# Quantum Bayesian Networks

## March 20, 2017

### BNT and PNL, two masterpieces of Bayesian Networks retro-art

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 8:58 pm

An update on the latest adventures of our company artiste-qb.net.

In previous blog posts, I waxed poetic about Marco Scutari’s open source software called bnlearn for learning the structure of bnets (Bayesian networks) from data. bnlearn is written in the language R whereas Quantum Fog is written in Python. But by using Jupyter notebooks with Rmagic installed, we have been able to write some notebooks running both QFog and bnlearn side by side in the same notebook for the same bnets, and to compare outputs of both programs. That is a good bench-marking exercise for the bnet learning side of QFog, but what about it’s bnet inference side?

Two open source programs that are very good at doing bnet inference (and many other things too) are BNT (Bayes Net Toolbox, by Kevin Murphy et al) and OpenPNL (PNL = Probabilistic Networks Library, written by Intel. I like to call it PaNeL to remember the letters quickly).

So our next adventure is to learn how to use BNT and PNL and to compare them to QFog.

BNT is written in Matlab. PNL is written in C++ but it includes Matlab wrappers for most of its functions. Both BNT and PNL are very mature and comprehensive programs. Since its core is written in C++ rather than Matlab, we expect PNL to be much faster than BNT for large networks.

As you already know if you’ve ever checked Matlab’s pricing, the software is very costly for everyone except students. However, this is one case when the open source gods have listened to our prayers. Octave is a free, open source program that can run 99% of a Matlab program and the few differences between Matlab and Octave (mostly in the plotting packages) are well documented. Furthermore, one can run Octave in a Jupyter notebook, either on an Octave kernel or on a Python kernel with octavemagic (oct2py) installed.

So in order to compare QFog to bnlearn, we’ve had to start using Jupyter notebooks on R kernel  or on Python kernel with Rmagic. And in order to compare QFog with BNT&PNL, we’ve had to start using Jupyter notebooks on Octave kernel or on Python kernel with octavemagic. We have seen the light and we are now believers in a holy trinity of computer languages (diversity and open source is our strength, Mr Trump):

Python, R, Octave
(our polyglot notebooks)

Curiously, Duke Univ. offers a course called “Computational Statistics in Python” that also advocates the use of Jupyter notebooks, and the languages Python, R and Matlab intermixed to do statistics. So when two cultures independently come up with the same idea, it’s probably a good one, don’t you think?

Since BNT is written in Matlab, running it does not require any compilation. PNL, on the other hand, is written in C++, so it does. Compiling PNL has proven a difficult task because the software is ten years old, but, after a lot of sweat and tears, our wiz Henning Dekant has managed to compile it (a few issues remain).

BNT was last changed in a bigly way circa 2007 (or even earlier) and PBL on 2006. (bnlearn, by comparison, is still very active). BNT and PNL belong to what I like to call the first bnet revolution (inference by junction tree) whereas bnlearn belongs to the second revolution (structure learning from Markov blankets). Even though PNL belongs to the first, not second, revolution, it is a major mystery to me why Intel abandoned it. PNL is a very impressive, large and mature piece of software. A lot of work, love and passion seems to have gone into it. Then sometime in mid 2006, it seems to have been abandoned in a hurry, and now it looks like a ghost town, or the deserted island in the video game Myst. I already know how the game Myst ends. If anyone knows why Intel stopped PNL development circa 2006, I would appreciate it if you would tell me, either in public in this blog or in private by email. Luckily, Intel had the wisdom to make PNL open source. PNL will go on, because 💍OPEN SOURCE IS FOREVER💍.

Sorry for the length of this blog post (almost as long as a Scott Aaronson blog post or a never ending New Yorker article).

## February 22, 2017

### Quantum Fog’s weight in bnlearn units

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:42 am

In a recent blog post entitled “R are Us. We are all R now”, I expressed my great admiration for the R statistical computer language, and I announced the addition to the Quantum Fog (QFog) GitHub repository of a Jupyter notebook called “Rmagic for dummies” which explains how something called Rmagic allows one to run both Python and R in the same Jupyter notebook.

In 2 other earlier blog posts, I also expressed great admiration for something else, bnlearn, an open source computer program written in R by Marco Scutari for learning classical Bayesian networks (cbnets) from data. I consider bnlearn the gold standard of bnet learning software.

The main purpose of this blog post is to announce that the QFog GitHub repo now has a folder of Jupyter notebooks comparing QFog to bnlearn. This is a perfect application of Rmagic to comparing two applications that can do some of the same things but one app is written in R while the other is written in Python. Pitting QFog against bnlearn is highly beneficial to us developers of QFog because it shows us what needs to be improved and suggests new features that would be worthwhile to add.

QFog can do certain things that bnlearn can’t (most notably, QFog can do both classical and quantum bnets, whereas bnlearn can only do classical bnets), and vice versa (for instance, bnlearn can do bnets with continuous (Gaussian) node probability distributions, whereas QFog can only handle discrete PDs), but there is much overlap between the 2 software packages in the area of structure and parameter learning of classical bnets from data.

A cool feature of the folder of Jupyter notebooks comparing bnlearn and QFog is that most notebooks in that folder can be spawned and run from a single “master” notebook. This amazing ability of the “master” notebook to create and direct a zombie horde of other notebooks is achieved thanks to an open source Python module called “nbrun” (notebook run).

## February 18, 2017

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 12:26 am

Quantum Fog is “quantum-ready” software: it has a parameter “is_quantum” in many of its functions which allows you to switch between Classical Bayesian Networks (is_quantum=False) and Quantum Bayesian Networks (is_quantum=True)

(footnote) I am not the first to use the term “quantum-ready”. I first heard it used by Henning Dekant. A Google search conducted before writing this blog post led me to discover that the company 1Qbit has also used this term in the past in its promotional literature

## February 11, 2017

### R are us. We are all R now.

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 5:08 pm

I have long been an enthusiastic proponent of R, a computer language designed for doing statistical analysis. In fact, 7 years ago I wrote a post in this blog entitled “Addicted to R”.

Our company (artiste-qb.net) has been publishing software written mostly in Python. The Python ecosystem includes a very nice statistical package called Pandas, whose authors profess much love for R and unabashedly admit that they were trying to copy the best of R’s statistical functionality and bring it to Python users. This is fine and good, but is not enough, is it?

R has been around for a long time (since 1993 according to Wikipedia), and during that time it has managed to accumulate a formidable number of highly useful extension packages and a very large and passionately committed community of fans. As good as Pandas is, it would be a pity and outright foolish if our company and others in the same boat ignored R’s rich libraries and numerous users.

So I was elated when Tao Yin, a member of our company, introduced our company members to rpy2 and its extension Rmagic. Rmagic allows one to invoke R functions inside a Jupyter notebook running with a Python kernel. So in a single Jupyter notebook, you can call both Python functions and R functions in the same cell, or have some cells running just R and others running just Python. And of course, variables can be exchanged easily between R and Python within that notebook. So we are all R now. And Python too.

I’ve only known about Rmagic for about a week so I’m a newbie at it. Fortunately, even though rpy2/Rmagic is very sophisticated software under the hood, it’s API (Application Programming Interface) is quite simple and intuitive. I wrote a Jupyter notebook called “Rmagic for dummies” that I hope will convince you that Rmagic is very powerful yet easy to use.

## February 9, 2017

### The Bizarre History of Cambridge Quantum Computing (CQC Ltd)

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 7:44 pm

Cambridge Quantum Computing (CQC) is a very British startup in the field of quantum computer software with a short but bizarre history that I find humorous. A case of fact being funnier than fiction.

CQC was founded in 2015 by Ilyas Khan. According to the Wikipedia article on Ilyas, which was probably written by himself, he comes to the QC business with no scientific degrees or programming experience of any kind. His training and experience are mostly in investment banking and philosophy. Here are some excerpts from the Wikipedia article:

“Khan is a merchant banker by training and started his career at the London firm of J. Henry Schroder Wagg & Co. Ltd. He was also the owner of the famous English football team Accrington Stanley and is its Patron [2] and the founder and publisher of the Asia Literary Review.[3]”

“His special interests include philanthropy and Wittgenstein, and he is a member of the British Wittgenstein Society.”

“Khan has lectured and published papers on Ludwig Wittgenstein, among other subjects.”

“In 2015 Khan founded Cambridge Quantum Computing,[5] which was selected by Bloomberg L.P., as a business Innovator 2016,[6] he has also published on the subject of Quantum Information Processing [7]”

Apart from having a warm & fuzzy feeling for quantum subjects, it’s not clear that Khan understands the underpinnings of QC enough to lecture about it or lead a QC software company prudently.

I first learned about CQC when the press went crazy over the news that a Chilean investment group called Grupo Arcano led by Alberto Chang Rajii was going to invest \$50 million in CQC. For instance, here is an article by Bloomberg announcing this:

Early Google Investor to Help Bring Quantum Computing to Markets (by John Detrixche, Aug 26, 2015, Bloomberg news)

The importance of Alberto Chang to CQC was quickly confirmed by his ascension to the top spot in the “Team” webpage of the CQC website. Here is that page on Mar 4, 2016, retrieved using the WayBack machine. Click to enlarge.

All mention of Alberto Chang has disappeared from the latest reincarnations of the CQC “Team” webpage. What happened?

Well, if you google “Alberto Chang” “pyramid scheme”, you will find lots of news articles in English about Chang. (Or if you know Spanish, google the key words: Alberto Chang Rajii estafa)

For most of his career as a VC fund manager, Chang had been claiming that he had a business degree from Stanford, and that while at Stanford, he had met Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and had been one of the first investors in Google, an investment that had earned him millions. But Stanford and the founders of Google have now denied these assertions and Chang has been forced to recant publicly.

Grupo Arcano is (or was) based in Chile, with offices in Santiago-Chile, Miami-USA, London-UK and Sydney-Australia. Chang fled Chile to Malta on April 2016. He is a fugitive of the Chilean Law, which accuses him of running a pyramid scheme. His mother, a cofounder of Grupo Arcano, also tried to flee Chile but was snagged at the airport and is now under house arrest in Chile. Chang was seeking asylum in Malta but the Maltese government ultimately denied it and he awaits extradition to Chile. Chang’s assets have been frozen in the US and Europe, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has recently announced fraud charges against him.

Meanwhile, CQC continues chugging along. I just saw on Twitter that Khan is scheduled to give the keynote speech at some posh UK tech conference.

## January 31, 2017

### Qubiter and IBM-QASM2 can now communicate via sign language

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 5:15 pm

I’ve always liked mime (Marcel Marceau, Charlie Chaplin,…), physical comedy (using body motions as a source of humor, like Italians do) and the closely related sign-language for the deaf. Sign language can be extremely clever, inventive and expressive. For example, this is how to say Donald Trump in sign-language:

But enough about Trump, who threatens to suck the air and joy out of every conversation. The official purpose of this blog post is to advertise the fact that now Qubiter (https://github.com/artiste-qb-net/qubiter) can convert quantum circuits from its native language to that of IBM, so that you can generate quantum circuits using Qubiter and then run them on the IBM hardware (assuming that those circuits have only 5 qubits and less than about 80 gates)

Recently, the folks at IBM Quantum Experience (IBM-QE) have introduced some very nice enhancements to their QC cloud service. The graphical user interface (GUI) of their website has been revamped. They have also opened two new repositories on GitHub,

Repo 1 introduces their new “intermediate level language” QASM2.0 with a paper in Latex/pdf that teaches the in and outs of their language. This repo also includes samples of qasm2 scripts of two types: some that can be run on their current hardware, and some that can’t be but can still be simulated using their numerical simulator.

Repo 2 gives some Python code for accessing the IBM-QE service via a python script or Jupyter notebook.

To keep up with these IBM enhancements, Qubiter now includes a new file called Qubiter_to_IBMqasm.py This file contains a class of the same name that translates Qubiter “English files” to IBM QASM files. You can write a simple Python script that reads the qasm file produced by the class Qubiter_to_IBMqasm and inputs that string into the code of Repo 2. That way, you don’t even have to visit the IBM-QE website to run your q circuit on their hardware. Alternatively, you can manually copy&paste the qasm file produced by the new Qubiter class into the “QASM Editor” at the IBM-QE website.

The current IBM-QE hardware doesn’t allow all possible CNOTs among its 5 qubits. Out of the 5 qubits 0, 1, …, 4, only qubits 1, 2 and 4 can be physical targets of an elementary CNOT. Also, some pairs of qubits cannot be the two ends of an elementary CNOT because they are physically disconnected. The class Qubiter_to_IBMqasm overcomes both of these limitations. It allows CNOTs among any pair of qubits. Every elementary CNOT that is disallowed is replaced by a compound CNOT; i.e., either 1 or 4 elementary CNOTs (and a bunch of Hadamards) that is equivalent to the original CNOT and is allowed.

## January 20, 2017

### Microsoft Quantum Computing Olympics QIP2017 Comes to A Close Today

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 8:16 pm

Today was an ominous day for the Galaxy. QIP2017 came to a close and Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the United States…

Today, attendees of QIP2017 got these two postcards with an attached note saying: “Microsoft bids you a fond farewell and would like you to have these 2 commemorative postcards as a final bit of swag to remember QIP2017”

## January 15, 2017

### A photograph of a dangerous thug

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:51 am

The purpose of this post is to remind my readers of Microsoft’s thuggish history, as described by the NYT. Will Microsoft be a repeat offender in the emerging field of quantum computing? IMHO, there are some ominous signs that it has started to move full-steam in that direction.

Check out this great article:

MICROSOFT’S WORLD: A special report.; How Software’s Giant Played Hardball Game,By Steve Lohr and John Markoff, New York Times, Oct 8, 1998

Next I will quote the beginning of the article. I recommend that you read the whole thing. The article doesn’t tell the half of it. For example, it doesn’t describe Microsoft’s vigorous attempts to destroy Linux OS and the open software movement. And any company that posed the smallest threat to its Office suite of apps.

In the summer of 1995, a whiff of revolution was in the air in Silicon Valley. The Internet offered a new deal in computing, a fresh opportunity for entrepreneurs to try to break the Microsoft Corporation’s firm grip on the personal computer software business. Leading the challenge was the Netscape Communications Corporation, whose software for browsing the World Wide Web had ignited the Internet boom.

James H. Clark, Netscape’s chairman, spoke boldly of attacking Microsoft head-on. He borrowed imagery from the movie ”Star Wars,” referring to Microsoft as the Death Star and Netscape as the leader of a rebel alliance.

Microsoft answered with a vengeance. It dispatched hundreds of programmers to work on a competing browser and poured many millions of dollars into marketing it. It prodded computer makers and others to distribute its browser, folded the browser into its industry-dominant Windows operating system and gave the browser away free — a campaign intended to ”cut off their air supply,” as a senior Microsoft executive described it.

But it’s not only competitors like Netscape that have encountered Microsoft’s force. Microsoft’s partners, its corporate customers and professional investors who finance new ventures have all collided with it.

A close look at Microsoft’s no-holds-barred push into the Internet software business offers a window into the ways the company uses its market muscle to influence the behavior of virtually every player in the industry.

Some of the cases recounted here figure prominently in the suit brought by the Justice Department and 20 states, scheduled to go to trial later this month, charging that Microsoft at times went too far — and violated antitrust laws.

Regardless of the legal outcome, previously unreported details about incidents in the suit and the other examples provide a more complete picture of Microsoft in action.

*When the Compaq Computer Corporation considered loading Netscape’s browser instead of Microsoft’s on its machines, Microsoft threatened to stop selling its Windows operating system to the big personal computer maker. Compaq, Microsoft’s largest customer in the industry, quickly changed its mind.

*After Spyglass Inc. began supplying Microsoft with its early browser technology, Microsoft announced that it would give away its browser free. The timing came as a rude surprise to its partner Spyglass. The company lost most of its revenues almost overnight, as the technology, which it had also been licensing to companies besides Microsoft, suddenly became available free.

## January 11, 2017

### QIP2017 is next week

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 3:15 am

As I mentioned in my previous post, the QIP2017 conference will be held on Jan 16-20, 2017 at Microsoft HQ, the geometrical center of the DeathStar.

One cannot help noticing that Google, despite it’s considerable commitment to gate model quantum computing, did not sponsor or participate in any committees of Microsoft’s QIP2017. Was this an intentional boycott?

The quantum annealer crowd (DWave, NASA, Lockheed-Martin) has stayed away from QIP2017 too, except for a tiny company called 1Qbit. I do not include Google in that crowd because Google, despite what it seemed to claim when it first hired Martinis, seems to have abandoned quantum annealers to pursue gate model QCs almost exclusively.

All talks at QIP are summaries of papers that have been posted at arXiv months ago, so this conference is an academic version of a pre-scripted American political convention and an ad for MS. If you are not already aware of this, many if not most academic researchers are politicians (some very eager to be bought) first and researchers second. Since the papers have been available to anyone for months, any researcher needing to ask questions to the authors could have done so long ago at almost no cost via email or video conferencing. So it’s hard to justify the cost incurred by the researchers to attend such conventions (entrance fee ~ \$400 + airplane fare + hotel costs, all courtesy of the taxpayer for NSF funded researchers)

Here are some materials that MS is circulating to promote the event. MS intends to use the occasion to show to the world the superiority of the MS race in quantum computing.

## January 6, 2017

### Pythonic Qubiter now has a quantum compiler. The Death Star doesn’t have one yet.

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 12:33 am

As I’ve mentioned many times before in this blog, Henning Dekant (in Toronto) and I (in Boston) founded about a year ago a quantum computer software company called Artiste-qb.net. Our two main products so far are the open source Python programs Quantum Fog and Qubiter. Both programs were originally written in C++, but now they have been rewritten in Python and improved in many ways. This blog post is to announce that the Pythonic version of Qubiter now has a quantum compiler. Hurray for the Rebel Alliance!

Quantum compilers have long been an interest of mine. As far as I know, I was the first one to use the term “quantum compiler” in a paper in the field of quantum computing. I did so in the following 1999 paper

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9902062

By a quantum compiler I mean a software program that takes an ARBITRARY unitary matrix as input and decomposes it into a sequence of qubit rotations and CNOTs. In my opinion, quantum compilers that fit this description are useful, even necessary, if one wants to use quantum computers to do artificial intelligence. Because, whereas for most physics applications one can assume unitaries of the form $U = e^{-itH}$ where $H$, the Hamiltonian, has a very special structure, in AI, the unitaries can have an ARBITRARY structure (not known a priori) that doesn’t come from a Hamiltonian with an a priori known structure.

That 1999 paper was the first one to propose using the CS decomposition of Linear Algebra to do quantum compiling. The C++ program Qubiter, which was first released open source simultaneously with the 1999 paper, was the first computer program that used the CS decomposition to do quantum compiling.

Since that 1999 paper, many papers have been written using the same CS decomposition algorithm as my paper, but not citing my work, because, truth be told, dishonesty is rampant among academic researchers.

Other papers have copied the term “quantum compiling” to refer to a task that is related but much less general than what I call quantum compiling, namely, the task of decomposing a single qubit rotation into a sequence of operations from a finite set of gates. The latter task is necessary for fault tolerant quantum computing and was first tackled by Solovay and Kitaev, but they did not refer to it as “quantum compiling”. Nobody did prior to my 1999 paper.

This blog, which is now 8-9 years old, has featured several posts about quantum compilers. These are my favorites:

And now, the latest gossip about quantum compilers.

Up to now, Microsoft’s main and only quantum computer program was Liqui|>, a heavily patented, closed source computer program written in an unpopular language called F#. For many years now, the main writers of Liqui|>, Dave Wecker and Krysta Svore, have been promising to be THE FIRST to provide a quantum compiler, and of course, never mentioning my work. In some papers, KS uses the term quantum compiler to mean the same thing as me, in other papers she uses it to mean software that does the Solovay-Kitaev decomposition. But I can state unequivocally that Liqui|> has no CS decomposition quantum compiler at the present time. So Qubiter is way ahead of them there.

But the plot thickens. Matthias Troyer is a professor at ETH Zurich that works part time, for big bucks, for Microsoft. He has written papers about Liqui|> with Dave Wecker and Krysta Snore. Hence many people were extremely surprised that on Dec. 23, 2016, Matthias and two of his students at ETH Zurich, Minion A and Minion B, released a computer program called ProjectQ that duplicates most of what Liqui|> does and is therefore in direct competition with it. However, ProjectQ is open source, written in Python, and under the Apache License. The suspense is unbearable. Does this mean that Liqui|> will be laid to rest, R.I.P., meaning Dave Wecker’s and Krysta Svore’s work for the last 5 years will be completely ditched? Stay tuned. Microsoft will be holding QIP 2017 on Jan 14-20. That QIP is going to be Microsoft’s 1936 Nazi Olympics, where they intended to dazzle the world with their superiority in quantum computing. Maybe then we will find out, by watching carefully the placement of the people on the main dais during the weapons parade, who is up and who is down.

Henning and I welcome all open source code, even if it is in competition with Qubiter.

IMHO, Qubiter is currently much better than ProjectQ. For one thing, they claim they have a quantum compiler, but they don’t, at least not currently. Not in the sense that I defined it at the beginning of this post. What they do seem to have and call a quantum compiler are some subroutines that expand a single qubit gate with multiple controls attached into a sequence of single qubit rotations and CNOTs. But Qubiter has that already too. Look at its CktExpander.py file.

## December 1, 2016

### Dumbing Down a Quantum Language, Sequel 1

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 8:04 pm

I am very happy to announce that I have added a class CktExpander to Qubiter At GitHub. The class reads any English file previously written by Qubiter and writes new English and Picture Files wherein every line of the original English file is expanded, if possible. A general Qubiter English file can have lines which denote U(2) matrices or swaps with 0, 1 or more controls attached. We say such a line is expanded if it is replaced by a sequence of lines each consisting of either (1) a qubit rotation or (2) a simple CNOT with only one control. Expander subroutines of this type are useful because quantum computers (for instance, IBM Quantum Experience) can only perform (1) or (2).

Actually, on June 2010, I published a blog post where I described a very similar effort: “Dumbing Down A Quantum Language“. Back then, I was using JAVA instead of Python. But afterwards, I came to the conclusion that JAVA support for numerics, linear algebra, plotting and statistics is inadequate for the purposes of writing Qubiter, whereas Python, with numpy, scipy, mathplotlib, pandas, etc., is almost perfect for the job. So when I was a java head, I wrote some classes that also expanded the lines of an English file into simpler operations. I am very happy that this is the second time that I try to write such subroutines, because practice makes perfect, even in programming. I feel that my Python expander subroutines are far better than my prior JAVA expander subroutines.

## November 2, 2016

### Benvenuti Tao Yin and Henry Tregillus

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 9:45 am

Benvenuti our newest interns, Tao Yin and Henry Tregillus. Tao Yin recently earned a PhD from Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. Henry Tregillus, who is close to obtaining a BS in Physics from Fort Lewis College, in Colorado, was one of our interns last summer and has promised to continue working for us. Tao and Henry are both working to improve and extend Quantum Fog.

### An Evening of Quantum Crypto

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 9:30 am

The Toronto Quantum Computing Meetup is pleased to announce that our next meeting, to be held on Wed. Nov. 16, will be on the subject of Quantum Cryptography. Although strictly speaking, quantum crypto and quantum computing are different subjects, they are often lumped together. IQC at the University of Waterloo, Canada, has invested tons of money on quantum crypto. The US and Chinese governments have too. Ever wonder about the physics involved in quantum crypto or about its commercial prospects? If so, come to discuss this with our club members. The talk will be given by Sara Hosseini, who recently earned a PhD in quantum optics and quantum crypto from the Australian National University. Sara was an intern of artiste-qb.net in the past and she is a member of the meetup.

## October 30, 2016

### Halloween Story: Beware the Super Boson Sampler, my son

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 2:28 am

Scary things seem to occur in the month of October, and even at the beginning of Nov, at least up to Nov. 8. Therefore, most years I write a special Halloween post for this blog to report on some of those things. This year, scary things have occurred in all areas of human endeavor (European and American politics, Syrian war, Zika, etc.). They have even occured in the area of quantum computing…One event of this kind that should be particularly vexing to all true Texan patriots is the imminent completion of the Super Boson Sampler.

The Super Boson Sampler, aka the Desertron, is a quantum computing TIME PORTAL device being built secretly by the NSA in Waxahachie Texas. The Director of the Desertron lab and original proponent of the device, Prof. Scott Aaronson of UT Austin, is being favorably compared to Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during the Manhattan project.

Once it becomes operational before the end of this year, the Super Boson Sampler will be ten times more powerful than CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, another quantum computing time portal device, one that was designed as a precursor small scale toy model for the Super Boson Sampler.

Here is a picture, leaked to the press by a group that calls itself the Texan Freedom Fighters, of the Super Boson Sampler.

Rumor has it that the device is currently charging up, and that it will become fully operational one day after the American presidential election on Nov 8, probably with the intention of post-rigging the election in case things don’t work out for Hillary.

Here is one of many articles on the internet in which Prof. Aaronson explains his theory of time travel. According to that theory, the Super Boson Sampler will allow its users to travel backwards in time.

Quantum Aaronson Supremacy
is the belief held by some, including Aaronson himself, that the universe rotates around a fixed point called Computational Complexity Theory. Extended Quantum Aaronson Supremacy is the belief, also held by Aaronson, that that fixed point is Prof. Aaronson himself.

Recently Prof. Aaronson was flown to the White House, along with a large bunch of other highly placed quantum computing politicians, to give a very definitive FIVE MINUTE talk. I can see how that was a totally justifiable use of government resources. As Abraham Lincoln said: “Government of the rich elites, by the rich elites, for the rich elites, shall not perish from the Earth”.

Here is a small excerpt of his speech. We copy and pasted this excerpt from this blog post by Prof. Aaronson. Then our editor added the string ‘[Aaronson]’ in 2 places to facilitate comprehension by the reader. Prof. Aaronson is very confident that his ideas are golden. In fact, he is already comparing his achievements to the discovery of the Higgs Boson and the Fermi pile

If I have any policy advice, it’s this: recognize that a clear demonstration of quantum [Aaronson] supremacy is at least as big a deal as (say) the discovery of the Higgs boson. After this scientific milestone is achieved, I predict that the whole discussion of commercial applications of quantum computing will shift to a new plane, much like the Manhattan Project shifted to a new plane after Fermi built his pile under the Chicago stadium in 1942. In other words: at this point, the most “applied” thing to do might be to set applications aside temporarily, and just achieve this quantum [Aaronson] supremacy milestone—i.e., build the quantum computing Fermi pile—and thereby show the world that quantum computing speedups are a reality. Thank you.

## October 12, 2016

### Quantum Computing and Bayesian Networks for Global Monitoring of Pandemics

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 9:59 pm

Artiste-qb.net, the quantum computer software company that Henning Dekant and I co-founded recently, is very pleased to announce that we have started a collaboration with the Signa project, whose goal is to produce a universal platform for global monitoring of pandemics. Henning has written a beautiful blog post explaining the motivation behind the Signa Project. Signa is headed and is the brainchild of the multi-talented and visionary Andrew Deonarine, who will start postgraduate work at Harvard by the end of this month. Andrew has submitted a proposal to the MacArthur Foundation’s “\$100M and Change” competition. If we don’t win EL Gordo, we will of course pursue other sources of funding. Andrew has prepared a YouTube video

of his vision, which will use as a starting point already existing software written by himself and many others, including our company, artiste-qb.net.

Here is a single frame from Andrew’s video showing the Signa Team so far.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.