Int J Theor Phys

DOI 10.1007/s10773-017-3456-x

Quantum Cryptography Based on the Deutsch-Jozsa

Algorithm

Koji Nagata1 · Tadao Nakamura2 · Ahmed Farouk3,4,5

Received: 15 April 2017 / Accepted: 14 June 2017

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Abstract Recently, secure quantum key distribution based on Deutsch’s algorithm using
the Bell state is reported (Nagata and Nakamura, Int. J. Theor. Phys. doi:10.1007/s10773-
017-3352-4, 2017). Our aim is of extending the result to a multipartite system. In this paper,
we propose a highly speedy key distribution protocol. We present sequre quantum key dis-
tribution based on a special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger
states. Bob has promised to use a function f which is of one of two kinds; either the value
of f (x) is constant for all values of x, or else the value of f (x) is balanced, that is, equal to
1 for exactly half of the possible x, and 0 for the other half. Here, we introduce an additional
condition to the function when it is balanced. Our quantum key distribution overcomes a
classical counterpart by a factor O(2N ).

Keywords Quantum computation architectures and implementations · Quantum

algorithms, protocols, and simulations · Quantum cryptography

 Koji Nagata
ko mi [email protected]

1 Department of Physics, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea
2 Department of Information and Computer Science, Keio University, 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku,
Yokohama, Japan
3 Computer Sciences Department, Faculty of Computers and Information, Mansoura University,
Mansoura, Egypt
4 University of Science and Technology, Zewail City of Science and Technology, Giza, Egypt
5 Scientific Research Group, Cairo, Egypt
 Int J Theor Phys

1 Introduction

Quantum mechanics (cf. [1–6]) gives approximate but frequently remarkably accurate
numerical predictions. Much experimental data approximately fits to the quantum predic-
tions for the past some 100 years. We do not doubt the correctness of the quantum theory.
The quantum theory also says new science with respect to information theory. The science
is called the quantum information theory [6]. Therefore, the quantum theory gives us very
useful another theory in order to create new information science and to explain the handling
of raw experimental data in our physical world.
As for foundations of the quantum theory, Leggett-type non-local variables theory [7] is
experimentally investigated [8–10]. The experiments report that the quantum theory does
not accept Leggett-type non-local variables interpretation. However there are debates for
the conclusions of the experiments. See Refs. [11–13].
As for applications of the quantum theory, implementation of a quantum algorithm to
solve Deutsch’s problem [14–16] on a nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer is
reported firstly [17]. Implementation of the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm on an ion-trap quantum
computer is also reported [18]. There are several attempts to use single-photon two-qubit
states for quantum computing. Oliveira et al. implements Deutsch’s algorithm with polariza-
tion and transverse spatial modes of the electromagnetic field as qubits [19]. Single-photon
Bell states are prepared and measured [20]. Also the decoherence-free implementation of
Deutsch’s algorithm is reported by using such a single-photon and by using two logical qubits
[21]. More recently, a one-way based experimental implementation of Deutsch’s algorithm
is reported [22]. In 1993, the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm was reported [23, 24]. It can
be considered as an extended Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm. In 1994, Simon’s algorithm was
reported [25]. Implementation of a quantum algorithm to solve the Bernstein-Vazirani parity
problem without entanglement on an ensemble quantum computer is reported [26]. Fiber-
optics implementation of the Deutsch-Jozsa and Bernstein-Vazirani quantum algorithms
with three qubits is discussed [27]. Quantum learning robust against noise is studied [28].
A quantum algorithm for approximating the influences of Boolean functions and its appli-
cations is recently reported [29]. Quantum computation with coherent spin states and the
close Hadamard problem is also discussed [30]. Transport implementation of the Bernstein-
Vazirani algorithm with ion qubits is more recently reported [31]. Quantum Gauss-Jordan
Elimination and Simulation of Accounting Principles on Quantum Computers are dis-
cussed [32]. Finally, we mention that Dynamical Analysis of Grover’s Search Algorithm in
Arbitrarily High-Dimensional Search Spaces is studied [33].
On the other hand, the earliest quantum algorithm, the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm, is rep-
resentative to show that quantum computation is faster than classical counterpart with a
magnitude that grows exponentially with the number of qubits. In 2015, it was discussed
that the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm can be used for quantum key distribution [34]. In 2017, it
was discussed that secure quantum key distribution based on Deutsch’s algorithm using an
entangled state [35].
In this paper, we present quantum key distribution based on a special Deutsch-Jozsa
algorithm using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state [36, 37]. Bob has promised to
use a function f which is of one of two kinds; either the value of f (x) is constant for all
x, or else the value of f (x) is balanced, that is, equal to 1 for exactly half of the possible
x, and 0 for the other half. Here we introduce an additional condition to the function when
it is balanced. Our quantum key distribution overcomes a classical counterpart by a factor
O(2N ). The security of the protocol is based on it of Ekert 91 protocol [38]. That is, Eve
must destroy the GHZ state.
Int J Theor Phys

This paper is organized as follows:

In Section 2, we review Deutsch’s algorithm along with Ref. [6].
In Section 3, we review the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm along with Ref. [6].
In Section 4, we study the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.
In Section 5, we study the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm by using another input state.
In this case, we cannot perform the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.
In Section 6, we study the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm by using the GHZ state.
In Section 7, we discuss the fact that the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm can be used for
quantum key distribution by using the GHZ state.
Section 8 concludes this paper.

2 A Review of Deutsch’s Algorithm

In this section, we review Deutsch’s algorithm along with Ref. [6].

Quantum parallelism is a fundamental feature of many quantum algorithms. It allows
quantum computers to evaluate the values of a function f (x) for many different values of x
simultaneously. Suppose
f : {0, 1} → {0, 1} (1)
is a function with a one-bit domain and range. A convenient way of computing this function
on a quantum computer is to consider a two-qubit quantum computer which starts in the
state
|x, y. (2)
With an appropriate sequence of logic gates it is possible to transform this state into
|x, y ⊕ f (x), (3)
where ⊕ indicates addition modulo 2. We give the transformation defined by the map
|x, y → |x, y ⊕ f (x) (4)
a name, Uf .
Deutsch’s algorithm combines quantum parallelism with a property of quantum mechan-
ics known as interference. Let us use the Hadamard gate to prepare the first qubit
|0 (5)
as the superposition
√
(|0 + |1)/ 2, (6)
but let us prepare the second qubit as the superposition
√
(|0 − |1)/ 2, (7)
using the Hadamard gate applied to the state
|1. (8)
The Hadamard gate is as
1
H = √ (|01| + |10| + |00| − |11|). (9)
2
 Int J Theor Phys

Let us follow the states along to see what happens in this circuit. The input state
|ψ0  = |01 (10)
is sent through two Hadamard gates to give
  
|0 + |1 |0 − |1
|ψ1  = √ √ . (11)
2 2
A little thought shows that if we apply Uf to the state
√
|x(|0 − |1)/ 2 (12)
then we obtain the state
√
(−1)f (x) |x(|0 − |1)/ 2. (13)
Applying Uf to |ψ1  therefore leaves us with one of the two possibilities:
⎧  
⎪
⎪ ± |0+|1
√ |0−|1
√ if f (0) = f (1)
⎨ 2 2
|ψ2  =   (14)
⎪
⎪
⎩ ± |0−|1
√ |0−|1
√ if f (0)  = f (1).
2 2
The final Hadamard gate on the qubits thus gives us
⎧
⎨ ±|0|1 if f (0) = f (1)
|ψ3  = (15)
⎩
±|1|1 if f (0) = f (1).
So by measuring the first qubit we may determine f (0) ⊕ f (1). This is very interesting
indeed: the quantum circuit gives us the ability to determine a global property of f (x),
namely f (0) ⊕ f (1), using only one evaluation of f (x)! This is faster than is possible with
a classical apparatus, which would require at least two evaluations.

3 A Review of the Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm

The earliest quantum algorithm, the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm, is representative to show

that quantum computation is faster than classical counterpart with a magnitude that grows
exponentially with the number of qubits.
Let us follow the argumentation presented in [6]. The application, known as Deutsch’s
problem, may be described as the following game. Alice, in Amsterdam, selects a number
x from 0 to 2N − 1, and mails it in a letter to Bob, in Boston. Bob calculates the value of
some function
f : {0, . . . , 2N − 1} → {0, 1} (16)
and replies, with the result, which is either 0 or 1. Now, Bob has promised to use a function
f which is of one of two kinds; either the value of f (x) is constant for all values of x, or
else the value of f (x) is balanced, that is, equal to 1 for exactly half of all the possible x,
and 0 for the other half. Alice’s goal is to determine with certainty whether Bob has chosen
a constant or a balanced function, corresponding with him as little as possible. How fast can
she succeed?
In the classical case, Alice may only send Bob one value of x in each letter. At worst,
Alice will need to query Bob at least
2N /2 + 1 (17)
Int J Theor Phys

times, since she may receive 2N /2 0s before finally getting a 1, telling her that Bob’s func-
tion is balanced. The best deterministic classical algorithm she can use therefore requires
2N /2 + 1 queries. Note that in each letter, Alice sends Bob N bits of information. Fur-
thermore, in this example, physical distance is being used to artificially elevate the cost
of calculating f (x), but this is not needed in the general problem, where f (x) may be
inherently difficult to calculate.
If Bob and Alice were able to exchange qubits, instead of just classical bits, and if Bob
agreed to calculate f (x) using a unitary transformation Uf , then Alice could achieve her
goal in just one correspondence with Bob, using the following algorithm.
Alice has an N qubit register to store her query in, and a single qubit register which she
will give to Bob, to store the answer in. She begins by preparing both her query and answer
registers in a superposition state. Bob will evaluate f (x) using quantum parallelism and
leave the result in the answer register. Alice then interferes states in the superposition using
a Hadamard transformation (a unitary transformation),
√
H = (σx + σz )/ 2, (18)
on the query register, and finishes by performing a suitable measurement to determine
whether f was constant or balanced.
Let us follow the quantum states through this algorithm. The input state is
|ψ0  = |0⊗N |1. (19)
Here the query register describes the state of N qubits all prepared in the
|0 (20)
state. After the Hadamard transformation on the query register and the Hadamard gate on
the answer register we have
 
|x |0 − |1
|ψ1  = √ √ . (21)
x∈{0,1}N
2N 2

The query register is now a superposition of all values, and the answer register is in an
evenly weighted superposition of |0 and |1. Next, the function f is evaluated (by Bob)
using
Uf : |x, y → |x, y ⊕ f (x), (22)
giving
 
(−1)f (x) |x |0 − |1
|ψ2  = ± √ √ . (23)
x 2N 2
Here
y ⊕ f (x) (24)
is the bitwise XOR (exclusive OR) of y and f (x). Alice now has a set of qubits in which
the result of Bob’s function evaluation is stored in the amplitude of the qubit superposition
state. She now interferes terms in the superposition using a Hadamard transformation on
the query register. To determine the result of the Hadamard transformation it helps to first
calculate the effect of the Hadamard transformation on a state
|x. (25)
 Int J Theor Phys

By checking the cases in x = 0 and x = 1 separately we see that for a single qubit
√
H |x = (−1)xz |z/ 2. (26)
z
Thus
x1 z1 +···+xN zN |z
z1 ,...,zN (−1) 1 , . . . , zN 
H ⊗N |x1 , . . . , xN  = √ . (27)
2N
This can be summarized more succinctly in the very useful equation
z (−1) |z
x·z
H ⊗N |x = √ , (28)
2N
where
x·z (29)
is the bitwise inner product of x and z, modulo 2. Using this equation and (23) we can now
evaluate |ψ3 ,
 
(−1)x·z+f (x) |z |0 − |1
|ψ3  = ± √ . (30)
z x
2N 2
Alice now observes the query register. Note that the absolute value of the amplitude for
the state
|0⊗N (31)
is
(−1)f (x) /2N . (32)
x
Let’s look at the two possible cases — f constant and f balanced — to discern what
happens. In the case where f is constant the absolute value of the amplitude for
|0⊗N (33)
is +1. Because
|ψ3  (34)
is of unit length it follows that all the other amplitudes must be zero, and an observation
will yield
0 (35)
for all N qubits in the query register. Thus, global measurement outcome is
0. (36)
If f is balanced then the positive and negative contributions to the absolute value of the
amplitude for
|0⊗N (37)
cancel, leaving an amplitude of zero, and a measurement must yield a result other than
0, (38)
that is,
+ 1, (39)
Int J Theor Phys

on at least one qubit in the query register. Summarizing, if Alice measures all 0s and global
measurement outcome is 0 the function is constant; otherwise the function is balanced.

4 A Special Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm

In this section, we study a special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.

Bob has promised to use a function f which is of one of two kinds; either the value of
f (x) is constant for all x, or the value of f (x) is balanced, that is, equal to 1 for exactly
half of the possible x, and 0 for the other half.
Here, we can introduce the following condition into f (x) when it is balanced:
 
(−1)f (x) |x |0 − |1 N
√ = √ . (40)
x∈{0,1}N
2N 2

That is, the function has the following character:

⎧
⎨ 0 if 1 is even in x
f (x) = (41)
⎩
+1 if 1 is odd in x.

Alice’s goal is to determine with certainty whether Bob has chosen a constant or a
balanced function, corresponding with him as little as possible.
The input state

|ψ0  = |0N |1 (42)

is sent through N + 1 Hadamard gates to give

 N  
|0 + |1 |0 − |1
|ψ1  = √ √ . (43)
2 2
We apply Uf to the following state
 
(−1)f (x) |x |0 − |1
|ψ2  = ± √ √ (44)
x 2N 2

Applying Uf to |ψ1  therefore, leaves us with one of the two possibilities:

⎧  N 
⎪ |0+|1 |0−|1
⎨ ± √2
⎪ √
2
if f (x) = constant
|ψ2  = (45)
⎪
⎪  
⎩ ± |0−|1
√
N
|0−|1
√ if f (x) = balanced.
2 2

The final Hadamard gate on the qubits thus gives us

⎧
⎨ ±|0N |1 if f (x) = constant
|ψ3  = (46)
⎩
±|1N |1 if f (x) = balanced.

In this case we perform the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.

 Int J Theor Phys

5 Failing the Special Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm

In this section, we study the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm by using another input state.
In this case, we cannot perform the algorithm as shown below.
The input state
|ψ0  = |1N |0 (47)
is sent through N + 1 Hadamard gates to give
   
|0 − |1 N |0 + |1
|ψ1  = √ √ . (48)
2 2
We apply Uf to the following state
2N
 
|a − |b + |c − · · · + |d
√ |x. (49)
2N
If x = 1
|a|1 − |b|1 + |c|1 − · · · + |d|1
√ (50)
2N
we have
|a|f (a) − |b|f (b) + |c|f (c) − · · · + |d|f (d)
√ (51)
2N
and if x = 0
|a|0 − |b|0 + |c|0 − · · · + |d|0
√ (52)
2N
we have
|a|f (a) − |b|f (b) + |c|f (c) − · · · + |d|f (d)
√ . (53)
2N
Thus,

|a(|f (a)+|f (a))−|b(|f (b)+|f (b))+|c(|f (c)+|f (c))−· · ·+|d(|f (d)+|f (d))
√ .
2N
(54)

Applying Uf to |ψ1  therefore leaves us with one of the two possibilities:

⎧  N
⎪ |0−|1 |0+|1
⎨ ± √2
⎪ √
2
if f (x) = constant
|ψ2  = (55)
⎪
⎪  N
⎩ ± |0−|1
√ |0+|1
√ if f (x) = balanced.
2 2
The final Hadamard gate on the qubits thus gives us
⎧
⎨ ±|1N |0 if f (x) = constant
|ψ3  = (56)
⎩
±|1N |0 if f (x) = balanced.
In this case we fail to perform the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm.
Int J Theor Phys

6 The Special Deutsch-Jozsa Algorithm Using the GHZ State

In this section, we study the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm by using the GHZ state.
The input state
|1N |0 + |0N |1
|ψ0  = √ , (57)
2N+1
is sent through N + 1 Hadamard gates to give
       
1 |0 − |1 N |0 + |1 |0 + |1 N |0 − |1
|ψ1  = √ √ √ + √ √ . (58)
2 2 2 2 2
Applying Uf to |ψ1  therefore leaves us with one of the two possibilities:
       
1 |0 − |1 N |0 + |1 |0 + |1 N |0 − |1
|ψ2  = ± √ √ √ ± √ √ , (59)
2 2 2 2 2
if f (x) = constant, or
 N      
1 |0 − |1 |0 + |1 |0 − |1 N |0 − |1
|ψ2  = ± √ √ √ ± √ √ . (60)
2 2 2 2 2
if f (x) = balanced. The final Hadamard gate on the qubits thus gives us
⎧
⎪ |1N |0±|0N |1
⎨±
⎪ √
2
if f (x) = constant. (GHZ)
|ψ3  = (61)
⎪
⎪
⎩ ± |1N |0±|1
√
N |1
if f (0) = balanced. (separable).
2
So by measuring the qubits (by means of the GHZ measurement) we may determine
f (x) is constant or balanced. The GHZ measurement is explained as follows: Alice and
Bob prepare the following GHZ basis
|1N |0 + |0N |1
|+  = √ ,
2
|1N |0 − |0N |1
|−  = √ ,
2
|1N |1 + |0N |0
|+  = √ ,
2
|1N |1 − |0N |0
|−  = √ . (62)
2
If the state |ψ3  is the GHZ state, we have
|ψ3 |+ |2 = 1 or |ψ3 |− |2 = 1 or
|ψ3 |+ |2 = 1 or |ψ3 |− |2 = 1. (63)
Therefore the measurement outcome should be 1 if the function is constant. If the state
|ψ3  is a separable state, we have
|ψ3 |+ |2 = 1/2 or |ψ3 |− |2 = 1/2 or
|ψ3 |+ |2 = 1/2 or |ψ3 |− |2 = 1/2. (64)
Therefore the measurement outcome should not be 1 if the function is balanced.
 Int J Theor Phys

7 Quantum Key Distribution Based on the Special Deutsch-Jozsa

Algorithm

We discuss the fact that the special Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm can be used for quantum key
distribution by using a GHZ state.
Alice and Bob have promised to use a function f which is of one of two kinds; either the
value of f is constant or balanced. To Eve, it is secret. Alice’s and Bob’s goal is to determine
with certainty whether they have chosen a constant or a balanced function without informa-
tion of the function to Eve. If the function is constant the output qubits are fullly entangled
(GHZ state), otherwise separable state. Alice and Bob perform the GHZ measurement men-
tioned above. Alice and Bob share one secret bit if they determine the function f by getting
a suitable measurement outcome. The existence of Eve destroys fully entangled state into
separable state.
The security of our protocol is based on it in Ekert 91 protocol [38].
• First Alice prepares the entangled qubits, applies the Hadamard transformation to the
state, and sends the output state described in the GHZ state to Bob.
• Next, Bob randomly picks a function “f ” that is either balanced or constant and Bob
applies Uf . He then sends the N qubit to Alice.
• Finally, Alice and Bob perform the GHZ measurement. She learns whether f was bal-
anced or constant. If the final qubits are fully entangled, then the function is constant.
If the final qubits are not GHZ state, then the function is balanced - Alice and Bob now
share a secret bit of information (the “type” of f (x)).
• Then, the result of the GHZ measurement is 1 if the function is constant.
• Alice and Bob compare a subset of all the results of the GHZ measurements when the
function is constant; all of them should be 1.
• Eve must destroy GHZ state (Ekert 91).
• Eve is detected in the following case; The result of the GHZ measurement is not 1 and
the function is constant.
Therefore, we have shown that the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm can be used for secure quan-
tum key distribution. The security is based on it of Ekert 91 protocol. Our quantum key
distribution overcomes a classical counterpart by a facter O(2N ).

8 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have presented quantum key distribution based on a special Deutsch-Jozsa

algorithm using Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states. Bob had promised to use a function f
which is of one of two kinds; either the value of f (x) is constant for all values of x, or else
the value of f (x) is balanced, that is, equal to 1 for exactly half of all the possible x, and 0
for the other half. Here we have introduced an additional condition to the function when it
is balanced. Our quantum key distribution has overcome a classical counterpart by a factor
O(2N ).

References

1. von Neumann, J.: Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey (1955)
Int J Theor Phys

2. Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., Sands, M.: Lectures on Physics, vol. III. Quantum mechanics. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company (1965)
3. M. Redhead: Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1989)
4. Peres, A.: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
(1993)
5. Sakurai, J.J.: Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Revised ed (1995)
6. Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University
Press (2000)
7. Leggett, A.J.: Found. Phys. 33, 1469 (2003)
8. Gröblacher, S., Paterek, T., Kaltenbaek, R., Brukner, Č., Żukowski, M., Aspelmeyer, M., Zeilinger, A.:
Nature (London) 446, 871 (2007)
9. Paterek, T., Fedrizzi, A., Gröblacher, S., Jennewein, T., Żukowski, M., Aspelmeyer, M., Zeilinger, A.:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 210406 (2007)
10. Branciard, C., Ling, A., Gisin, N., Kurtsiefer, C., Lamas-Linares, A., Scarani, V.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 99,
210407 (2007)
11. Suarez, A.: Found. Phys. 38, 583 (2008)
12. Żukowski, M.: Found. Phys. 38, 1070 (2008)
13. Suarez, A.: Found. Phys. 39, 156 (2009)
14. Deutsch, D.: Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 400, 97 (1985)
15. Deutsch, D., Jozsa, R.: Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 439, 553 (1992)
16. Cleve, R., Ekert, A., Macchiavello, C., Mosca, M.: Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 454, 339 (1998)
17. Jones, J.A., Mosca, M.: J. Chem. Phys. 109, 1648 (1998)
18. Gulde, S., Riebe, M., Lancaster, G.P.T., Becher, C., Eschner, J., Häffner, H., Schmidt-Kaler, F., Chuang,
I.L., Blatt, R.: Nature (London) 421, 48 (2003)
19. de Oliveira, A.N., Walborn, S.P., Monken, C.H.: J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 7, 288–292 (2005)
20. Kim, Y.-H.: Phys. Rev. A 67(R), 040301 (2003)
21. Mohseni, M., Lundeen, J.S., Resch, K.J., Steinberg, A.M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187903 (2003)
22. Tame, M.S., Prevedel, R., Paternostro, M., Böhi, P., Kim, M.S., Zeilinger, A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 98,
140501 (2007)
23. Bernstein, E., Vazirani, U.: In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of
Computing (STOC ’93), pp. 11–20 (1993). doi:10.1145/167088.167097
24. Bernstein, E., Vazirani, U.: SIAM J. Comput. 26-5, 1411–1473 (1997)
25. Simon, D.R.: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science: 116–
123, retrieved 2011-06-06 (1994)
26. Du, J., Shi, M., Zhou, X., Fan, Y., Ye, B.J., Han, R., Wu, J.: Phys. Rev. A 64, 042306 (2001)
27. Brainis, E., Lamoureux, L.-P., Cerf, N.J., Emplit, P.h., Haelterman, M., Massar, S.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 90,
157902 (2003)
28. Cross, A.W., Smith, G., Smolin, J.A.: Phys. Rev. A 92, 012327 (2015)
29. Li, H., Yang, L.: Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 1787 (2015)
30. Adcock, M.R.A., Hoyer, P., Sanders, B.C.: Quantum Inf. Process. 15, 1361 (2016)
31. Fallek, S.D., Herold, C.D., McMahon, B.J., Maller, K.M., Brown, K.R., Amini, J.M.: New J. Phys. 18,
083030 (2016)
32. Diep, D.N., Giang, D.H., Van Minh, N.: Quantum gauss-Jordan elimination and simulation of accounting
principles on quantum computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. (2017)
33. Jin, W.: Quantum Inf. Process. 15, 65 (2016)
34. Nagata, K., Nakamura, T.: Open Access Library Journal 2, e1798 (2015). doi:10.4236/oalib.1101798
35. Nagata, K., Nakamura, T.: Quantum cryptography, quantum communication, and quantum computer in
a noisy environment. Int. J. Theor. Phys. (2017)
36. Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Zeilinger, A. In: Kafatos, M. (ed.): Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory
and Conceptions of the Universe, pp. 69–72. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1989)
37. Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Zeilinger, A.: Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990)
38. Ekert, A.K.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)