DOI: 10.14704/nq.2018.16.5.1261

Encryption and Information Network

Daegene Song


Universal grammar assumes the existence of an innate structure common to all human languages. As with secret keys shared by two parties in cryptography, the innateness of language may be related to the continuity of language that both parties share. In other words, discrete language alone cannot construct continuous semantics, which therefore implies the innateness of continuity as proposed in universal grammar. This is also seen in the unique capacity to communicate quantum information, which contains continuity, using discrete language. On the other hand, ever since the development of quantum theory, its probabilistic nature during the measurement process has been debated, particularly by using the phenomenon of entanglement and nonlocality. Since a number of practical applications of quantum theory have been introduced more recently, various techniques of manipulating entanglement have been examined. In particular, it has been noted that for a given chain of non-maximal correlations, there exists a class of coefficients such that entanglement swapping yields the optimal result, namely the weakest link in the chain. A numerical comparison between the general coefficients and the optimal non-maximal states in the case of four and five 2-level entanglement is also provided.


Universal Grammar, Cryptography, Information Network, Numerical Methods

Full Text:



Anderson JR. Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co., 1985.

Bennett CH. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India 1984:175-79.

Bose S, Vedral V, Knight PL. Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping. Physical Review A 1998; 57(2):822-29.

Carnal O, Mlynek J. Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: A simple atom interferometer. Physical Review Letters 1991; 66(21):2689-92.

Chomsky N. Review of B.F. Skinners's verbal behavior, Language 1959; 35: 26-58.

Chomsky N. Rules and representations, New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Deutsch D. Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 1985; 400(1818):97-117.

Everett III H. "Relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 1957; 29(3):454-62.

Galvao EF, Hardy L. Substituting a qubit for an arbitrarily large number of classical bits. Physical Review Letters 2003; 90(8):087902.

Hardy L. Method of areas for manipulating the entanglement properties of one copy of a two-particle pure entangled state. Physical Review A 1999; 60(3):1912-23.

Hardy L. Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0101012. 2001.

Hardy L, Song DD. Entanglement-swapping chains for general pure states. Physical Review A 2000; 62(5):052315.

Jonathan D, Plenio MB. Minimal conditions for local pure-state entanglement manipulation. Physical Review Letters 1999; 83(7):1455-58.

Kaltenbaek R, Prevedel R, Aspelmeyer M, Zeilinger A. High-fidelity entanglement swapping with fully independent sources. Physical Review A 2009; 79(4):040302.

Kleene SC. Representation of events in nerve nets and finite automata. In C.E. Shannon & J. McCarthy (Eds.) Automata studies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956: 3-41

Kok P, Munro WJ, Nemoto K, Ralph TC, Dowling JP, Milburn GJ. Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits. Reviews of Modern Physics 2007; 79(1):135-74.

Ladd TD, Jelezko F, Laflamme R, Nakamura Y, Monroe C, O’Brien JL. Quantum computers. Nature 2010; 464(7285):45-53

Lloyd S. Programming the universe. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Lo HK, Popescu S. Concentrating entanglement by local actions: Beyond mean values. Physical Review A 2001; 63(2):022301.

Minsky M. Computation: Finite and infinite machines. London: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Nielsen MA and Chuang I. Quantum computation and quantum information, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Pulvermüller F. The neuroscience of language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Schmidhuber J. Computer universes and an algorithmic theory of everything. arXiv:1501.01373, 2015.

Shi BS, Jiang YK, Guo GC. Optimal entanglement purification via entanglement swapping. Physical Review A 2000; 62(5):054301.

Song D. Decision-Making Process and Information. NeuroQuantology 2017a;15(4): 31-36.

Song D. Semantics of Information. NeuroQuantology 2017b; 15(4): 88-92.

Turing AM. On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society1936; (2) 442: 230-65.

Vedral V. Decoding reality: the universe as quantum information. Oxford: University Press, 2010.

Zukowski M, Zeilinger A, Horne MA and Ekert AK. ‘‘Event-ready-detectors’’ Bell experiment via entanglement swapping. Physical Review Letters 1993; 71: 4287-90.

Supporting Agencies

| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2019