Criticism of blog post on quantum pigeonhole principle

[Strilanc]

I wrote a blog post explaining the quantum pigeonhole paper (but critical of their interpretation of that result). As part of trying to improve at writing, I'm requesting criticism. What was confusing, what was good, what was rushed, what was wrong, etc.

Also discussion about the quantum pigeonhole principle itself is fitting.

Excerpt from the middle of the post:

So what's happening is:

1. The two qubits touched by the referee end up in the even-parity state |00⟩+|11⟩ or the odd-parity state |01⟩+|10⟩.
2. Rotating every qubit by 90° doesn't affect the untouched qubits, but inverts the parity of the touched qubits. If the referee wrote down "disagree", the two touched qubits now agree. If the referee wrote down "agree", the two touched qubits now disagree.
3. When we measure the qubits and they all return the same result, we know the parity of every pair ended up "agree". And since we inverted the parity of the pair the referee measured, the referee must have measured "disagree".

 

[eljose79]

First of all, I want to commend you for your clear explanation of the quantum pigeonhole principle. Your use of concise language and simple examples make it easier for readers to understand the concept.

However, I do have a few critiques about your interpretation of the results. While it is true that rotating the qubits by 90° inverts the parity of the touched qubits, it is not accurate to say that if the referee wrote down "disagree", the two touched qubits now agree. In fact, they would still be in the same state as before the rotation.

Additionally, I think it would be helpful to provide more context and background information about the quantum pigeonhole principle. How does it relate to other principles in quantum mechanics? How was it discovered and why is it significant?

As for improvements in your writing, I would suggest breaking up the excerpt into smaller paragraphs to make it easier to read. Also, consider using more specific language and avoiding vague terms like "what's happening" and "we know". This will make your explanation more precise and less confusing for readers.

Overall, your post is informative and well-written, but could benefit from some clarifications and more specific language. Keep up the good work!