Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Knot your average qutrit: Measurement-induced entanglement splitting and the cabling dictionary for GHZ and W States

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For qutrits, the way entanglement splits after a single-particle measurement is set by the bag structure of the labels—repeated-index versus all-different-index—not by whether the state belongs to the GHZ or W class.

desk verdict The Schmidt-rank tables are correct and worth having, but the abstract's repeated-index versus all-different-index claim is too strong: the hybrid behavior of the two-same-one-different W states is an artifact of measuring in a symmetry-adapted basis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09076 v1 pith:KLH7Y2PD submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Sougata Bhattacharyya , Sovik Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a03.67.Mn
keywords quantumentanglementqutritsGHZstatesWSchmidtrankmutuallyunbiasedbasestopologicalknottheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Multipartite entanglement is usually discussed in two families, GHZ and W, with different behaviour expected under measurement. The paper asks whether that division is the one that matters for tripartite qutrits when a single particle is measured, and answers no. By direct calculation in the computational basis and in every mutually unbiased basis, the authors show that the states split into two classes by the bag structure of their labels: the all-different state |W_{0,1,2}> behaves exactly like |GHZ_3>, with uniform outcome probabilities and an outcome-independent residual Schmidt rank in each basis, while the six repeated-index states |W_{p,p,q}> are the only ones showing probability-weighted, outcome-dependent ranks. The paper packages this result in a two-strand cabling extension of the ring-and-link picture, and states plainly that the cabling dictionary is a naming convention built on independently computed Schmidt ranks, not a topological invariant.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the coefficient matrix M of the post-measurement two-qutrit state: the residual Schmidt rank R is the number of non-zero eigenvalues of M†M, so every conclusion reduces to a 3×3 or 2×2 matrix analysis. To express the three possible values of R, the paper replaces each topological ring with a cable of n=d−1=2 parallel strands, mapping R=1,2,3 to 0, 1, or 2 linked strands after the measurement cut. The second measurement context is supplied by the complete set of four mutually unbiased bases for a qutrit, built from powers of the cube root of unity, whose defining uniform overlap forces the outcome-uniform probabilities. The classification itself is organized by permutation bags of labels, repeated-index versus all-different-index, where a bag is the multiset of three indices whose distinct permutations are superposed to form the symmetric state.

What would settle it

Measure one particle of |GHZ_3>, |W_{0,1,2}> and |W_{p,p,q}> in a basis that is neither the computational basis nor an MUB, compute the residual Schmidt ranks for every outcome, and check whether |W_{0,1,2}> still tracks |GHZ_3> while the |W_{p,p,q}> family shows mixed ranks; a generic basis that breaks the repeated-index/all-different-index distinction would falsify the paper's central claim. A purely mathematical falsifier would be computing a genuine link invariant (e.g., a Jones polynomial or braid trace) of the proposed cabled diagrams and checking whether it changes value in step with R, which the authors state has not been established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, for permutation-symmetric tripartite qutrit states, the way entanglement splits after a single-particle measurement is fixed by whether the computational labels form a repeated-index bag {p,p,q} or an all-different bag {0,1,2}, not by GHZ-class versus W-class membership. |GHZ_3> under the computational basis leaves a separable pair (Schmidt rank R=1, spectrum {1,0,0}) for every outcome, and under any mutually unbiased basis leaves a maximally entangled pair (R=3, spectrum {1/3,1/3,1/3}). The all-different W state |W_{0,1,2}> reproduces this clean pattern: R=2 with spectrum {1/2,1/2,0} for every computational outcome, and R=3 with spectrum {2/3,1/6,1/6} in any MUB. The six |W_{p,p,q}> states behave differently only in the computational basis: outcome p (probability 2/3) yields a maximally entangled qubit-like pair with R=2, outcome q (probability 1/3) yields a product state with R=1, and the third outcome never occurs; any MUB gives uniform outcomes with R=2 and unequal spectrum {(3+√5)/6, (3−√5)/6, 0}.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the clean-versus-hybrid pattern seen in the computational basis and in the mutually unbiased bases reflects an intrinsic property of the states; the paper itself notes that every coefficient matrix it obtains is diagonal or rank-one-plus-identity precisely because those bases are adapted to the permutation symmetry, and that a generic unadapted basis should not be expected to preserve the pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the computational basis, the six |W_{p,p,q}> states are the only states studied whose residual rank is outcome-dependent: outcome p (probability 2/3) leaves R=2, outcome q (probability 1/3) leaves R=1.
  • |W_{0,1,2}> matches |GHZ_3> in both measurement contexts—uniform probabilities and outcome-independent ranks—so the GHZ/W family line does not organize measurement-induced splitting for qutrits.
  • In any of the three mutually unbiased bases, every state studied gives uniform outcome probabilities; the |W_{p,p,q}> family stays at R=2 with unequal spectrum, while |W_{0,1,2}> reaches R=3.
  • The two-strand cabling dictionary maps R=1,2,3 to 0, 1, or 2 linked strands, which gives a consistent vocabulary for all seven states across two bases, but it remains a labeling convention until a link invariant is shown to track R.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct experimental check is available: prepare |GHZ_3>, |W_{0,1,2}> and one |W_{p,p,q}> in photonic or trapped-ion qutrit platforms, measure in the computational basis and in an MUB, and verify the predicted probabilities and residual Schmidt ranks.
  • If a generic-basis measurement preserves the repeated-index/all-different-index distinction, the natural generalization for qudits of dimension d is that partition structure of the label multiset plays the organizing role, with (d−1)-strand cables replacing two-strand ones.
  • The hybrid 'predominant link plus contextual exception' language for |W_{p,p,q}> under computational-basis measurement is an operational description of a probability-weighted mixture of ranks, and could be reinterpreted as a statement about the entanglement distillable from the residual pair without any topological reading.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies measurement-induced entanglement splitting for tripartite qutrit states. For |GHZ_3>, for the six two-same-one-different symmetric W states |W^sym_{p,p,q}>, and for the all-different state |W_{0,1,2}>, it computes the residual bipartite Schmidt rank and the full Schmidt spectrum after a single-particle projective measurement, both in the computational basis and in the non-computational mutually unbiased bases. The algebraic results are collected in Tables 1, 2, 6, and 7 and derived in Appendices A--G. The paper then interprets the rank patterns with a two-strand cabling extension of Aravind's ring-and-link picture, in which the residual Schmidt rank R=1,2,3 is identified with 0,1,2 strands remaining linked. The authors explicitly state that this cabling dictionary is a labeling convention built to match the independently computed Schmidt rank, not a topological invariant. The paper's advertised structural conclusion is that the relevant divide is repeated-index versus all-different-index bag structure rather than GHZ-class versus W-class membership.

Significance. If the paper is read as a calculation for computational-basis and MUB measurements on permutation-symmetric qutrit GHZ and W states, the contribution is solid and useful. The appendices contain complete, checkable derivations; the MUB calculations correctly reduce to unit-modulus phases, and the reported eigenvalues, probabilities, and Schmidt ranks are internally consistent. The paper is also unusually candid about the status of its topological dictionary: Section 2.3.4 states plainly that no topological invariant is computed from the link diagrams, that the cabling choice n=d-1 is not singled out by any physical principle, and that the dictionary inherits basis dependence. This candor is a strength. The paper also identifies concrete experimental platforms where the Schmidt-rank predictions could be tested. The central interpretive claim, however, is broader than the evidence: the abstract and conclusion present the repeated-index/all-different-index distinction as the relevant structural line 'for qutrits', whereas the calculations only support that statement for two symmetry-adapted measurement bases.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 6 (Scope of the calculation)] The central claim that the |W^sym_{p,p,q}> states 'alone show probability-weighted, outcome-dependent behaviour' is not supported as a statement about qutrit states; it is a property of the computational-basis measurement. For a generic single-qutrit measurement basis {|u_j>}, the post-measurement branch for |W^sym_{p,p,q}> is proportional to u_j^{p*}(|pq>+|qp>) + u_j^{q*}|pp>. In the {|p>,|q>} basis its coefficient matrix is proportional to [[u_q^*, u_p^*],[u_p^*,0]], whose determinant is -(u_p^*)^2. Whenever u_j^p is nonzero, which is true for every outcome of a generic basis, the residual Schmidt rank is exactly 2 for every outcome. Thus the hybrid R=2/R=1 structure in Table 2 disappears outside the computational basis. Section 6 already concedes that every coefficient matrix is simple only 'because of measuring in a basis naturally adapted to the permutation symmetry', but the abstract and conclusion are not correspondingly scoped. The claims should be reworded to refer to computational-basis and MUB measurements on these symmetric states, not to qutrits in general.
  2. [Abstract; Table 3; Sec. 6] The paper's stated dichotomy, 'repeated-index versus all-different-index bag structure', does not classify the states in Table 3 as presented. The |GHZ_3> state has a repeated-index bag {a,a,a}, yet it is grouped with the all-different |W_{0,1,2}> as clean and outcome-independent, while the repeated-index |W^sym_{p,p,q}> states are classified as hybrid. Section 6 introduces an additional qualification ('The GHZ state is the special case, not the template'), but this qualification is absent from the abstract's slogan. Either the dichotomy must be refined to distinguish the triple-repeated GHZ bag from the two-same-one-different bags, or the claim must be explicitly restricted to the W-family. As written, the abstract's central structural line is not consistent with the paper's own table.
  3. [Sec. 2.3.4; Sec. 6] The topological dictionary is explicitly only a bookkeeping device: the paper states that no linking number, braid-group representation, or polynomial invariant is computed from the diagrams and shown to reproduce R. This is acknowledged, and I do not treat it as a deceptive claim. However, the manuscript's framing as an 'extension' of Aravind's correspondence should not be allowed to obscure that the cabling dictionary has, by the authors' own account, no predictive or explanatory content beyond the Schmidt-rank calculation. The Conclusion already says this, and the Section 6 caveat that the dictionary 'should be read as a naming convention' is appropriate. I would ask the authors to carry this scoping into the abstract's first sentence, which currently says the paper 'shows' a division that matters 'for qutrits'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (125)--(128)] In Appendix E, the conjugate transpose M_j^dagger is written with the same entries as M_j; for complex r_j the (1,2) and (2,1) entries of M_j^dagger M_j should be r_j-bar/3 and r_j/3. The displayed determinant and eigenvalues are unaffected because the calculation uses |r_j|^2=1, but the notation should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix F, Eqs. (140)--(143)] The entries of the matrix N and of the rank-one matrix w_j w_j^dagger require complex conjugation in several off-diagonal positions; as printed, N appears not to equal I + w_j w_j^dagger for arbitrary unit-modulus s_j,t_j. The final eigenvalues {2/3,1/6,1/6} are nevertheless correct because the argument only needs the rank-one structure and the unit-modulus property.
  3. [Appendix B.1] The text says 'we perform all projective measurements on qubit A' when the system under consideration is a qutrit. The word 'qubit' should be 'qutrit' here and in any analogous statements.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 1] Minor language issues include 'Extending the Aravind's correspondence' and 'the Aravind's' should be 'Aravind's correspondence' or 'the Aravind correspondence'.
  5. [Reference [20]] The author list in reference [20] is incorrectly punctuated ('B-G. Englert. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski'); it should be 'B.-G. Englert, I. Bengtsson, and K. Zyczkowski'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Schmidt-rank derivations are self-contained; the topological cabling dictionary is a fully disclosed relabeling of those ranks, not a hidden circularity.

  1. renaming known result [Sec. 2.3.4, 'Status of the Correspondence']
    "The construction proceeds in one direction only. We first compute the Schmidt rank R of the residual state algebraically, via the eigenvalues of M†M, and only afterward assign it a cabled-link picture with R−1 linked strands. No independent topological quantity ... is computed from the link diagrams and shown to reproduce R. The correspondence is therefore built to match the data by construction."

    The number of linked strands is defined as R−1, so every 'topological' assignment in Table 3 (Borromean, partial cabling, 3-Hopf) is a relabeling of the independently computed Schmidt rank. The dictionary cannot fail and adds no derived content; it is a naming convention. The paper states this explicitly, so the circularity is disclosed and organizational rather than a hidden derivation, but the advertised topological extension is still equivalent to its own input by construction.

full rationale

The exact measurement-induced splitting results (Tables 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and Appendices A–G) are self-contained algebraic computations: for each state and basis, the post-measurement coefficient matrix is written down and the eigenvalues of M†M are computed directly. No parameter is fitted, no target result is assumed, and no load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior work; [16]–[18] are used only as qubit-level background. The repeated-index/all-different bag-structure dichotomy is an inductive summary of those tables, not an input to them, and the generic-basis caveat in Sec. 6 is a scope limitation on the abstract's claim rather than a circularity, since the paper restricts its calculations to CB and MUBs and warns that clean structure should not be expected in unadapted bases. The only reductive element is the two-strand cabling dictionary, which the authors explicitly define as R−1 linked strands and repeatedly disclaim as bookkeeping rather than a topological invariant; accordingly this is a disclosed renaming, not a damaging circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The core algebraic calculations use only standard linear algebra and the MUB construction. The only invented structural object is the two-strand cabling device, which the authors themselves describe as a labeling convention. The main free choice is the strand count n=d-1; there are no numbers fitted to data.

free parameters (1)
  • cable strand count n = n = d-1 = 2
    Chosen by hand so that the number of linked strands (0, 1, 2) reproduces the three possible qutrit Schmidt ranks (1, 2, 3). Sec. 2.3.4 states no physical or topological argument singles out this choice; any labeling with the same distinction would be equally adequate.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The standard MUB construction for prime dimension d=3 gives the complete set of 4 MUBs, and all three non-computational MUBs are mutually unbiased.
    Used throughout Appendices E and F to rewrite computational basis states; proved in Sec. 2.1.1.
  • standard math Schmidt decomposition exists for any bipartite pure state, and Schmidt rank is determined by nonzero eigenvalues of M^dagger M.
    Sec. 2.2; used to compute all ranks.
  • domain assumption Permutation symmetry of the states means measuring particle A is representative of measuring any particle.
    Sec. 3.1 and 4.1: all states are fully permutation-symmetric, so the single-particle measurement analysis is performed on A only.
  • domain assumption Projective measurement can be modeled by cutting a ring out of a topological link.
    Aravind's qubit correspondence, adopted in Sec. 2.3.2 and 2.3.4, with the explicit caveat that this is an analogy, not an isomorphism.
  • ad hoc to paper The permutation-symmetric GHZ and W bag states are the relevant set for the claimed structural divide.
    The abstract generalizes from these families to qutrits; the paper does not prove extension to all SLOCC classes, as Sec. 6 acknowledges.
invented entities (1)
  • two-strand cable (cabling dictionary)
    purpose: Replaces each topological ring by n=d-1=2 parallel strands so that 0, 1, 2 linked strands map to Schmidt ranks R=1, 2, 3 after a measurement cut.
    Sec. 2.3.3-2.3.4. The paper explicitly states no linking number, braid representation, or polynomial invariant is computed; the mapping is built to reproduce the already computed Schmidt rank. It is a descriptive label, not a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knot your average qutrit: Measurement-induced entanglement splitting and the cabling dictionary for GHZ and W States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLH7Y2PD

@misc{pith2026260809076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knot your average qutrit: Measurement-induced entanglement splitting and the cabling dictionary for GHZ and W States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLH7Y2PD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09076}
}
abstract

Multipartite entanglement is conventionally classified by state families viz. family of GHZ and W class of states, with each family expected to behave differently under measurement. We show that, at least for the question of how entanglement splits after a single-particle measurement, this is not the division that matters for qutrits. Extending the Aravind's correspondence (which models entanglement as topological linking, and projective measurement as physically cutting a ring from an interlinked configuration\cite{aravind1997}) from qubits to qutrits, we derive the complete measurement-induced entanglement splitting of the GHZ type qutrit state i.e |GHZ_3> and of the full family of symmetric W class qutrit states, six two same - one different states i.e |{W_{p,p,q}^{sym}}> and one all - different state i.e. |W_{0,1,2}>, under both the computational basis (CB) and the mutually unbiased bases (MUBs), obtaining exact eigenvalues and Schmidt ranks for every outcome in every case. We see that the |W_{0,1,2}> state behaves similarly as |GHZ_3> state, a single, outcome-independent residual rank in each basis, while the |{W_{p,p,q}^{sym}> states alone show probability-weighted, outcome-dependent behaviour. The relevant structural line is therefore repeated-index versus all-different-index bag structure, not GHZ class versus $W$ class. We express this classification using a \textit{two-strand cabling} extension of Aravind's \textit{ring-and-link} picture. This is needed because the qutrit residual Schmidt rank (R) takes three values, R belonging to {1,2,3}, rather than the qubit binary (i.e. R belonging to {1,2}). We are explicit throughout that this cabling dictionary is a labeling convention built to reproduce an independently computed Schmidt rank, not a topological invariant derived from the link diagrams themselves, and we discuss what would be needed to close that gap

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09076 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The two qubit-level link types behind Aravind’s correspondence. (a) The Borromean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Each ring from Figure 1 is now drawn as a cable of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The R = 2 case: one strand of the cable stays linked between the two remaining rings, while the other is cut and plays no further part. Only one of the two strands is doing any topological work here, exactly what partial cabling means. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: How Fig. 3 actually comes about: starting from the fully cabled tangle, one strand after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The full dictionary in one picture: the number of strands still linked between the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. K. Aravind.Borromean entanglement of the GHZ state, In R. S. Cohen, M. Horne, and J. Stachel, editors, Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance, volume 194 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, pages 53–59. Springer, Dordrecht, 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Eisert and J

    J. Eisert and J. H. Briegel,Schmidt measure as a tool for quantifying multiparticle entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. A. 64(2), 022306, (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Sperling and W

    J. Sperling and W. Vogel,The Schmidt number as a universal entanglement measure, Phys. Scr. 83(4), 045002, (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    W. K. Wootters,Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(10), 2245, (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu and W. K. Wootters,Distributed entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 61(5), 052306, (2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki,Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(2), 865, (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh and V. Vedral,Entanglement in many-body systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80(2), 517, (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Horodecki,Entanglement measures, Quant

    M. Horodecki,Entanglement measures, Quant. Inf. Compt. 1(1), 3, (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    M. B. Plenio, and S. S. Virmani,An introduction to entanglement theory, In Quantum Inf. and Coherences, pp 173-209, Springer, (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    L. H. Kauffman and S. J. Lomonaco Jr.,Quantum entanglement and topological entanglement, New. Jour. Phys. 4(1), 73 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    M. Li, S. M. Fei and Z.X. Wang, Entanglement and topological entanglement in multi-qubit systems, Phys. Rev. A 78(2), 022332, (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    G. M. Quinta amd R. Andr´ e, Classifying quantum entanglement through topological links, Phys. Rev. A, 97(4), 042307, (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne and A. Zeilinger,Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, Kluwer (1989)

    1989

  6. [14]

    D¨ ur, G

    W. D¨ ur, G. Vidal and J. I. Cirac,Three-qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways, Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    L. H. Kauffman and E. Mehrotra,Topological aspects of quantum entanglement, Quant. Inf. Proc. 18(3), 76, (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Bhattacharyya and S

    S. Bhattacharyya and S. Roy,Symmetric and asymmetric tripartite states under the lens of entanglement splitting and topological linking, Quant. Stud: Math & Found. 13(2), 14, (2026). 26

    2026

  9. [17]

    Bhattacharyya and S

    S. Bhattacharyya and S. Roy,Entanglement, coherence, and recursive linking in Dicke states: a topological perspective, Quant. Stud: Math & Found. 13(2), 16, (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Bhattacharyya and S

    S. Bhattacharyya and S. Roy,Phase sensitive topological classification of single-qubit measure- ments in linear cluster states, arxiv:quant-ph/2602.13990, (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields,Optimal state determination by mutually unbiased measure- ments, Ann. of Phys. 191(2), 363, (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Burt, B-G

    T. Burt, B-G. Englert. I. Bengtsson and K. Zyczkowski,On mutually unbiased bases, Int. Jour. Quant. Inf. 8(4), 535, (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    B. M. Terhal and P. Horodecki,Schmidt number for density matrices, Phys. Rev. A 61(4), 040301, (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Kumar,On properties of Schmidt decomposition, arxiv:quant-ph/2411.05703, (2024)

    M. Kumar,On properties of Schmidt decomposition, arxiv:quant-ph/2411.05703, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Klema and A

    V. Klema and A. Laub,The singular value decomposition: Its computation and some applica- tions, IEEE Trans. Aut.Contr 25(2), 164, (1980)

    1980

  16. [24]

    Baker,Singular value decomposition tutorial, The Oh

    K. Baker,Singular value decomposition tutorial, The Oh. St. Univ. 24(22), 3, (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Rolfsen,Knots and Links, Publish or Perish Press, (1976)

    D. Rolfsen,Knots and Links, Publish or Perish Press, (1976)

    1976

  18. [26]

    C. C. Adams,The Knot Book: An Elementary Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Knots, W. H. Freeman, (1994)

    1994

  19. [27]

    L. H. Kauffman and S. J. Lomonaco,Quantizing knots and beyond, arxiv:quant-ph/1105.0152, (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sugita,Borromean entanglement revisited, arxiv:quant-ph/0704.1712, (2007)

    A. Sugita,Borromean entanglement revisited, arxiv:quant-ph/0704.1712, (2007)

    2007 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Malik, M. Krenn and A. Zeilinger,Experimental greenberger–horne–zeilinger entanglement beyond qubits, Nat. Phot. 12(12), 759, (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Chitambar, R

    E. Chitambar, R. Duan and Y. Shi,Tripartite entanglement transformations and tensor rank, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101(14), 140502, (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    N. Bao, N. Cheng, S. H. Cuenca and V. P. Su,Topological link models of multipartite entan- glement, Quantum, 6, 741, (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Ringbauer, M

    M. Ringbauer, M. Meth, L. Postler, R. Stricker, R. Blatt, P. Schindler and T. Monz,A universal qudit quantum processor with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 18 (9), 1053, (2022). 27 A Measurement Analysis of QutritGHZStates A.1 Definition of the State The qutritGHZstate is the maximal...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.