Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2603.28975

Remarks on "Further comments on "Rebuttal of "Refutation of "Comment on "Reply to "Comments on "A genuinely natural information measure" " " " " " "

Z. Sommer, A. Winter

math-phcs.ITquant-phSubmitted Mar 30, 2026• Announced Apr 1, 2026
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

It's a bit tedious, but as John Doe and Jean Roe have insisted on offering further comments on our comprehensive refutation of the former's already tiringly obstinate advances, we feel compelled to review their not even wrong opinions once again, hoping to put some sense back into the discourse.
Comments
Comments are not so welcome, but will be commented

Related papers

Comments On "Three Paradox of Quantum Information"

Wang Honghy

Comments On "Three Paradox of Quantum Information"

arXiv:quant-ph/0304079•Apr 11, 2003•0 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514•Nov 5, 2007•6 citations

Reply to "Comment to 'The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication'"

H Salih, Jonte R. Hance, W McCutcheon +1 more

•Jun 10, 2025•0 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Detuning effects in the one-photon mazer’ ”

Thierry Bastin, John Martin

We refute in this Reply the criticisms made by M. Abdel-Aty [Phys. Rev. A 70, 047801 (2004)]. We show that none of them are founded and we demonstrate very explicitly what is wrong in the arguments developed by this author.

arXiv:quant-ph/0505134•Physical Review A•Oct 8, 2004•0 citations

Some remarks on the mentalistic reformulation of the measurement problem: a reply to S. Gao

Andréa Oldofredi

arXiv:1901.05272•Synthese•Jan 25, 2019•2 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Electromagnetic potentials without gauge transformation’

Andrew E. Chubykalo, Augusto Espinoza, Rolando Alvarado Flores

This is a reply to the criticism from Engelhardt and Onoochin of our work (2011 Phys. Scr. 84 015009): a general argument for the possibility of different solutions in different gauges unrelated to gauge transformation; a result that has been given by Engelhardt and Onoochin using examples. For this reason we are not in any sense trying to refute the statements made by Engelhardt and Onoochin, instead we are offering a possible theoretical explanation of their results.

Physica Scripta•Mar 22, 2012•1 citation
In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.