Very nice thread. Thanks for listening and reporting!

I recognized the right picture from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivo... ; What is the point?

Sergey, is the stronger claim of MZM based topological qubit, gives new avenues to check the concerns regarding data manipulation and data selection?

What you say makes sense: Perhaps we can check if we have genuine qubits and even get some information on their quality by repeated measurements without verifying the MZM claim directly. (Perhaps this can support the MZM claim indirectly.) Alas, I dont understand the technical issues well enough.

Re try: some experimental claims are of the form "(*) If A then B", where B is a system representing a "topological qubit" and A asserts that certain subsystems are Majorana zero modes. There are 1) doubts about "A", 2) claims of insufficient data, 3) doubts on (*).

Dear Barbara, in the Microsoft endeavor, some experimental claims are of the form "(*) If A then B", where B is a system representing a "topological qubit" and B is subsystems representing Majorana zero modes. There are 1) doubts about "B", 2) claims of insufficient data, 3) doubts on *.

But does the paper (and/or the earlier arXiv preprint) claim "topological qubit"?

Hi Sergey,
It looks that they claim creating "the first topological qubit" which is (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong) something that goes beyond "just" Majorana zero modes. Is this correct? (That they went a step further?) Or is it the case that they claim MZM as earlier papers?