Comments by Stephen Parrott on “ Weak measurements just got stronger ”

I wasn’t able to follow all of the Popescu article in detail due to undefined symbols. I sent a message to the Internet newsgroup sci.physics.research quoting the part for which I couldn’t think of a sensible interpretation and asking if anyone could. As of this writing, no one has responded, but in the meantime, I thought of a way to define the symbols which would at least make sense. But under those definitions, Popescu’s argument seems definitely wrong. Moreover, the part of the argument involving weak measurements seems to me to make a different error against which my recent papers [1] [2] warn. This note analyzes Popescu’s argument in the context of those papers. Since Popescu’s article is expository and does not carefully define its symbols, I’ve had to make my best guesses at his intended meaning. Should anyone think that these guesses are off the mark or that I haven’t properly understood the article’s arguments, I would very much appreciate being notified and will correspondingly modify or withdraw this analysis.