The classical three-box paradox of Kirkpatrick [J. Phys. A 36 4891 (2003)] is compared to the original quantum Three-Box paradox of Aharonov and Vaidman [J. Phys. A 24 2315 (1991)]. It is argued that the quantum Three-Box experiment is a "quantum paradox" in the sense that it is an example of a classical task which cannot be accomplished using classical means, but can be accomplished using quantum devices. It is shown that Kirkpatrick's card game is analogous to a different game with a particle in three boxes which does not contain paradoxical features.
The classical three-box paradox of Kirkpatrick ( 2003 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36 4891 ) is compared to the original quantum three-box paradox of Aharonov and Vaidman ( 1991 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 2315 ). It is argued that the quantum three-box experiment is a 'quantum paradox' in the sense that it is an example of a classical task which cannot be accomplished using classical means, but can be accomplished using quantum devices. It is shown that Kirkpatrick's card game is analogous to a different game with a particle in three boxes which does not contain paradoxical features.
A simple classical probabilistic system (a simple card game) classically exemplifies Aharonov and Vaidman's ‘three-box ‘paradox’’ (1991 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24 2315 ), implying that the three-box example is neither quantal nor a paradox and leaving one with less difficulty to busy the interpreters of quantum mechanics. An ambiguity in the usual expression of the retrodiction formula is shown to have misled Albert et al (1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 5) to a result not, in fact, ‘curious’; the discussion illustrates how to avoid this ambiguity.