How cut-throat is arXiv:0803.0272? This cut-throat (taken from v2 of the paper):
X. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER READING
This section will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
Reminds me of my idea to write a paper and submit it to the arxiv entitled “An Efficient Quantum Algorithm for the Graph Isomorphism Problem.” Sure, version 1, won’t have the algorithm, but hey, why should I make you wait?
Hi Dave,
I’ve taken the liberty to tag you for one of those internet memes – see here Please feel free to ignore the meme if these chain-process things annoy you.
Best,
Phil
This comment will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
And this is version 2, no less? No mercy for these authors.
Apparently the difference between versions is a correction to the Acknowledgments section.
Very funny, indeed. But I wonder: will the new data be part of the Further Reading?
I guess the age-old practice of citing an “in preparation” doesn’t work when it would refer to the same paper. On the other hand, a self-referencing citation like that could easily drop the reader into an infinite-loop that would give the authors ample time to finish their work. That’s probably the best approach, assuming you lack the technology to write papers on a closed time-like curve.
I’m the author responsible for putting this paper on the archive even though it’s not quite complete. Keep in mind that the incomplete threshold section is only intended to duplicate work already in the literature — Raussendorf and others have already done the threshold calculation, we intend to redo it for our own satisfaction and learning and to provide a check of the prior work. Everything that is new and interesting is already in the paper.
The decision to put it on the archive in its current state was not made lightly — the annual APS meeting was last week, and the easiest way to distribute further reading on the talk I gave there on this paper was to have the paper on the archive.
This comment no verb.