Quantum Money with Classical Verification

We propose and construct a quantum money scheme that allows verification through classical communication with a bank. This is the first demonstration that a secure quantum money scheme exists that does not require quantum communication for coin verification. Our scheme is secure against adaptive adversaries - this property is not directly related to the possibility of classical verification, nevertheless none of the earlier quantum money constructions is known to possess it

Where do we go from here? Recording and analysing Roman coins from archaeological excavations

The publication of English Heritage's guidelines for the analysis and publication of coins from excavations has not met with acceptance by the relevant specialists. This paper takes the opportunity to look back over what we have been doing, consider what the guidelines suggest, and makes recommendations as to where we could be going. In particular it argues that we should be making more of existing database technologies and the internet, and that the analysis of coins should be integrated with other aspects of the archaeological record. The paper is not a new set of guidelines, but is intended to stimulate debate

Ancient Coin Classification Using Graph Transduction Games

Recognizing the type of an ancient coin requires theoretical expertise and years of experience in the field of numismatics. Our goal in this work is automatizing this time consuming and demanding task by a visual classification framework. Specifically, we propose to model ancient coin image classification using Graph Transduction Games (GTG). GTG casts the classification problem as a non-cooperative game where the players (the coin images) decide their strategies (class labels) according to the choices made by the others, which results with a global consensus at the final labeling. Experiments are conducted on the only publicly available dataset which is composed of 180 images of 60 types of Roman coins. We demonstrate that our approach outperforms the literature work on the same dataset with the classification accuracy of 73.6% and 87.3% when there are one and two images per class in the training set, respectively

Perspective Reasoning and the Solution to the Sleeping Beauty Problem

This paper proposes a new explanation for the paradoxes related to anthropic reasoning. Solutions to the Sleeping Beauty Problem and the Doomsday argument are discussed in detail. The main argument can be summarized as follows: Our thoughts, reasonings and narratives inherently comes from a certain perspective. With each perspective there is a center, or using the term broadly, a self. The natural first-person perspective is most primitive. However we can also think and express from others’ perspectives with a theory of mind. A perspective’s center could be unrelated to the topic of discussion so its de se thoughts need not to be considered, e.g. the perspective of an outside observer. Let’s call these the third-person perspective. First-person reasoning allows primitive self identification as I am inherently unique as the center of the perspective. Whereas from third-person perspective I am not fundamentally special comparing to others so a reference class of observers including me can be defined. It is my contention that reasonings from different perspectives should not mix. Otherwise it could lead to paradoxes even independent of anthropic reasoning. The paradoxes surrounding anthropic reasoning are caused by the aforementioned perspective mix. Regarding the sleeping beauty problem the correct answer should be double halving. Lewisian halving and thirding uses unique reasonings from both first and third-person perspectives. Indexical probabilities such as “the probability that this is the first awakening” or “the probability of me being one of the first 100 billion human beings” also mixes first- and third-person reasonings. Therefore invalid. Readers against perspectivism may disagree with point 1 and suggest we could reason in objective terms without the limit of perspectives. My argument is compatible with this belief. Objective reasoning would be analytically identical to the third-person perspective. My argument would become that objective reasoning and perspective reasonings should not mix. In the following I would continue to use “third-person perspective” but readers can switch that to “objective reasoning” if they wish so