<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Counterfactual Computation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_9907007/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_9907007/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Counterfactual Computation — mentioned by Strilanc</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8235572</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_9907007:8235572</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:48:21 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The term you&amp;#x27;re looking for is counterfactual computation [1]: &amp;gt; We show that &amp;quot;interaction-free&amp;quot; measurements can be regarded as counterfactual computations, and our results then imply that N [the number of times that the computer is not run] must be large if the probability of interaction is to be close to zero. Finally, we consider some ways in which our formulation of counterfactual computation can be generalised. 1: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907007&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_9907007/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
