dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaResponse to Horton and Dewdney
| Authors | Roderich Tumulka |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | quant-ph/0210018 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210018 |
Abstract
There are some points in the reply of Horton et al. [http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on their paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of how much I proved about the set of points where their law of motion is ill-defined.
{
"annotation_id": "f0fff45c-fa90-4955-b3ce-49ad24a2fc7b",
"date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:53.167000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:53.167000Z",
"file_hash": "1c57d82f1e96c08aa00c20b3322cb7e9628ad26e01169b3edc4fb5cec0ecd4bb",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "There are some points in the reply of Horton et al.\n[http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on\ntheir paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I\nprovide here some clarification of how much I proved about the set of points\nwhere their law of motion is ill-defined.",
"arxiv_id": "quant-ph/0210018",
"authors": [
"Roderich Tumulka"
],
"categories": [
"quant-ph"
],
"title": "Response to Horton and Dewdney",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0210018"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "6261a708-9f51-4029-9f6b-acc75708dbf8",
"id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}