Comment on: How the result of a single coin toss can turn out to be 100 heads

TL;DR

This paper critiques a previous claim that a classical measurement scheme can produce anomalous weak values, demonstrating that the original model was flawed due to an incorrect definition of weak value, invalidating their conclusions.

Contribution

The paper identifies and corrects a fundamental flaw in a prior classical measurement scheme claiming anomalous weak values, clarifying the proper definition of weak values.

Findings

The original model's claim of anomalous weak values is invalid.

Correcting the definition of weak value resolves the claimed anomalies.

The critique emphasizes the importance of proper weak value definitions.

Abstract

Ferrie and Combes [PRL 113 120404 (2014)] produce a classical measurement scheme that supposedly exhibits `anomalous' weak values. I show that their model is flawed due to an incorrect definition of the weak value. As a consequence their claims are invalid.