{"id":1360,"date":"2006-10-17T12:52:21","date_gmt":"2006-10-17T19:52:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=1360"},"modified":"2006-10-17T12:52:21","modified_gmt":"2006-10-17T19:52:21","slug":"laugh-therapy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2006\/10\/17\/laugh-therapy\/","title":{"rendered":"Laugh Therapy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Oh, my brain is sore. Why, oh why do I get suckered into reading things like quant-ph\/0610117<\/a>? Now I could go on and on about this paper, but instead I thought I’d cut and past my favorite parts. The parts that didn’t make me want to send my head straight through my monitor. Mother always said if you can’t say anything nice about a paper, cut and paste the better parts and make funny statements about them. Call it laugh therapy, if you will.
\nOkay, let’s begin the therapy. This part is funny. It gives what I call an “argument by ignorance”:<\/p>\n

\nOn the other hand, the heavy machinery of the theoretical quantum computation with its specific terminology, lemmas, etc, is not readily accessible to most physicists, including myself.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So you want to criticize fault-tolerant quantum computation, but you readily admit that you do not understand it? Ha! That just cracks me up. Is this sort of like the arguments that “math is useless” because “I haven’t used math in years?” Oh, and having read the literature, I’m pretty sure that even<\/i> a physicist should be able to understand it. I mean, I’m a physicist and I understand it…and I’m not even a string theorist.
\nAnother good part of the paper is reference [19]:<\/p>\n

\nThe future quantum engineer is a mythical personage, who will finally achieve factorization of numbers like [tex]$10^{260}$[\/tex].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, if I hadn’t just read the statement of ignorance which opens up this paper, I might assume that this is an ironic statement. But just having stated that things like “lemmas” are too complicated, I just can’t make that assumption. And when you say that factoring “requires” exponential time, I can’t assume that you know pretty much anything about computer science or discrete math. So I’d like to say that even today there are engineers who can factorize these numbers. Indeed [tex]$10^{260}=2^{260} times 5^{260}$[\/tex].
\nHere is another good one:<\/p>\n

\nAlicki [21] has made a mathematical analysis of the consequences of finite gate duration. I am not in a position to check his math, but I like his result: the fidelity exponentially decreases in time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sweet. That’s an argument by ignorance followed by an argument by “I like it!”
\nA Fox News bifecta!
\nArgh. #@%@!! Yep, that’s about all I can say.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Oh, my brain is sore. Why, oh why do I get suckered into reading things like quant-ph\/0610117? Now I could go on and on about this paper, but instead I thought I’d cut and past my favorite parts. The parts that didn’t make me want to send my head straight through my monitor. Mother always … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Laugh Therapy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[20,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computer-science","category-quantum"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}