In this paper, we show that a result precisely analogous to the traditional quantum no-cloning theorem holds in classical mechanics. This classical no-cloning theorem does not prohibit classical cloning, we argue, because it is based on a too-restrictive definition of cloning. Using a less popular, more inclusive definition of cloning, we give examples of classical cloning processes. We also prove that a cloning machine must be at least as complicated as the object it is supposed to clone.

1.
Abramsky
,
S.
, “
No-Cloning in categorical quantum mechanics
,” in
Semantic Techniques in Quantum Computation
edited by
Gay
,
S.
and
Mackie
,
I.
(
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge
,
2010
), pp.
1
28
.
2.
Baez
,
J.
, “
Quantum quandaries: a category-theoretic perspective
,” in
The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity
, edited by
Rickles
,
D.
,
French
,
S.
, and
Saatsi
,
J. T.
(
Oxford University Press
,
Oxford
,
2006
), pp.
240
266
.
3.
Baez
,
J.
and
Hoffnung
,
A.
, Classical mechanics: The Hamiltonian approach, (
2008
), see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/#hamiltonian.
4.
Coecke
,
B.
, “
Introducing categories to the practicing physicist
,” in
What is Category Theory?
edited by
Sica
,
G.
(
Polimetrica
,
Monza, Italy
,
2006
),
45
74
.
5.
da Silva
,
A. C.
,
Lectures on Symplectic Geometry
(
Springer-Verlag
,
Berlin, Heidelberg
,
2008
).
6.
Daffertshofer
,
A.
,
Plastino
,
A. R.
, and
Plastino
,
A.
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
88
(
21
),
210601
(
2002
).
7.
Pati
,
A. K.
and
Braunstein
,
S. L.
, “
Can arbitrary quantum systems undergo self-replication
?” in
Quantum Aspects of Life
, edited by
Abbott
,
D.
,
Davies
,
P. C. W.
, and
Pati
,
A. K.
(
Imperial College Press
,
Covent Garden, London
,
2008
), pp.
223
231
.
8.
Scarani
,
V.
,
Iblisdir
,
S.
,
Gisin
,
N.
, and
Acin
,
A.
,
Rev. Mod. Phys.
77
(
4
),
1225
1256
(
2005
).
9.
Walker
,
T. A.
, “Relationships between Quantum and Classical Information,” Ph.D. dissertation,
University of York
,
2008
.
10.
This proposition remains true even if U is only required to be a linear isometry (see Definition 5).
11.
The analogy will be made precise in Sec. IV A.
12.
This proposition remains true even if ϕ is only required to be a symplectic map (see Definition 6).
13.
There appear to be two definitions here, but they are both special cases of a single, more general definition, as explained in Sec. IV A.
14.
The propositions that depend on this definition remain true even if U is only required to be a linear isometry (see Definition 5).
15.
The propositions that depend on this definition remain true even if ϕ is only required to be a symplectic map (see Definition 6).
16.
The propositions that depend on this definition remain true even if U is only required to be a linear isometry (see Definition 5).
17.
The propositions that depend on this definition remain true even if ϕ is only required to be a symplectic map (see Definition 6).
18.
When open systems are taken into consideration, some transformations have to be represented by non-unitary maps, leading to a more complicated categorical setting. One possible choice is the category whose objects and arrows are complex Hilbert spaces and bounded linear maps, discussed in Ref. 2.
You do not currently have access to this content.