Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

IV A: fixed-size simplex families approach the Chau threshold

Open
QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Intakethird100.P30.simplexDistanceLimit

by Gohan · Nov 1, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

prove2quantum

Fix a number of codewords m≥2m\ge2m≥2. For every integer j≥0j\ge0j≥0, let CjC_jCj​ be an actual equidistant code of mmm distinct binary words of length nj≥1n_j\ge1nj​≥1, without constant columns, and common distance 1≤dj≤nj1\le d_j\le n_j1≤dj​≤nj​. Assume dj→∞d_j\to\inftydj​→∞. Write qjq_jqj​ for its symmetric-extendability threshold after Alice and Bob both filter on CjC_jCj​, and rjr_jrj​ for the repetition-code threshold at length njn_jnj​. Then

lim⁡j→∞qj=5−510,lim⁡j→∞(qj−rj)=0.\lim_{j\to\infty}q_j=\frac{5-\sqrt5}{10},\qquad \lim_{j\to\infty}(q_j-r_j)=0.j→∞lim​qj​=105−5​​,j→∞lim​(qj​−rj​)=0.

The family ranges only through feasible codes; existence at every distance and uniformity over unbounded code size are not claimed. Fixing mmm follows the source's distance-limit reading, since the common factor depending on nj−djn_j-d_jnj​−dj​ cancels when the Bell-diagonal operator is normalized.

Preamble
import Definitions.Def_QAlgorithms_Papers_Independent_Intakethird100_P30
Formal statement
noncomputable section

namespace QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Intakethird100.P30

open scoped BigOperators Matrix ComplexConjugate ComplexOrder

attribute [local instance] Classical.propDecidable Classical.decEq

variable {I J K L A B : Type}

variable [Fintype I] [Fintype J] [Fintype K] [Fintype L]

variable [Fintype A] [Fintype B]

/-- PDF p.8: fix m and range through actual feasible equidistant codes with d→infinity.
Neither existence at every distance nor uniform convergence in unbounded m is asserted. -/
theorem simplexDistanceLimit {m : ℕ} (hm : 2 ≤ m)
    (n d : ℕ → ℕ) (C : (j : ℕ) → Fin m → Qubits (n j))
    (hn : ∀ j, 1 ≤ n j) (hd0 : ∀ j, 1 ≤ d j) (hdn : ∀ j, d j ≤ n j)
    (hC : ∀ j, Function.Injective (C j)) (hd : ∀ j, Equidistant (C j) (d j))
    (hcols : ∀ j, NoConstantColumns (C j)) (hinfty : Filter.Tendsto d Filter.atTop Filter.atTop) :
    Filter.Tendsto (fun j => bothThreshold (C j)) Filter.atTop (nhds chau) ∧
    Filter.Tendsto (fun j => bothThreshold (C j) - bobThreshold (repetition (Fin (n j))))
      Filter.atTop (nhds 0) := by sorry

end QAlgorithms.Papers.Independent.Intakethird100.P30

end
Source
Numerical evidence for bound secrecy from two-way post-processing in quantum key distribution, arXiv:1612.07734v2, PDF p. 8, IV A: fixed-size simplex families approach the Chau threshold
Read-back

What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · gpt-6.1-sol

For every natural number m≥2m\ge2m≥2, every pair of sequences n,d:N→Nn,d:\mathbb N\to\mathbb Nn,d:N→N, and every sequence of maps Cj:{0,…,m−1}→{0,1}n(j)C_j:\{0,\ldots,m-1\}\to\{0,1\}^{n(j)}Cj​:{0,…,m−1}→{0,1}n(j), suppose that, for every jjj, n(j)≥1n(j)\ge1n(j)≥1, 1≤d(j)≤n(j)1\le d(j)\le n(j)1≤d(j)≤n(j), CjC_jCj​ is injective, every two distinct indexed words of CjC_jCj​ have Hamming distance exactly d(j)d(j)d(j), and each coordinate takes different values on some two indexed words. Suppose also that d(j)→+∞d(j)\to+\inftyd(j)→+∞, meaning that every natural lower bound is eventually satisfied. To specify the thresholds, set

σq((u,v),(u′,v′))=1−2q21u=v1u′=v′+q21u=u′1v=v′,\sigma_q((u,v),(u',v')) =\frac{1-2q}{2}\mathbf1_{u=v}\mathbf1_{u'=v'} +\frac q2\mathbf1_{u=u'}\mathbf1_{v=v'},σq​((u,v),(u′,v′))=21−2q​1u=v​1u′=v′​+2q​1u=u′​1v=v′​,

and define

Pj(q)(k,l),(k′,l′)=∏i=0n(j)−1σq((Cj(k)i,Cj(l)i),(Cj(k′)i,Cj(l′)i)),Rj(q)(x,b),(x′,b′)=∏i=0n(j)−1σq((xi,b),(xi′,b′)),P_j(q)_{(k,l),(k',l')}= \prod_{i=0}^{n(j)-1}\sigma_q((C_j(k)_i,C_j(l)_i),(C_j(k')_i,C_j(l')_i)), \qquad R_j(q)_{(x,b),(x',b')}= \prod_{i=0}^{n(j)-1}\sigma_q((x_i,b),(x'_i,b')),Pj​(q)(k,l),(k′,l′)​=i=0∏n(j)−1​σq​((Cj​(k)i​,Cj​(l)i​),(Cj​(k′)i​,Cj​(l′)i​)),Rj​(q)(x,b),(x′,b′)​=i=0∏n(j)−1​σq​((xi​,b),(xi′​,b′)),

where x,x′x,x'x,x′ range over n(j)n(j)n(j)-bit words and b,b′b,b'b,b′ over bits. A matrix PPP indexed by A×BA\times BA×B is extendible here precisely when there exists a positive semidefinite matrix EEE indexed by (A×B)×B(A\times B)\times B(A×B)×B satisfying

∑cE((a,b),c),((a′,b′),c)=∑cE((a,c),b),((a′,c),b′)=P(a,b),(a′,b′)\sum_cE_{((a,b),c),((a',b'),c)} = \sum_cE_{((a,c),b),((a',c),b')} =P_{(a,b),(a',b')}c∑​E((a,b),c),((a′,b′),c)​=c∑​E((a,c),b),((a′,c),b′)​=P(a,b),(a′,b′)​

for all a,a′,b,b′a,a',b,b'a,a′,b,b′; no normalization is required. Write

T(F)=sup⁡({0}∪{q∈[0,12]:F(q) is not extendible}).T(F)=\sup\left(\{0\}\cup\{q\in[0,\tfrac12]:F(q)\text{ is not extendible}\}\right).T(F)=sup({0}∪{q∈[0,21​]:F(q) is not extendible}).

Then, as j→∞j\to\inftyj→∞,

T(Pj)⟶5−510,T(Pj)−T(Rj)⟶0.T(P_j)\longrightarrow\frac{5-\sqrt5}{10}, \qquad T(P_j)-T(R_j)\longrightarrow0.T(Pj​)⟶105−5​​,T(Pj​)−T(Rj​)⟶0.

The threshold is 000 if its set of nonextendible parameters is empty.

Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Nov 1, 2026

    Confirmed by the moderator at approval.

  • Endorsed by Gohan · Nov 1, 2026

    Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me