arXiv:quant-ph/0606218

What is paradoxical about the "Three-box paradox"?

J. Finkelstein

Published Jun 26, 2006• 4 citations

Abstract

This paper is a comment on quant-ph/0606067 by Ravon and Vaidman, in which they defend the position that the ``three-box paradox'' is indeed paradoxical.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0606218

Related papers

Reply to ‘The three-box paradox revisited’ by T Ravon and L Vaidman

K A Kirkpatrick

I reply to Ravon and Vaidman's criticism ( 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 2873 (this issue)) of my classical implementation of a three-box system as a card-game.

arXiv:quant-ph/0703004Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalFeb 28, 20077 citations

quant-ph/0207124 v3 Classical Three-Box “paradox”

K. A. Kirkpatrick

Dec 5, 20120 citations

Comments On "Three Paradox of Quantum Information"

Wang Honghy

Comments On "Three Paradox of Quantum Information"

arXiv:quant-ph/0304079Apr 11, 20030 citations

Comments on quant-ph/0609176

Wu, XiaoDi

In this note, we show the mistake which has been made in quant-ph/0609176. Further more, we provide a sketch of proof to show the impossibility of the effort of such kind toward improving the efficiency of Grover's Algorithm.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701035Jan 8, 20070 citations

TSQT `Elements of Possibility'?

Ruth E. Kastner

I defend my arguments in quant-ph/9806002, which have recently been criticized by L. Vaidman (quant-ph/9811092). I emphasize that the correct usage of the ABL rule applies not to a genuine counterfactual statement but rather to a conjunction of material conditionals. I argue that the only kind of valid counterfactual statement one can make using the ABL rule is a ``might'' counterfactual, which is not adequate for the attribution of `elements of reality' to a quantum system.

arXiv:quant-ph/9812024Dec 12, 19985 citations

The three-box paradox revisited using the Majorana representation of the quantum states

Mirko Cormann, Mathilde Remy, Yves Caudano

Bulletin of the American Physical SocietyMar 8, 20180 citations