preprint
Counterfactual computation revisited
published
Onur
Hosten
author 4C02D85E-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A870000-0002-2031-204X
Matthew
Rakher
author
Julio
Barreiro
author
Nicholas
Peters
author
Paul
Kwiat
author
Mitchison and Jozsa recently suggested that the "chained-Zeno" counterfactual computation protocol recently proposed by Hosten et al. is counterfactual for only one output of the computer. This claim was based on the existing abstract algebraic definition of counterfactual computation, and indeed according to this definition, their argument is correct. However, a more general definition (physically adequate) for counterfactual computation is implicitly assumed by Hosten et. al. Here we explain in detail why the protocol is counterfactual and how the "history tracking" method of the existing description inadequately represents the physics underlying the protocol. Consequently, we propose a modified definition of counterfactual computation. Finally, we comment on one of the most interesting aspects of the error-correcting protocol.
ArXiv2006
eng
0607101
12
yes
O. Hosten, M. Rakher, J. Barreiro, N. Peters, and P. Kwiat, “Counterfactual computation revisited.” ArXiv, 2006.
Hosten, O., Rakher, M., Barreiro, J., Peters, N., & Kwiat, P. (2006). Counterfactual computation revisited. ArXiv.
O. Hosten, M. Rakher, J. Barreiro, N. Peters, P. Kwiat, (2006).
Hosten, Onur, et al. <i>Counterfactual Computation Revisited</i>. ArXiv, 2006.
Hosten O, Rakher M, Barreiro J, Peters N, Kwiat P. 2006. Counterfactual computation revisited.
Hosten, Onur, Matthew Rakher, Julio Barreiro, Nicholas Peters, and Paul Kwiat. “Counterfactual Computation Revisited.” ArXiv, 2006.
Hosten O, Rakher M, Barreiro J, Peters N, Kwiat P. Counterfactual computation revisited. 2006.
5732018-12-11T11:47:16Z2020-05-12T08:23:52Z