Heinera wrote:Good take on this in John D. Cook's blog:
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/ ... y-and-pqc/
(I can really recommend following his blog. Almost daily entries, on mathematics and computing)
local wrote:Very interesting! Thank you for the link.
I share your view that "quantum computation" is nonsense.
minkwe wrote:It is possible to make an analog circuit that performs a specific task 1000 times faster than supercomputer. Will it then be justified to claim "Analog Supremacy"?
Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy
local wrote:Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy
It's not even clever.
gill1109 wrote:local wrote:Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy
It's not even clever.
It’s an excellent blog. Read it. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/23/quantum-supremacy-and-pqc/. Think. Be open to new information. I think that the definition of a scientist is someone who is always prepared to change their mind in the light of new information.
Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:local wrote:Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy
It's not even clever.
It’s an excellent blog. Read it. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/23/quantum-supremacy-and-pqc/. Think. Be open to new information. I think that the definition of a scientist is someone who is always prepared to change their mind in the light of new information.
Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.
The bottom line is the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy. How hard that can be for anyone to understand?
***
gill1109 wrote:
My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.
Interesting. I wonder whose mind has been "wide shut" for the past twelve years and who has taken extraordinary steps to undermine my work on quantum correlations.
***
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.
Interesting. I wonder whose mind has been "wide shut" for the past twelve years and who has taken extraordinary steps to undermine my work on quantum correlations.
***
I have no idea at all who you are referring to, Joy.
As I recall, I did try very hard indeed to explain to you and to your supporters where you were making certain mistakes. I hate to see talent wasted. I hate very much indeed to see extraordinary talent wasted on such an extraordinary scale. On the way, I did learn a great deal about some very common misconceptions about Bell's theorem. And got into contact with a lot of fascinating people. I admit complaining to some authorities about vulgar personal abuse and about misleading your scientific colleagues about your academic affiliation, and about the origins of certain software. Sure, this had an impact on your scientific career. It doesn't seem to have prevented your work from being published. In fact, your celebrity status thrives on it. Right now there are 80 guests browsing this forum! They probably aren't all bots. Even if they are mostly bots, it means that the forum is a hotspot of connectedness on the internet.
PS. another recent development: news from China: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09930
Boson sampling with 20 input photons in 60-mode interferometers at 1014 state spaces
Hui Wang, Jian Qin, Xing Ding, Ming-Cheng Chen, Si Chen, Xiang You, Yu-Ming He, Xiao Jiang, Z. Wang, L. You, J. J. Renema, Sven Hoefling, Chao-Yang Lu, Jian-Wei Pan
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2019)
Quantum computing experiments are moving into a new realm of increasing size and complexity, with the short-term goal of demonstrating an advantage over classical computers. Boson sampling is a promising platform for such a goal, however, the number of involved single photons was up to five so far, limiting these small-scale implementations to a proof-of-principle stage. Here, we develop solid-state sources of highly efficient, pure and indistinguishable single photons, and 3D integration of ultra-low-loss optical circuits. We perform an experiment with 20 single photons fed into a 60-mode interferometer, and, in its output, sample over Hilbert spaces with a size of 1014 −over ten orders of magnitude larger than all previous experiments. The results are validated against distinguishable samplers and uniform samplers with a confidence level of 99.9%.
localyokel wrote:Richard, I find it odd that you have persisted so long and devoted so much energy to your debate with Joy. I am just a hobbyist, so I have difficulty comparing it to "normal" academic debate. I once took a deep dive into a preprint I found online by an academic mathematician and realized it was all wrong. I devised the most simple counterexample to one of his theorems in the paper I thought possible, and emailed it to him, in hopes of him making a major overhaul or giving up on what might be a doomed idea. All he did was add extra conditions to that theorem that basically just excluded my simple counterexample. It was still wrong, and I could have emailed him a more elaborate counterexample, but I decided to give up. I was disappointed in the exchange, in that I thought I had just made it harder for an actual journal referee to realize something was wrong. I usually don't care if/where a paper is published when I evaluate it, but I then became curious and looked at what journals his published papers were in, and they seemed "low tier". I am now asking the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" As far as theoretical physics papers go: an alarming number appears to me to be metaphysics with a token equation or two, with trivial statements about them which look like there is some sort of derivation going on. As I said, I don't keep tabs on where/if anything is published, but I am guessing a lot of these are published. In which case, if I did believe Joy's idea was doomed, I would put it in the category of such metaphysical papers (even though it has a lot more equations), and move on.
Joy Christian wrote::lol:
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote::lol:
I will second that.
.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 82 guests