence (encoding)

$$\varpi _0\left(A^0\right)=a\left(x\right)\sigma _xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right),A^0=^{}a\left(x\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right),aL_p^{\mathrm{}}$$

assigning the states $`\varsigma _x\left(B\right)=B,\sigma _x_\nu `$ to the letters $`x`$ with the probabilities $`p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$. In this case the state $`\varrho `$ is described by the density $`\rho =I`$, the multiplication by identity function in $`L_p^2`$, $`\omega `$ is multiplication by $`\sigma _{}=\left(\sigma _x\right)`$ in $`L_p^2`$ and the mutual information (4.3) is given as

(4.4)
$$𝖨\left(\pi ^0\right)=\stackrel{~}{\nu }_x\left(\sigma _x\left(\mathrm{ln}\sigma _x\mathrm{ln}\sigma \right)\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)=𝖲\left(\sigma \right)𝖲\left(\sigma _x\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right),$$

where $`𝖲\left(\sigma \right)=\stackrel{~}{\nu }\left(\sigma \mathrm{ln}\sigma \right)`$. The achieved information gain $`𝖨\left(\pi ^0\right)`$ is larger than $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$ corresponding to $`\omega =\rho _x\sigma _xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)`$ because the c-entanglement $`\varpi _c`$ in (3.5) is represented as the composition $`\varpi _0\mathrm{K}`$ of the encoding $`\varpi _0:𝒜^0_{}`$ with the CP map

$$\mathrm{K}\left(A\right)=^{}\varrho _x\left(A\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right),A𝒜$$

given by $`a\left(x\right)=\varrho _x\left(A\right)`$ for each $`A𝒜`$. Hence

$$\pi ^{}\left(A\right)=\stackrel{~}{\varpi \left(A\right)}=\stackrel{~}{\varpi _0\mathrm{K}A}=\pi _0\left(\mathrm{K}A\right),A𝒜$$

where $`\pi _0=\varpi _0^\mathrm{~}`$, and thus $`𝖨\left(\pi ^0\right)𝖨\left(\mathrm{K}^{}\pi ^0\right)=𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$, where $`\pi ^0=\pi _0^{}=\varpi _0^{}`$.

The inequality (4.2) can also be applied to the standard entanglement corresponding to the compound state (2.10) on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Indeed, any normal entanglement $`\varpi \left(A\right)=\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)`$, on $`𝒜`$ into $`_{}`$ described by a CP map $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{_\nu }`$, can be decomposed as

$$\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\left(AI\right)\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)=\sigma ^{1/2}\mu \left(X^{}\left(AI\right)X\right)\sigma ^{1/2}=\varpi _0\left(\mathrm{K}A\right),$$

where $`\mathrm{K}A=\mu \left(X^{}\left(AI\right)X\right)`$ is a normal unital CP map $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{}`$. It is uniquely given by an operator $`X:𝒢`$ with $`=𝒢_\rho `$, $`=_\sigma `$ satisfying the condition $`X\left(I\sigma \right)^{1/2}=\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }`$, and thus $`X𝒜^{}`$ due to the commutativity of $`\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }`$ with $`𝒜^{}`$ and $`\sigma `$ with $``$. Moreover, the partial trace $`\mu `$ of $`X^{}X`$ is well-defined by $`\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }^{}\stackrel{~}{\varkappa }\right)=\sigma `$ as $`\mu \left(X^{}X\right)=I`$. Thus $`\varpi =\varpi _q\mathrm{K}`$ and $`\pi =\mathrm{K}^{}\pi _q`$, where $`\mathrm{K}`$ is a normal unital CP map $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{}`$, and $`\mathrm{K}^{}:_{}=\stackrel{~}{}_{}𝒜_{}`$. Hence the standard entanglement (coupling) (2.9) corresponds to the maximal mutual information, $`𝖨\left(\pi _q\right)𝖨\left(\mathrm{K}^{}\pi _q\right)=𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$.

Note that the mutual information (4.3) is written as

$$𝖨\left(\pi \right)=𝖲\left(\rho \right)+𝖲\left(\sigma \right)𝖲\left(\omega /\phi \right),$$

where $`\phi =\mu \nu `$, $`𝖲\left(\rho \right)=𝖲\left(\varrho /\mu \right)`$, $`𝖲\left(\sigma \right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma /\nu \right)`$ and

(4.5)
$$𝖲\left(\omega /\phi \right)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }\left(\upsilon \left(\mathrm{ln}\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \right)\upsilon ^{}\right)\stackrel{~}{\phi }\left(\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \mathrm{ln}\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \right)$$

denotes the *entropy of the density operator* $`\upsilon ^{}\upsilon \stackrel{~}{}`$ of the state $`\omega `$ with respect to the trace $`\phi `$ on $``$. Note that the entropy $`𝖲\left(\omega /\phi \right)`$, coinciding with $`𝖱(\omega :\phi )`$ (cf. with (4.1) in the case $`\tau =\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$), is not in general positive, and may not even be bounded from below as a function of $`\omega `$. However, in the case of irreducible $``$ it can always be made positive by the choice of the standard trace $`\tau =\mathrm{Tr}`$ on $``$, in which case it is called the von Neumann entropy of the state $`\omega `$ ($`=\upsilon ^{}\upsilon `$), denoted simply as $`𝖲\left(\omega \right)`$:

(4.6)
$$𝖲\left(\omega /\tau \right)=\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{ln}\omega 𝖲\left(\omega \right).$$

In the following we shall assume that $``$ is a discrete decomposition of the irreducible $`_i=\left(_i\right)=\stackrel{~}{_i}`$ with the trace $`\nu =\mathrm{Tr}_{}=\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ induced on $`_{}=_\tau `$. The entropy $`𝖲\left(\sigma \right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma /\nu \right)`$ of the density operator $`\sigma `$ for the normal state $`\varsigma `$ on $``$ can be found in this case as the maximal information $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)=sup𝖨\left(\pi _c\right)`$ achieved via all c-encodings $`\varpi :𝒜_\tau `$ of the system $`(,\varsigma )`$ such that, $`\varpi \left(I\right)=\sigma `$, $`\varpi ^{}=\pi _c^\mathrm{~}`$. Indeed, as follows from the proposition above, it is sufficient to find the maximum of $`𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$ over all d-couplings $`\pi =\varpi ^{}`$ mapping $``$ into Abelian $`𝒜`$ with fixed $`\varpi \left(I\right)=\sigma `$, i.e. to find maximum of (4.4) under the condition $`\sigma _xp\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)=\sigma `$. Due to positivity of the *d-conditional entropy*

(4.7)
$$𝖲\left(\pi _d\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\sigma _x\mathrm{ln}\sigma _x\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)=𝖲\left(\sigma _x\right)p\left(\mathrm{d}x\right)$$

the information $`𝖨\left(\pi ^0\right)=𝖨\left(\pi _d\right)`$ has the maximum $`𝖲\left(\sigma \right)`$ which is achieved on an extreme d-coupling $`\pi _d^0`$ when almost all $`𝖲\left(\sigma _x\right)`$ are zero, i.e. when almost all $`\sigma _x`$ are one-dimensional projectors $`\sigma _x^0=P_x`$ corresponding to pure states $`\varsigma _x`$. One can take for example, the maximal Abelian subalgebra $`𝒜^0`$ generated by $`P_n=|nn|`$ for a Schatten decomposition $`\sigma =_n|nn|p\left(n\right)`$ of $`\sigma _\tau `$. The maximal value $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}`$ of the von Neumann entropy is defined by the dimensionality $`\mathrm{rank}=dim𝒜^0`$ of the maximal Abelian subalgebra of the decomposable algebra $``$, i.e. by $`dim`$.

However, if $`\pi `$ is not c-coupling, the difference $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)=𝖲\left(\sigma \right)𝖨\left(\pi \right)`$ can achieve the negative value, and may not serve as a measure of conditional entropy in such a case.

###### Definition 3.

The supremum of the mutual information

(4.8)
$$𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=sup\{𝖨\left(\pi \right):\mu \pi =\varsigma \}=𝖨\left(\pi _q\right),$$

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

$$𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)=sup\{𝖨\left(\pi _c\right):\mu \pi _c=\varsigma \}=𝖨\left(\pi _d^0\right)$$

over all c-couplings $`\pi _c`$ corresponding to c-encodings (3.5), which is achieved on an extreme d-coupling $`\pi _d^0`$, is called the *c-entropy* of the state $`\varsigma `$. The differences,

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

are called respectively, the *q-conditional entropy* on $``$ with respect to $`𝒜`$ and the *(degree of) disentanglement* for the coupling $`\pi :𝒜`$. A compound state is said to be *essentially entangled* if $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)<0`$, and $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)0`$ for a c-coupling $`\pi =\pi _c`$ (this is called the *c-conditional entropy* on $``$ with respect to $`𝒜`$).

Obviously, $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$ and $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ are both positive, do not depend, unlike $`𝖲\left(\sigma \right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma /\nu \right)`$, on the choice of the faithful trace $`\nu `$ on $``$ and obey the inequality $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$. The same is true for the conditional entropies $`𝖧\left(\pi \right)`$ and $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)`$, where $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)`$ always has a positive value

$$𝖲\left(\pi \right)𝖲\left(\pi ^0\right)0$$

in the case of a c-coupling $`\pi =\pi _c`$ due to $`\pi _c^{}=\pi _d^{}\mathrm{K}`$ for a normal unital CP map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$, where $`\pi ^0=\pi _d`$ is a d-coupling with Abelian $`𝒜^0`$. But the disentanglement $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)`$ can also achieve the negative value

(4.9)
$$inf\{𝖲\left(\pi \right):\mu \pi =\varsigma \}=𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=\underset{i}{}\varkappa \left(i\right)𝖲\left(\sigma _i\right)$$

as the following theorem states in the case of discrete $``$. Here the $`\sigma _i\left(_i\right)`$ are the density operators of the normalized factor-states $`\varsigma _i=\varkappa \left(i\right)^1\varsigma |\left(_i\right)`$ with $`\varkappa \left(i\right)=\varsigma \left(I^i\right)`$, where $`I^i`$ are the orthoprojectors onto $`_i`$. Note that $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ if the algebra $``$ is completely decomposable, i.e. Abelian. In this case the maximal value $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}`$ of $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ can be written as $`\mathrm{ln}dim`$. The disentanglement $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)`$ is always positive in this case, and $`𝖲\left(\pi \right)=𝖧\left(\pi \right)`$ as in the case of Abelian $`𝒜`$.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $``$ be a discrete decomposable algebra on $`=_i_i`$, with a normal state given by the density operator $`\sigma =\sigma \left(i\right)`$ with respect to the trace $`\mu =\mathrm{Tr}_{}`$ on $``$, and $`𝒞`$ be its center with the state $`\varkappa =\varsigma |𝒞`$ induced by the probability distribution $`\varkappa \left(i\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \left(i\right).`$ Then the c-entropy $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$ is given as the von Neumann entropy (4.6) of the density operator $`\sigma `$ and the q-entropy (4.8) is given by the formula

(4.10)
$$𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=\underset{i}{}\left(\varkappa \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}__i\sigma \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\sigma \left(i\right)\right).$$

This can be written as $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖧_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right)+𝖧_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)`$, where $`𝖧_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)=_i\varkappa \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)`$, and

$$𝖧_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right)=2\underset{i}{}\varkappa \left(i\right)\mathrm{Tr}__i\sigma _i\mathrm{ln}\sigma _i=2𝖲_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right),$$

with $`\sigma _i=\sigma \left(i\right)/\varkappa \left(i\right)`$. $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$ is finite iff $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)<\mathrm{}`$, and if $``$ is finite-dimensional, it is bounded, with maximal value $`𝖧\left(\varsigma ^{}\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim`$, achieved for $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma _i^{}\varkappa ^{}\left(i\right)`$

$$\sigma _i^{}=\left(dim_i\right)^1I^i,\varkappa ^{}\left(i\right)=dim\left(i\right)/dim,$$

where $`dim\left(i\right)=\left(dim_i\right)^2`$, $`dim=_idim\left(i\right)`$.

###### Proof.

We have already proven that $`𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖲\left(\sigma \right)`$, where

$$𝖲\left(\sigma \right)=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{Tr}__i\sigma \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\sigma \left(i\right)=𝖲_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)+𝖲_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right),$$

with $`𝖲_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖧_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)`$, $`𝖲_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right)=\varkappa \left(i\right)𝖲\left(\sigma _i\right)=\frac{1}{2}𝖧_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right)`$.

The q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$ is the supremum (4.8) of the mutual information (4.3) which is achieved on the standard entanglement, corresponding to the density operator $`\omega =\omega (i,k)`$ with $`\omega (i,k)=\varkappa \left(i\right)|\sigma _i^{1/2})(\sigma _i^{1/2}|\delta _k^i`$ of the standard compound state (2.10) with $`\stackrel{~}{}=`$, $`\rho =\sigma `$. Thus $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖨\left(\pi _q\right)`$, where

$`𝖨\left(\pi _q\right)`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}\omega \left(\mathrm{ln}\omega \mathrm{ln}\left(\sigma I\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(I\sigma \right)\right)=𝖲\left(\omega \right)2𝖲\left(\sigma \right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varkappa \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\sigma \mathrm{ln}\sigma ={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varkappa \left(i\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)+2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}__i\sigma _i\mathrm{ln}\sigma _i\right).`$
Here we used that $`\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{ln}\omega =_i\varkappa \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)`$ due to

$$\omega \mathrm{ln}\omega =_{i,k}\omega (i,k)\mathrm{ln}\omega (i,k)=_i\varkappa \left(i\right)|\sigma _i^{1/2})(\sigma _i^{1/2}|\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right),$$

and that $`\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \mathrm{ln}\sigma =_i\varkappa \left(i\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)𝖲__i\left(\varsigma _i\right)\right)`$ due to

$$\sigma \mathrm{ln}\sigma =_i\sigma \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\sigma \left(i\right)=_i\varkappa \left(i\right)\sigma _i\left(\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)+\mathrm{ln}\sigma _i\right)$$

for the orthogonal decomposition $`\sigma =_i\varkappa \left(i\right)\sigma _i`$, where $`\varkappa \left(i\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \left(i\right)`$.

Thus $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)=𝖧_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right)+𝖧_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)=2𝖲_{|𝒞}\left(\varsigma \right)+𝖲_𝒞\left(\varsigma \right)2𝖲\left(\varsigma \right)`$, and it is bounded by

$`𝖢_{}`$ $`=\underset{\varkappa }{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varkappa \left(i\right)\left(2\underset{\varsigma _i}{sup}𝖲_{\left(i\right)}\left(\varsigma _i\right)\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)\right)`$
$`=\underset{\varkappa }{inf}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varkappa \left(i\right)\left(\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)2\mathrm{ln}dim_i\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim.`$
Here we used the fact that the supremum of von Neumann entropies $`𝖲\left(\sigma _i\right)`$ 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

$$𝖱(\varkappa :\varkappa ^{})=\underset{i}{}\varkappa \left(i\right)(\mathrm{ln}\varkappa \left(i\right)\mathrm{ln}\varkappa ^{}\left(i\right)),$$

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

Note that as shown in  for the case of the simple algebra $``$, the quantum enropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma \right)`$ can be also achieved as the supremum of the von Neumann entropy $`𝖲\left(\varrho \right)`$ over all pure couplings given by the isometries $`X:𝒢`$, $`X^{}X=I`$ preserving the state $`\varsigma `$. The latter means that the density operator $`\omega `$ of the corresponding compound states with the marginals $`\rho =\mathrm{Tr}_{}\omega `$ and $`\sigma =\mathrm{Tr}_𝒢\omega `$ is given as $`\omega =X\sigma X^{}`$.

## 5. Quantum Channel and Entropic Capacities

In this section we describe quantum noisy channel in terms of normal unital CP maps and their duals, and introduce an analog of Shannon information for general semifinite algebras. We consider the maximization problems for this quantity with various operational constrains on encodings, and define the entropic capacities which serve as upper bounds for the operational capacities corresponding to these constrains. The question of asymptotic equivalence of the entropic and operational capacities is not touched here.

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 quantum channel is given by a linear isometry $`U:_1`$ with $`U^{}U=I^1`$ ($`I^1`$ 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 $`\eta =U\eta _1`$, $`\eta =1`$. The orthogonal sums $`\varsigma _1=\varsigma _1\left(n\right)`$ of pure input states $`\varsigma _1(B,n)=\eta _1\left(n\right)^{}B\eta _1\left(n\right)`$ are sent into the orthogonal sums $`\varsigma =\varsigma \left(n\right)`$ of pure states on $`=\left(\right)`$ corresponding to the orthogonal state vectors $`\eta \left(n\right)=U\eta _1\left(n\right)`$.

A noisy quantum channel sends pure input states $`\varsigma _1`$ on an algebra $`^1\left(_1\right)`$ into mixed ones $`\varsigma =\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by the composition with a normal completely positive unital map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:^1`$. We shall assume that $`^1`$ (as well as $``$) is equipped with a normal faithful semifinite trace $`\nu _1`$ defining the pairing $`B,u^{}u_1=\nu _1\left(\stackrel{~}{u}^{}B\stackrel{~}{u}\right)`$ of $`^1`$ and $`_{}^1=\stackrel{~}{_{}^1}`$. Then the input-output state transformations are described by the transposed map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}:_{}^1_{}`$

$$B,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\sigma _1\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B\right),\sigma _1_1,B,\sigma _1_{}^1$$

defining the output density operators $`\sigma =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\left(\sigma _1\right)`$ for any input normal state $`\varsigma _1\left(B\right)=B,\sigma _1_1`$. Without loss of generality the input algebra $`^1`$ can be assumed to be the smallest decomposable algebra generated by the range $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\right)`$ of the channel map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`^1`$ is Abelian if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\right)`$ consists of only commuting operators on $`_1`$).

The input generalized entanglements $`\varpi ^1:𝒜_{}^1`$, including encodings of the state $`\varsigma _1`$ with the density $`\sigma _1=\varpi ^1\left(I\right)`$, will be defined by the couplings $`\kappa ^{}:^1𝒜_{}`$ as $`\varpi ^1=\kappa ^\mathrm{~}`$. Here $`\kappa :𝒜_{}^1`$ is a normal TCP map defining the state $`\varrho =\nu _1\kappa `$ of a probe system $`(𝒜,\mu )`$ which is entangled to $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ by $`\kappa ^\mathrm{~}\left(A\right)=J\kappa \left(A^{}\right)J`$, and the adjoint map $`\kappa ^{}`$ is defined as usual by

$$A|\kappa ^{}\left(B\right)_\mu =\omega _1\left(A^{}B\right)=\kappa \left(A\right)|B_1,A𝒜,B_1,$$

where $`\omega _1`$ is the corresponding compound state on $`𝒜^1`$.

These (generalized) entanglements describe the quantum-quantum correspondences (q-, c-, or o-encodings) of the probe systems $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ with the density operators $`\rho =\kappa ^{}\left(I^1\right)`$, to the input $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ of the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In particular, the most informative standard input entanglement $`\varpi _q^1:\stackrel{~}{^1}_{}^1`$ is the entanglement of the transposed input system $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)=(\stackrel{~}{^1},\stackrel{~}{\varsigma _1})`$ corresponding to the TCP map $`\kappa _q\left(A\right)=J\sigma _1^{1/2}A^{}\sigma _1^{1/2}J`$. In the case of discrete decomposable $`𝒜^0=\stackrel{~}{^1}=^1`$ with the density operator $`\sigma _1=_i\sigma _1\left(i\right)`$ this extreme input q-encoding defines the following density operator

(5.1)
$$\omega _q=(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\left(\omega _{q1}\right),\omega _{q1}=_i|\sigma _1\left(i\right)^{1/2})(\sigma _1\left(i\right)^{1/2}|$$

of the input-output compound state $`\omega _{q1}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`𝒜^0=^1`$.

The other extreme case of the generalized input entanglements, the pure c-encodings corresponding to (3.2), are less informative then the pure d-encodings $`\varpi _d^1=\kappa _d^\mathrm{~}`$ given by the decompositions $`\kappa _d^{}=|nn|\varsigma _1\left(n\right)`$ with pure states $`\varsigma _1(B,n)=\eta \left(n\right)^{}B\eta \left(n\right)`$ on $`_1`$. They define the density operators

(5.2)
$$\omega _d=\left(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\right)\left(\omega _{d1}\right),\omega _{d1}=\underset{n}{}|nn|\eta _1\left(n\right)\eta _1\left(n\right)^{},$$

of the $`^1`$-compound state $`\omega _{d1}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\omega _{d1}\left(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$. These are the Ohya compound states $`\omega _o=\omega _{o1}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$  in the case

$$\sigma _1\left(n\right)=\eta _1^o\left(n\right)\eta _1^o\left(n\right)^{},\eta _1^o\left(n\right)^{}\eta _1^o\left(m\right)=p_1\left(n\right)\delta _n^m,$$

of orthogonality of the density operators $`\sigma _1\left(n\right)`$ normalized to the eigen-values $`p_1\left(n\right)`$ of $`\sigma _1`$. The o-compound states are achieved by pure o-encodings $`\varpi _d^1=\kappa _o^\mathrm{~}`$ described by the couplings $`\kappa _o=|nn|\varsigma _1^o\left(n\right)`$ with $`\varsigma _1^o`$ corresponding to $`\eta _1^o`$. The input-output density operator

(5.3)
$$\omega _o=\left(\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\right)\omega _{o1},\omega _{o1}=\underset{n}{}|nn|\eta _1^o\left(n\right)\eta _1^o\left(n\right)^{}$$

of the Ohya compound state $`\omega _o`$ is achieved by the coupling $`\lambda =\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the output $`(,\varsigma )`$ to the extreme probe system $`(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)=(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ as the composition of $`\kappa ^{}`$ and the channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

If $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$ is a normal completely positive unital map

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

where $`X`$ is a bounded operator $`_{}𝒢_0𝒢`$ with $`\mathrm{Tr}_{_{}}X^{}X=I^0`$, the compositions $`\kappa =\kappa _0\mathrm{K}`$, $`\pi =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\kappa `$ describe the entanglements of the probe system $`(𝒜,\varrho )`$ to the channel input $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ and the output $`(,\varsigma )`$ via this channel respectively. 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 $`\omega =\omega _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ on $`𝒜`$ with

$$\omega _{01}\left(A^0B^1\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{A}^0\kappa _0^{}\left(B^1\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_{01}^{}\left(A^0B^1\right)\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_{01}$$

on $`𝒜^0^1`$. Here $`\upsilon _{01}:𝒢_0_1_{01}`$ is the amplitude operator uniquely defined by the input compound density operator $`\omega _{01}𝒜_{}^0_{}^1`$ up to a unitary operator $`U^0`$ on $`_{01}`$. 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 $`\omega `$ as

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

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

(5.4)
$$\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{}\left(\omega _{01}\right)=\left(XY\right)\omega _{01}\left(XY\right)^{},$$

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 $`\kappa 𝒦_q^1`$ can be decomposed as $`\kappa _q\mathrm{K}`$, where $`\kappa _q:𝒜^0^1`$ defines the standard input entanglement $`\varpi _q^1=\kappa _q^\mathrm{~}`$, and $`\mathrm{K}`$ is a normal unital CP map $`𝒜\stackrel{~}{^1}`$.

Further let $`𝒦_c^1`$ be the set of all CP-TCP maps $`\kappa `$ described as the combinations

(5.5)
$$\kappa \left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}\varrho _n\left(A\right)\sigma _1\left(n\right)$$

of the primitive maps $`A\varrho _n\left(A\right)\sigma _1\left(n\right)`$, and $`𝒦_d^1`$ be the subset of the diagonalizing entanglements $`\kappa `$, i.e. the decompositions

(5.6)
$$\kappa \left(A\right)=\underset{n}{}n|A|n\sigma _1\left(n\right).$$

As in the first case $`𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ and $`𝒦_d\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ denote the subsets corresponding to a fixed $`\kappa \left(I\right)=\varsigma _1`$. Each $`𝒦_c\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ can be represented as the composition $`\kappa =\kappa _d\mathrm{K}`$, where $`\kappa _d`$ normalized to $`\varsigma _1`$ describes a pure d-encoding $`\varpi _d^1=\kappa _d^\mathrm{~}`$ of $`(^1,\varsigma _1)`$ for a proper choice of the CP map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜^1`$.

Furthermore let $`𝒦_o^1`$ (and $`𝒦_o\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$) be the subset of all decompositions (5.6) with orthogonal $`\sigma _1\left(n\right)`$ (and fixed $`_n\sigma _1\left(n\right)=\sigma _1`$):

$$\sigma _1\left(m\right)\sigma _1\left(n\right)=0,mn.$$

Each $`\kappa 𝒦_o\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ can also be represented as $`\kappa =\kappa _o\mathrm{K}`$, with $`\kappa _o`$ describing the pure o-encoding $`\varpi _o^1=\kappa _o^\mathrm{~}`$ of $`(^1,\varsigma _1)=(𝒜^0,\varrho _0)`$.

Now, let us maximize the entangled mutual entropy for a given quantum channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (and a fixed input state $`\varsigma _1`$ on the decomposable $`^1=\stackrel{~}{^1}`$) by means of the above four types of entanglement $`\kappa `$. The mutual information (4.3) was defined in the previous section by the density operators of the corresponding compound state $`\omega `$ on $`𝒜`$ and the product-state $`\phi =\varrho \varsigma `$ of the marginals $`\varrho `$, $`\varsigma `$ for $`\omega `$. In each case

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

where $`\mathrm{K}`$ is a CP map $`𝒜𝒜^0=^1`$, $`\omega _{01}`$ is one of the corresponding extreme compound states $`\omega _{q1}`$, $`\omega _{c1}=\omega _{d1}`$, $`\omega _{o1}`$ on $`^1^1`$, and $`\phi _{01}=\rho _0\varsigma _1`$. The density operator $`\omega =\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{}\left(\omega _{01}\right)`$ is written in (5.4), and $`\varphi =\rho \sigma `$ can be written as

$$\varphi =\kappa ^{}\left(I\right)\lambda ^{}\left(I\right),$$

where $`\lambda ^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\pi _1^0`$. This proves the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.

The entangled mutual informations achieve the following maximal values

(5.7)
$$\underset{\kappa 𝒦_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=𝖨\left(\kappa _q^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$

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

(5.8)
$$\underset{\kappa 𝒦_o\left(\varsigma _1\right)}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖨_o(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }):=\underset{\kappa _o}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa _o^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right),$$

where $`\kappa _{}`$ are the corresponding extremal input couplings $`𝒜^0_{}^1`$ with $`\mu \kappa _{}^{}=\varsigma _1`$. They are ordered as

(5.9)
$$𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖨_d(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })𝖨_o(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

In the following definition the maximal information $`𝖨_c(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖨_d(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is simply denoted as $`𝖨_1(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

###### Definition 4.

The suprema

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

(5.10)
$$\underset{\kappa 𝒦_d^1}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖢_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right):=\underset{\varsigma _1}{sup}𝖨_1(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

$$𝖢_o\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{\kappa 𝒦_o^1}{sup}𝖨\left(\kappa ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\underset{\varsigma _1}{sup}𝖨_o(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$

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

Obviously, the capacities (5.10) satisfy the inequalities

$$𝖢_o\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖢_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

###### Theorem 4.

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

$$𝖨_1(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖨_o(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right),𝖨_q(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=𝖲_q\left(\varsigma _1\right),$$

where $`𝖲_q\left(\varsigma _1\right)=𝖧\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$, and thus in this case

$$𝖢_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖢_o\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{rank}^1,𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{ln}dim^1.$$

###### Proof.

It was proved in the previous section for the case of the identity channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{I}`$ and is thus also valid for any isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:BU^{}BU`$ describing the state transformations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}:\sigma Y\sigma Y^{}`$ by a unitary operator $`U=\overline{Y}`$. 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 $`𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=\mathrm{Tr}S\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)\mathrm{ln}S\left(\sigma _1I^+\right)`$, and $`𝖲\left(\omega _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right)=`$

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(RS\right)\left(I^{}\omega _{01}I^+\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(RS\right)\left(I^{}\omega _{01}I^+\right),$$

where $`R=X^{}X`$. Thus $`𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)=𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$, $`𝖲\left(\omega _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right)=𝖲\left(\omega _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}\right)\right)`$ if $`Y^{}Y=I`$, and

$`𝖨\left(\left(\pi _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right)`$ $`=𝖲\left(\varrho _0\mathrm{K}\right)+𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right)𝖲\left(\omega _{01}\left(\mathrm{K}\mathrm{I}\right)\right)`$
$`𝖲\left(\varrho _0\right)+𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right)𝖲\left(\omega _{01}\right)=𝖨\left(\omega _{01}\right)`$
for $`\kappa =\kappa _0\mathrm{K}`$ with any normal unital CP map $`\mathrm{K}:𝒜𝒜^0`$ and a compound state $`\omega _{01}`$ on $`𝒜^0^1`$. The supremum (5.7), which is achieved at the standard entanglement, corresponding to $`\omega _{01}=\omega _{q1}`$, coincides with q-entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ and the supremum (5.8), coinciding with $`𝖲\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$, is achieved for a pure o-entanglement, corresponding to $`\omega _{01}=\omega _{o1}`$ given by any Schatten decomposition for $`\sigma _1`$. Moreover, the entropy $`𝖧\left(\varsigma _1\right)`$ is also achieved by any pure d-entanglement, corresponding to $`\omega _{01}=\omega _{d1}`$ given by any extreme decomposition for $`\sigma _1`$ and thus is the maximal mutual information $`𝖨_1(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in the case of deterministic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus the capacity $`𝖢_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ of the deterministic channel is given by the maximum $`𝖢_o=\mathrm{ln}dim_1`$ of the von Neumann entropy $`𝖲`$, and the q-capacity $`𝖢_q\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ is equal $`𝖢_^1=\mathrm{ln}dim^1`$.

In the general case, d-entanglements can be more informative than o-entanglements as can be shown by an example of a quantum noisy channel for which

$$𝖨_1(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda })>𝖨_o(\varsigma _1,\mathrm{\Lambda }),𝖢_1\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)>𝖢_o\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$

The last equalities of the above theorem are related to the work on entropy by Voiculescu .


format: text

text:
# Aperiodic linearly repetitive Delone sets are densely repetitive

## 1. Introduction

In , Lagarias and Pleasants study the problem of characterizing the simplest aperiodic discrete point sets. To this aim they carry out a careful study of linearly repetitive and densely repetitive Delone sets. As for the relationship between these two concepts they formulate the following conjecture:

Conjecture (= Conjecture 1.2 a in ). Every aperiodic linearly repetitive Delone set is densely repetitive.

It is the aim of this note to prove the conjecture. The proof is a rather direct consequence of a reformulation of the conjecture in terms of lower bounds on local complexity as given already in  and two essentially known facts. The first fact is a certain repulsion property of occurences of the same patches in aperiodic linearly repetitive Delone sets (see the work of Solomyak  and Durand ). The second is a connection between absence of “local periods“ and lower bounds on local complexity as studied e.g. by the author in .

The next section recalls the necessary notation (mostly taken from ) and gives a proof of the conjecture.

## 2. Notations and proof

A set $`X^d`$ is called Delone set if there exist $`0<r(X),R(X)<\mathrm{}`$ such that every ball in $`^d`$ with radius $`r(X)`$ meets at most one point of $`X`$ and every ball with radius $`R(X)`$ meets at least one point of $`X`$. For $`T>0`$, a set of the form $`XB(x,T)`$ with $`xX`$ is called a $`T`$-patch centered at $`x`$. Here, $`B(p,s)`$ denotes the closed ball arround $`p`$ with radius $`s`$. The number $`N_X(T)`$ of different $`T`$-patches up to translation is defined by

$$N_X(T)\mathrm{}\{(Xx)B(0,T):xX\},$$

where $`\mathrm{}S`$ denotes the number of elements of the set $`S`$. The Delone set $`X`$ is called repetitive if, for every $`T>0`$, there exists a finite number $`M`$ such that every closed ball of radius $`M`$ in $`^d`$ contains the center of a translate of every possible $`T`$-patch in $`X`$. The smallest such $`M`$ is denoted by $`M_X(T)`$.

A Delone set $`X`$ is called linearly repetitive if there exists a constant $`C_{LR}(X)`$ with $`M_X(T)C_{LR}(X)T`$ for every $`T1`$. It is called densely repetitive if there exists a constant $`C_{DR}(X)`$ with $`M_X(T)C_{DR}(X)N_X^{\frac{1}{d}}(T)`$ for $`T1`$. The set $`X`$ is called non-periodic if it is not equal to a translate of itself and it is called aperiodic if this property holds for all elements in the hull. Here, the hull is the closure of its translates in the natural topology . For repetitive Delone sets non-periodicity and aperiodicity are equivalent.

Our proof of the conjecture is based on the following two lemmas. The first gives a precise version of the repulsion property mentioned in the introduction.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be an aperiodic linearly repetitive Delone set. Then, there exists a constant $`\kappa (X)>0`$ such that $`xy\kappa (X)T`$ whenever $`x,yX`$ with $`xy`$ and $`(Xx)B(x,T)=(Xy)B(y,T)`$ for some $`T>1`$. Here, $``$ denotes the Euclidean norm.

For linearly repetitive tilings this lemma (and in fact a slightly stronger version) is proven in Lemma 2.4 of  (see proof of Theorem 2.2 in  and  as well). The proof given there is formulated in terms of tilings associated to primitive substitutions but only uses linear repetitivity (called strong repetitivity in ). It can easily be carried over to Delone sets. For completeness reasons, we include a short discussion giving a proof of Lemma 2.1: Assume the contrary. Then, there exist $`x,yX`$, $`xy`$ with

$$(Xx)B(x,T)=(Xy)B(y,T)$$

and

$$r(X)xy\frac{T}{(C_{LR}+1)(r(X)^1+1)}.$$

In particular, for every point $`sXB(x,T)`$, the point $`s+(yx)`$ belongs to $`X`$ as well. By linear repetitivity, $`XB(x,T)`$ contains the center of a translate of every $`C_{LR}^1T`$-patch of $`X`$. As $`C_{LR}^1T>xy`$, we infer that for every $`zX`$ the point $`z+(yx)`$ belongs to $`X`$ as well. This proves Lemma 2.1.

The second lemma is a consequence of the preceeding lemma.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`X`$ be an aperiodic linearly repetitive Delone set. Then, there exist constants $`\lambda >0`$ and $`T_0>0`$ with $`N_X(T)\lambda T^d`$ for $`TT_0`$.

Proof. As $`X`$ is a Delone set, there exists $`\lambda _1>0`$ and $`T_1>0`$ with

(1)
$$\mathrm{}XB(p,T)\lambda _1T^d$$

for all $`pR^d`$ and $`TT_1`$. Now, let $`\kappa (X)`$ be as given in the previous lemma and consider for $`T>1`$ the $`T`$-patches

$$(Xx)B(0,T)\text{with}xXB(0,\frac{\kappa (X)T}{3}).$$

Then, by the previous lemma, these $`T`$-patches are pairwise different. Thus, using (1), we can calculate

$`N_X(T)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}(XB(0,{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (X)T}{3}}))\lambda _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (X)T}{3}}\right)^d=\lambda T^d,`$
for $`TT_03\kappa (X)^1T_1`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda _1(\kappa (X)3^1)^d`$. ∎

We can now provide the Proof of the conjecture: It suffices to show

(2)
$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{N_X(T)}{T^d}>0.$$

In fact, by the discussion in Section 8 of Lagarias/Pleasants  (see  as well), validity of (2) is even equivalent to validity of the conjecture. Now, (2) follows immediately from the previous lemma. The conjecture is proven. ∎

Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank Peter Pleasants and Boris Solomyak for useful discussions.