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

@littlecarrotq I've been tracking these since December. Michigan


Wisconsin


Georgia


Arizona


Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw


Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.

So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:

1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."


2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”

3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."

You May Also Like