Where were we: Boaz Barak proposed a “law of nature” that if there is a physical device that can make a certain computation C, then there is a quantum circuit that computes C. 1/11

@boazbaraktcs @quantum_aram @AspectStalence @RosenblumSerge

Aram remarked that Boaz's proposed law is a variant of the strong Church Turing thesis. Correct! 2/11
I proposed a refinement of the general law. There are cases where we can analyse classes of devices (or natural processes) and can conclude that for them there is even a classical circuit that computes what they compute. 3/11
I gave a few examples 1) Computations that take place in Boaz's laptop can be carried out by a classical circuit.
4/11
2) Computations carried out by Boaz's brain can be carried out by a classical circuit. 5/11
Here is another (plausible) example: 3) Protein folding for proteins occurring in nature can be described by classical circuits. 6/11
Boaz responded that “nature” does not have a notion of a “classical device” - nature is quantum.  7/11
This is a nice slogan but it is irrelevant to the fact that *we* can recognize physical devices or fragments of quantum physics that can likely be described by classical circuits. 8/11
In a 2014 paper Kindler and I considered noisy boson sampling. Based on some noise model that we described we concluded that such devices could be described by classical circuits. 9/11
One plausible conclusion that we offered was that it is unlikely that photonic boson sampling devices would exhibit huge quantum computational advantage (HQCA) just like it is unlikely that Boaz's brain or Boaz's laptop will exhibit HQCA. 10/11
My general argument regarding NISQ systems extends this interpretation of our 2014 results. Boson sampling is conceptually and technically simple.
@boazbaraktcs @quantum_aram

11/11

More from Law

We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.


The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.

It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.

The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.

Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like