How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Finite communication problem and protocol model
Definition
A finite communication problem consists of nonempty finite input sets , disjoint sets with nonempty promise , and a required output bit on promised pairs. This is the finite-relation generalization of a binary-string promise problem (Promise problem): choose fixed injective labels and , and encode a pair by The unary length prefix makes injective, so and are disjoint subsets of . This encoding only formalizes the relation; it is not a transmitted message or part of communication cost unless a protocol explicitly sends it. A protocol specifies who receives each input, the message schedule and number of rounds, each message alphabet or finite-dimensional register (Finite registers and their ordered computational bases), the local maps that produce messages, the referee's finite POVM (Finite POVMs and their outcome law) and output rule, and any shared randomness or entanglement. A quantum message state is a density operator, meaning nonnegative with trace one (Density operator). Its worst-case error is the supremum of the probability of a wrong output over promised input pairs; its communication cost is the maximum total number of transmitted bits or qubits on any promised input. Local computation, referee computation, and shared resources are separately declared and are not silently included in that communication count.
In a simultaneous-message protocol (SMP), Alice and Bob each send one message to a referee without seeing the other's message. For classical private-coin SMP with no shared resource, conditional on inputs the two messages are independent, so their joint law is a product of their individual message distributions. For quantum SMP with no shared entanglement or randomness, the received state is a product of the two locally prepared density operators. These factorization properties are part of the stated resource model.
Depends on
Used by
- Simultaneous-message equality by quantum fingerprints Algorithm
- Public-coin and private-coin SMP are different models Counterexample
- Equality communication problem Definition
- Constant private-coin error reduction by repetition Lemma
- Private-coin SMP Equality lower bound and source recovery Remark
- Deterministic SMP equality costs Ω(n) bits Theorem
- Entanglement-free, randomness-free quantum fingerprints require Ω(log n) qubits Theorem
- Private-coin SMP equality requires Ω(√n) bits Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
28 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes, arXiv:1907.09415v6 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Harry Buhrman, Richard Cleve, John Watrous, Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Fingerprinting (standard reference, not scraped)
- John Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (standard reference, not scraped)