Comments on: Physicists and Computer Scientists http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154 Theoretical Musings Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:06:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jon http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60276 Jon Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:41:27 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60276 As I cluess non-science guy, I liked the analogy between quantum entanglement and (not violating) the speed of light, and quantum computing and (not solving) NP-Complete problems. At least I can classify them together as 'way to subtle for me'. As I cluess non-science guy, I liked the analogy between quantum entanglement and (not violating) the speed of light, and quantum computing and (not solving) NP-Complete problems. At least I can classify them together as ‘way to subtle for me’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Scott Aaronson http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60274 Scott Aaronson Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:58:05 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60274 "Besides, Scott is a good computer scientist and already knows all the things in my previous post anyway." Hey Andrew! I was going to make that exact point, but I see you already know that I already know those things. :) “Besides, Scott is a good computer scientist and already knows all the things in my previous post anyway.”

Hey Andrew! I was going to make that exact point, but I see you already know that I already know those things. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dave Bacon http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60269 Dave Bacon Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:42:32 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60269 Get back to work Andrew! Oh, wait, what am I doing posting right now. Get back to work Andrew! Oh, wait, what am I doing posting right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Andrew L. http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60268 Andrew L. Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:36:45 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60268 I would start a blog, but I just know it would be a huge time sink. I probably shouldn't even be making this post right now! For the moment, I prefer trolling your blog and others' every now and again and contributing my two cents when my hackles get raised. As for me versus Scott on the blogosphere, I tend to agree with Scott most of the time, so such a matchup wouldn't be all that exciting. Besides, Scott is a good computer scientist and already knows all the things in my previous post anyway. :) I would start a blog, but I just know it would be a huge time sink. I probably shouldn’t even be making this post right now! For the moment, I prefer trolling your blog and others’ every now and again and contributing my two cents when my hackles get raised.

As for me versus Scott on the blogosphere, I tend to agree with Scott most of the time, so such a matchup wouldn’t be all that exciting. Besides, Scott is a good computer scientist and already knows all the things in my previous post anyway. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dave Bacon http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60264 Dave Bacon Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:38:07 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60264 Andrew when are you going to start your own blog? I want dualing Scott Aaronson versus Andrew battles on the blogosphere! Andrew when are you going to start your own blog? I want dualing Scott Aaronson versus Andrew battles on the blogosphere!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Andrew L. http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60261 Andrew L. Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:30:11 +0000 http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1154#comment-60261 What computer scientists should know about computational complexity (that physicists already do): 1) The cost of computational complexity is measured by <b>action</b>, not time. I.e., one can sometimes solve a problem more quickly by dumping more energy into it. 2) Computational problems can be solved in <b>continuous time</b>. I.e., time does not have to be discrete for computational complexity to be nontrivial. 3) Computation is <b>local</b>. I.e., nonlocal computational models are unrealistic because known physical laws are fundamentally local. Even topological quantum computation requires particle fusion for readout, which is a local process. What computer scientists should know about computational complexity (that physicists already do):

1) The cost of computational complexity is measured by action, not time. I.e., one can sometimes solve a problem more quickly by dumping more energy into it.

2) Computational problems can be solved in continuous time. I.e., time does not have to be discrete for computational complexity to be nontrivial.

3) Computation is local. I.e., nonlocal computational models are unrealistic because known physical laws are fundamentally local. Even topological quantum computation requires particle fusion for readout, which is a local process.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>