Comments for Quantum Bayesian Networks

Comment on Why Quantum Computers—Little Dieter Needs to do Quantum Mechanics by Jack Woehr

Jack Woehr — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:27:31 +0000

Right on that we’re gathering from the physicists we talk to that QC will validate/invalidate dark corners of QM.

Don’t know that I’d describe Sir Anthony Leggett’s attitude to the foundations of QM “childlike curiosity”, compliment though that may be. In conversation that quality came across to me more like the rapid calculation and penetrating gaze of a lion about to pounce on a gazelle!

Comment on Solving Systems of Linear Equations With a Quantum Computer, Sort of by rrtucci

rrtucci — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:27:46 +0000

Update: Dr. Drexler has mentioned my blog in his. An (undeserved) honor to be mentioned by such a respected and distinguished scientist. For one halcyon day, my blog experienced 180 viewers. Now it's back to its usual traffic of 3 or 4 viewers per day. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Comment on Quantum Circuits in the Dirac, Quayle and Bayes Conventions by Followup discussion of quantum information and science hype

Followup discussion of quantum information and science hype — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:42:05 +0000

[...] science, the pervasive mistake of equating quantum parallelism with parallel computing, and then to Bayesian quantum networks (see Robert’s wide-ranging blog on developments in quantum information science and [...]

Comment on Useful Quantum Computers Are 200 Years Away by physicsandcake

physicsandcake — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:13:47 +0000

P.S. tap tap

Comment on Useful Quantum Computers Are 200 Years Away by physicsandcake

physicsandcake — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:12:55 +0000

I agree with Geordie

Comment on Useful Quantum Computers Are 200 Years Away by Geordie

Geordie — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:48:19 +0000

Hi Bob

I can guarantee with 100% certainty that your timing estimate is wrong

Comment on The MCMC Revolution by physicsandcake

physicsandcake — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:32:31 +0000

Looks very interesting, thanks. I’ll have a read over lunch

Comment on New Quantum Computer Algorithm is So-so by Jack Woehr

Jack Woehr — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:44:30 +0000

I vote for Prof. Moriarty since he is Conan Doyle’s Schroedinger’s Cat.

Comment on Quantum Cryptography, Why Do We Fund It? by rrtucci

rrtucci — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:36:09 +0000

See also my more recent post: Quantum Internet Snake Oil

Comment on Quantum Cryptography Snake Oil by rrtucci

rrtucci — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:11:20 +0000

Tae, I disagree with Dan Simon. An area of quantum computing that interests me greatly is the use of a quantum computer to do MCMC. Dan Simon doesn’t seem to be aware of very encouraging discoveries that have been made in that area. My objections to quantum crypto are based on an important fact; namely, that there are known classical cryptographic codes that cannot be broken by a quantum computer. Dan Simon’s objections to quantum computing seem to be merely his own personal predictions of the future.