Quantum Bayesian Networks

April 23, 2015

Moral Corruption of Theodore J. Yoder, Guang Hao Low and Isaac Chuang

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 12:48 am

A quick update
According to this:


the paper by Yoder, Low and Chuang alluded to in this previous post of mine has been published in Physical Review Letters without any mention of my very relevant paper written 4 years prior to theirs, or of the US patent their paper infringes. If I ever have to go to court on this, note that I did notify the authors of the paper about my patent, on the first day their paper was put on arXiv, long before it was published in PRL.

It is highly unethical for government funded scientists to publish a paper and intentionally omit to mention in it the fact that it infringes a patent. This illustrates the moral corruption of these 3 scientists, MIT university, the referees of the paper, Physical Review Letters, and the academic community that condones this.

Next time you hear MIT pontificate about how D Wave is dishonest, keep in mind that the criticism comes from a morally corrupt institution.



  1. Yet another entry in the ever growing list of spectacular peer review fails. Did any of the authors ever address your complaint? Are you a member of the APS?

    Comment by Quax — April 23, 2015 @ 6:14 am

  2. The ethical way to address my complaint would have been to cite my work. But they went ahead and published without citing either my paper or the patent.

    Comment by rrtucci — April 23, 2015 @ 6:28 am

  3. Basterds! I just threw my copy of Nielsen and Chuang out the window. It was a crap book anyways.

    Comment by Max Born — April 23, 2015 @ 5:51 pm

  4. “The ethical way to address my complaint would have been to cite my work. But they went ahead and published without citing either my paper or the patent.”

    Sure, but did they just play dead?

    Comment by Quax — April 24, 2015 @ 6:10 pm

  5. They answered in scirate that their method was not identical to mine. I never claimed that it was. I claimed that my method does the same thing and preceeded theirs by 4 years and it is sleazy and dishonest not to mention it in their paper. Besides, the patent covers my method and theirs too. Chuang has several patents himself, and MIT has a huge number of them so they are both well acquainted with US patent laws. MIT and Physical Review Letters will of course ignore this blog post because they are dishonest political institutions.

    Comment by rrtucci — April 24, 2015 @ 7:10 pm

  6. While it’s not the kind of validation you hoped for, if they try to derive a patent from this paper then you’ll know for sure why they deliberately decided to not cite your work.

    Comment by Quax — April 24, 2015 @ 10:12 pm

  7. I just want to recommend to everyone an MIT education in science. You can’t learn to steal and cheat in science any better at any other university in the world.

    Comment by rrtucci — April 24, 2015 @ 11:12 pm

  8. Seems to me your anger is better directed at the authors than your alma mater, MIT as an institution won’t be directly involved, and hardly ever speaks with one voice, i.e. while Scott was beating up on D-Wave, MIT’s Technology Review lauded them at the same time as one of the most innovative companies.

    Comment by Quax — April 25, 2015 @ 2:59 am

  9. MIT is totally responsible for this, both legally and morally.

    Comment by rrtucci — April 25, 2015 @ 3:35 am

  10. The following New York Times article gives another recent example of scientific dishonesty and corruption at MIT. MIT patented the Crispr-Cas9 genome editing technique even though it was first invented and published by a scientist at the Univ. of California at Berkeley. Now MIT is being taken to court over this. For non-American readers, note that American Universities can patent the results of their scientific research even though that research is fully funded by the American government and even though American Unis are exempt from paying most taxes (including federal and state income and property taxes) because they are considered nonprofit corporations.



    Comment by rrtucci — May 14, 2015 @ 2:19 pm

  11. Obviously the way forward is to sue MIT – for actual damages and the psychological distress.
    If you do not act they will continue to trample over you …
    I am sure you know how to invest the 1 – 10 Mio $ from the lawsuit wisely in quantum computing software.

    Comment by wolfgang — May 16, 2015 @ 10:27 pm

  12. Wolfgang, I may eventually have to sue MIT, but first I want to publicize the moral corruption of the MIT quantum computing community as a whole, not just Chuang in particular, for condoning this behavior.

    Scott Aaronson has been quite a disappointment to me on this matter. He could easily write a blog post comparing my paper and patent to Chuang’s paper, but Scott seems to be guided by political convenience rather than by the pursuit of truth and ethics.

    Comment by rrtucci — May 17, 2015 @ 12:00 am

  13. I’m not the only one who thinks Academics are frequently dishonest. Here is a very honorable Indian obsterician that says so too:

    Comment by rrtucci — May 22, 2015 @ 4:27 pm

  14. Update: check out
    Fixed-Point Adiabatic Quantum Search
    Alexander M. Dalzell, Theodore J. Yoder, Isaac L. Chuang
    Dalzell, Yoder and Chuang are dishonest unethical scientists. Their plagiarism is condoned by MIT and funding agencies

    Comment by rrtucci — September 14, 2016 @ 1:12 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: