Recent comments from SciRate

Actually, I recklessly submitted this to a machine learning conference, with some open review system. So, we will soon see some opinion there:
http://openreview.net/iclr2013

Thanks for the comment Random Reader. The assumption that H_I is bounded is in fact not necessary for any of our derivations. The bound that troubled you under Eq. (12) has been replaced in v2 of the paper with a new and tighter bound, which essentially uses only the properties of the bath correlati

...(continued)

This journal lists me as a member of their editorial board; I have never been contacted by them and certainly haven't agreed to serve in this role, nor do I have any such intention. The two "Editors in Chief" have told me that the same holds for them.

Unless I'm missing something, the editorial board information for "Quantum Information Review" now seems to have disappeared...

Nice paper! Gives agood overview of what id possible and what is not with respect to bit commitment from relativistic assumptions. I guess it would be natural to reference this paper by Crepeau and Co. as well: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25385-0_22

I wonder if the spin-boson bath example presented on p. 10 of this preprint is internally consistent with the proposed internally-consistent derivation. The interaction Hamiltonian H_I operator in (61) for the spin boson model is neither bounded nor is it trace class, thus the trace and operator no

...(continued)

You might consider citing this paper by Ambainis et al. :
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003136

This result is very encouraging for experimentalists dealing with CV clusters. While the various thresholds are quite high with respect to current squeezing technologies, the mere existence of a near-feasible threshold gives us something tangible to work towards.

Thanks for keeping CV clusters re

...(continued)

Testing out the comments.