Dear Joao, Interleaving.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > There go 7 cents out of my 60!... > > The case indeed is that if you build a quantum computer by emulating > a Turing-Universal Machine you are a priori circunscribing its own > class of algorithms. That is only natural if that is the largest class of > computable problems you think are worthwhile considering. But it > isn't necessarily the only one. This approach surfaces here and there > in the literature. See for example: > > http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205093 > [SPK] Nice paper! I will be adding this one to my homework. Thank you! What we need is a good general definition of what exactly is a QM computation that we can all agree on. > Another point worth making is that it seems unlikely that the recourse > to the infinite superposability of quantum states is going to be of any > help in this circunstance. It may be more profitable to look to > entanglement (which incidentaly is the trully novelty that QC brings > to the realm of computation) as the road to a trans-Turing class of > computations. > [SPK] Entanglement is somewhat involved. See this paper: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201143 > As to your reference to Penrose, Ben, I should probably add that > his much maligned ideas concerning the possibility of using Quantum > Gravity as a basis for understanding the psychology of mathematical > invention are perhaps worth a second look now that we are learning a > good deal more about quantum information in Black Holes etc... [SPK] I am a deep admirer of Penrose. It was his ideas that awoke me to QM comp as a possible way of modeling the psyche. Kindest regards, Stephen