C. A. Trugenberger
This is my reply to Zalka and Brun's criticism of my recent paper on quantum optimization heuristics. Essentially, this criticism is shown to be utterly irrelevant.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
继续探索
Reply to Comments by Lambrecht, Jaekel, and Reynaud, and by Garcia and Levanyuk, submitted to Physical Review Letters.
This is to reply to a recent comment by Yang, Yuan and Zhang on ``Teleportation of two-quNit entanglement: Exploiting local resorces''.
Reply to Comment quant-ph/0506207 by J.G.Brankov et al.
This is the reply to the comment arXiv:0810.4452 by Kofler, Ursin, Brukner, and Zeilinger.
This is our Reply to Peres' Comment [quant-ph/9509003] to "Quantum Cryptography Based on Orthogonal States" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1239 (1995)].
This is a reply to the Comment on 'Spin Decoherence in Superconducting Atom Chips' [arXiv:quant-ph/0610095 (2006)].
This is to reply to Cereceda's comment on "Quantum nonlocality for a three-particle nonmaximally entangled state without inequaltiy"
In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.
This is to reply to the comment of Kenigsberg and Mor on our previous work ``Efficient many-party controlled teleportation of multi-qubit quantum information via entanglement''[Phys. Rev. A 70, 022329 (2004)].
We point out several superficialities in Itano's comment (quant-ph/0211165).
We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]
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.
It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.
This is a reply to the paper by S.C.Benjamin, quant-ph/0008127.
We present a reply to the objections raised by M. J. W. Hall against our extension of Gleason's theorem.
This paper includes two comments. The first one is a comment on 'Teleportation of two quNit entanglement: Exploiting local resources'. Two different efficient methods are presented to modify some details of N. Ba An's protocol, so that teleportation of two quNit entanglement can be successfully achieved in terms of the revised N. Ba An's protocol. The second one is a comment on 'Reply to Yang et al.'s comment'.
In this Reply we propose a modified security proof of the Quantum Dense Key Distribution protocol detecting also the eavesdropping attack proposed by Wojcik in his Comment.
In this reply, we show that the adiabatic theorem would break down in the weak coupling limit, and the definition for the subsystem geometric phase is well defined.
Response to comment by Finn et al.
The results in the preceding comment are placed on a more general mathematical foundation.
In their comment, de Almedia and Palazzo \cite{comment} discovered an error in my earlier paper concerning the construction of quantum convolutional codes (quant-ph/9712029). This error can be repaired by modifying the method of code construction.
Reply to the comment of H. J. Kimble [quant-ph/0210032] on the experiment realizing a "deterministic single-photon source for distributed quantum networking" by Kuhn, Hennrich, and Rempe [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002), quant-ph/0204147].
This is a reply to arXiv:1409.7513 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 138901 (2014)].
This reply contains a brief response to the comment by R. Howl, D. Rätzel, and I. Fuentes [arXiv:1811.10306]
We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).
This is a Reply to the Comment by Lydersen et al. [arXiv: 1106.3756v1].
We reply to comment on recent paper by Pieplow and Henkel (New J. Phys. 15 (2013) 023027) and our results made by Volokitin and Persson (arXiv: 1405.2525)
The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.
A Reply to the Comment by C. Ciuti and P. Nataf [arXiv:1112.0986v1] on our Letter "Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113602 (2011)].
It is shown that the recent criticism of Brevik et al. (hep-th/0004041) is in error.
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).
This is a reply to the comment from Patrick Bruno (arXiv:1211.4792) on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 163001 (2012)).
A comment by R. Schutzhold et al. raises possible concerns and questions regarding recent measurements of analogue Hawking radiation. We briefly reply to the opinions expressed in the comment and sustain that the origin of the radiation may be understood in terms of Hawking emission.
We address the three points raised by the authors of the above Comment.
We reply to S. Coen and T. Sylvestre's comment on our paper [Phys. Rev. A 80, 045803 (2009)] and make some additional remarks on our experimental results.
扫码添加微信好友，提出您的宝贵建议 👇
💡 备注请填写：网站反馈
发表机构由 AI 从论文文本抽取，如发现错误，欢迎反馈修正建议。