Quantum Bayesian Networks

October 26, 2010

One More Victory For Reusability in Quantum Computer Software

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 4:26 am

Reusable Code

Check out my new paper and its accompanying Java application “QOperAv” (pronounced like the street “Copper Av.”). The name “QOperAv” is an abbreviation of the phrase “Quantum Operator Average”. QOperAv generates quantum circuits for calculating certain kinds of quantum operator averages. More precisely, QOperAv generates the quantum circuits used in my earlier Ziti functions paper.

Apart from its practical utility as a quantum circuit generator, QOperAv is interesting in that it required very few lines of code to write. That’s because it relies on classes that form part of a large class library that was written previously, a class library that I used to write many other previous applications, namely QuanSuite (which equals 7 mini-applications), QuSAnn, Multiplexor Expander, and Quibbs.

A great advantage of class libaries is their re-usability. Programmers love reusable code for countless reasons. Among them are:

  • It saves time and energy for the programmer. The time and energy you save can be used to think harder about the truly novel aspects of your algorithm. It reduces and simplifies the work needed to create, debug and modify code. You don’t have to write the same thing over and over again. You don’t have to re-invent the wheel each time you need one. You can fix a bug at a single place rather than being confronted with the more arduous and error prone task of having to fix multiple copies of the same bug.
  • It allows you to stand on the shoulders of giants.

  • It reduces the size of a program, and automatically gives it a well-organized, easy to follow structure

Even Nature loves reusable code. It’s literally in our genes.

October 11, 2010

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and You

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 4:24 pm

Today, you started a new quantum computing company in your garage. Here is what you’ll be telling your grandchildren 30 years from now.

Computer Company Started In Garage 30 Years Ago Now In Smaller Garage

Pretentious Blogger Slanders Lov Grover

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 10:37 am

In a previous post on Sept.17, I described what I thought Grover was saying in one of his papers, quant-ph/9912001. Last night, I happened to be looking again at the Grover paper in question, and I realized, to my horror, that I was wrong in my Sept.17 post. I totally misunderstood and misrepresented what Grover was saying. Sorry, Lov Grover and readers. To make amends, I wrote up a new, hopefully more accurate, description of what Grover was saying. You can find it here. (My new description is fairly short, about 2 pages. It contains more than 5 equations, however. Since 5 equations is my patience limit for typing LaTex equations in WordPress, I wrote it as a proper LaTex document and turned it into a pdf.)

October 7, 2010

Quantum Computing Patents (part 2)

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:45 am

In my previous post, I spoke about QC patents in general. In this post, I will say a few things about my own personal experience with QC patents. I find writing patents very dull and tedious, because you have to re-edit them over and over again, trying to fill in all the loopholes. Nevertheless, I file them anyway because I realize investors expect them, and I have this crazy hope that someday I’ll start a QC software company.

I recently submitted two QC patent applications:

  • “Method for Sampling Probability Distributions Using a Quantum Computer”
    Claims and specification here. Figures 1-5 here. Figures 6-12 here.

  • “Method for Driving Starting Quantum State to Target One”
    Claims and specification here. Figures 1-5 here.

I am also currently writing a patent for my Ziti functions paper. I also have 3 other quantum computing patents, already granted. My QC patents are all primarily software patents.

I believe that software patents are just and beneficial and should be allowed. I’ve explained why I believe so in an essay entitled “In Defense of Software Patents”. I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me about this, but I don’t want to argue about it in this blog. I’m very turned off by those who see the policy question of whether to allow or not software patents as a titanic battle between the forces of good and evil.

Addendum (Nov. 1, 2010): Finished and filed a patent on my Ziti functions paper:

  • “Method for Evaluating Quantum Operator Averages”, by R.R. Tucci, Claims and specification here. Figures 1 to 4 and 6 here, Figure 5 here

All my patents, both granted and pending, can be viewed here

Quantum Computing Patents (part 1)

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:22 am

If you are interested in quantum computing, you might be interested in learning about QC patents filed in the USA. Here are some relevant links.

  • home page of USPTO (US Patent & Trademark Office)
  • the USPTO has its own patent search page here
  • Google has a patent search page too, here
  • Click here to search the USPTO database for all GRANTED patents with the term “quantum computer” in either the abstract or claims. I got 114 hits today, on Oct 7, 2010
  • Click here to search the USPTO database for quantum computing patents APPLIED for since March 15, 2001 but not yet granted. I got 174 hits on Oct 7, 2010.
  • You can search the USPTO data base for QC patents by assignee (often this is the employer of the inventor). D-Wave certainly owns more QC patents than any other company
  • You can also search for patents by inventor:

I don’t know the exact numbers, but I bet about 95% of all patents make zero money for their inventors. So don’t hold your breath if you are applying for one. Nevertheless, I think it’s a good thing to write them, if only because they provide a valuable record of technological progress. The patent record winnows out the wheat (good, practical technology) from the chaff (useless theories, like quantum complexity theory, for example 🙂 ) in a way that journal publications alone don’t seem to do.

As is well-known, even Albert Einstein, the ultimate über-theorist, was a believer in patents. Einstein worked at the Swiss patent office from 1903 to 1909, a period including his Annus Mirabilis (1905). This was his first job after graduating from college, and he continued working there while he was pursuing his doctoral degree, quitting only after he finally got his first assistant professorship. Einstein also filed a few patents himself. For example, in 1930, he filed US 1781541, a patent entitled simply “Refrigerator”, coauthored with his friend Leo Lizards (a.k.a Leo Szilard if you are not dyslexic).

Some patents changed the course of history (like the Wright Brothers aviation patents). Others, not as much (like U.S. Patent 3216423 “Apparatus For Facilitating The Birth Of A Child By Centrifugal Force”). Patents are usually good to their inventors, but some inventors have been killed by their patents. See 9 Inventors Killed by Their Own Inventions (Besides The Segway) by Nicholas Jackson at The Atlantic.

Here is some advice if you are considering filing a patent. As I don’t need to remind you, lawyers are very expensive. If you are affiliated with a university or some other rich institution, then by all means use their lawyer if his services won’t cost you anything. On the other hand, if you cannot afford a lawyer and have none provided to you, you could try writing and filing the patent all by yourself without the assistance of a lawyer. I’ve done it myself a few times. If I can do it, I’m sure you can too. I found the book “Patent it Yourself” (Nolo Press) by David Pressman to be a fairly complete cookbook on how to file a patent in the US. I’ve never filed patents outside the US so I can’t help you there. You should keep in mind that in the US, you must file a patent less than one year after you publish a result (arXiv release or a public seminar constitutes publication). After one year, you lose the right to file for a patent.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: