Comments for Matt Leifer

their turn, they cite this paper by Leifer and Spekkens for the isomorphism1Leifer blogged about it here, from where I stole the title of this post.. They don’t use the same notation, but they...

http://mattleifer.info/2011/08/01/the-choi-jamiolkowski-isomorphism-youre-doing-it-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-8330

It is possible that $Ket{Phi_U}_{AA’} = I_A otimes U_{A’} Ket{Phi^+}_{AA’}$ should be written as $Ket{Phi_U}_{AA’} = U_{A’} otimes I_A Ket{Phi^+}_{AA’}$? Just teaching myself this stu...

http://mattleifer.info/2011/08/01/the-choi-jamiolkowski-isomorphism-youre-doing-it-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-8328

the second category, Matt Leifer has finally realized that I am right when it comes to the foundations of quantum mechanics (as well as other things). But to be sure, he

http://mattleifer.info/2015/04/01/lubos-motl-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-8305

by quantum mechanics, it’s not needed in physics. It brings nothing new to physics. Even Matt Leifer has said “No” to the Birkhoff-von_Neumann logic. Also, the Wikipedia article admits

http://mattleifer.info/2006/09/27/why-not-von-neumann/comment-page-1/#comment-8304

P.S. to my previous post. Re quantum theory, what do the Feynman diagrams signify for the philosophy of science? Why not equations? What does the success of the diagrams and the failure of equati...

http://mattleifer.info/2015/04/01/lubos-motl-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-8198

I see mention in the blog article of ontology and in the comments about epistemology (the super-observer). But there seems to be not much discussion of the various issues in scientific realism. I...

http://mattleifer.info/2015/04/01/lubos-motl-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-8197

wrong, but the idea just felt like the wrong approach to me. Matt Leifer even wrote a superb blog post explaining the analogy between quantum states and probabilities, and I was kind of half con...

http://mattleifer.info/2011/08/01/the-choi-jamiolkowski-isomorphism-youre-doing-it-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-8195

In reply to examachine. Yes, but you may get arrested for treason if you are not actually roy...

http://mattleifer.info/2009/03/13/the-three-scientific-wes/comment-page-1/#comment-8190

Ok, but what if you do consider yourself royalty? Is "we" appropriate then? :P

http://mattleifer.info/2009/03/13/the-three-scientific-wes/comment-page-1/#comment-8189

goes by the name arxivML, Khalifa wrote in a Medium post. There is also SciRate, which was once described as “Digg for the

http://mattleifer.info/2007/01/25/scirate-digg-for-the-arxiv/comment-page-1/#comment-8185