We added that the issue is unfortunately even deeper in our opinion.

Just to add: they both also asked us (Tim & I) if we think your observations are correct: we said we agreed with your analysis & think it raises a good point & while we realised it (due to it following readily from McKague et al paper), it seemed not to be widely realized by the community.

Here is the link: scirate.com/arxiv/2504.0... Thanks for pointing it out.

However, we showed that there is another representation of the tensor product which does work, thus leading to consistency with the postulates.

This was thought impossible, because it doesn't work for the Kronecker-product representation of the tensor product, which leads to nonlocal representations, which is inconsistent with the postulates.

Dear Craig, just like we pointed out to you that your results follow readily from the McKague et al paper in our email correspondence, we also told the Quanta author Dan and later brought it up with a fact-checking Quanta editor (Anna Schier), but they never changed a thing.

This is useful. Now following the list. I'd appreciate it if I could be added too :-)

I used to be more active on twitter (now X) but a lot of scientists left so not many people to interact with now. If a lot of scientists were here, I'd be more active here

Yes, was nice! But why do I have such an awkward pose... 😶‍🌫️