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

I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."

Bilious bullshit.


"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.

I'm not sure how that logic works.

Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.

A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.

He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).

You May Also Like