Related papers: Comment on "Conservative Quantum Computing"

Critical comments on the recent papers supporting the idea of resilient quantum computations are presented.

This is a comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 180403 (2007) [arXiv:0704.2162].

Short review article on quantum computation accepted for Supplement III, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics (publication expected Summer 2001). See also http://www.wkap.nl/series.htm/ENM

Comment on the Letter ``Polynomial-Time Simulation of Pairing Models on a Quantum Computer'', L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).

Comment on M. Kataoka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 160 (1999).

We reply to Dukelsky, et al. regarding the article: L. A. Wu, M. S. Byrd and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057904 (2002).

We comment on: E. Iyoda, K. Kaneko, and T. Sagawa, "Fluctuation Theorem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States", Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017). We also respond to the reply by the afore mentioned authors: "arXiv:1712.05172". The response…

This is the reply to a Comment by R. F. O'Connell (Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 028901) on a paper written by the author (B. Vacchini, ``Completely positive quantum dissipation'', Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 1374, arXiv:quant-ph/0002094).

We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.

We argue that several claims of paper Phys. Rev. Lett 79, 1953 (1997), by Lu-Ming Duan and Guang-Can Guo, are questionable. In particular we stress that the environmental noise considered by the authors belongs to a very special class

Reply to the preceding comment by Rolf Schilling and Bernhard Schmid [arXiv:1101.5577, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 049601 (2011)].

A comment on the letter by M. Machida and T. Koyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 140401 (2005) and also on the preprint by Y. Kawaguchi and T. Ohmi, cond-mat/0411018.

A Comment on the Letter by E. Shchukin and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230502 (2005).

A Comment on the Letter by M. Rupp et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 058301 (2012).

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…

A comment on a recent Letter by Baker and Kawashima (Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 994 (1995)).

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

This is a Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 95}, 187404 (2005)

Comment in response to Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 046401 (2014)

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]