Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

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

uot;Hans Moravec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > Brent Meeker: > > It seems [factoring] has been proven recently to be in P: > > http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~stiglic/PRIMES_P_FAQ.html#PRIMES > > No, that's primality testing, which has always been > much easier than factoring. > >

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Brent Meeker: It seems [factoring] has been proven recently to be in P: http://crypto.cs.mcgill.ca/~stiglic/PRIMES_P_FAQ.html#PRIMES No, that's primality testing, which has always been much easier than factoring.

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On 31-Dec-02, you wrote: > Hans Moravec writes: > >> Hal Finney: >>> there are no known problems which take >>> exponential time but which can be checked >>> in polynomial time. If such a problem could >>> be found it would prove that P != NP ... OK, you mean that *provably* take exponential ti

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

>> ... It is suspected but not yet known that factoring is NP-complete. Of course, if factoring were to be shown NP-complete and quantum computers could be built to run Shor's factoring algorithm in polynomial time, then quantu

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Hal Finney: I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with either of my statements above, that (1) there are no known problems which take exponential time but which can be checked in polynomial time, or that (2) if such a problem could be found it would prove that P != NP. Ah, I see the communications

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On Monday, December 30, 2002, at 03:46 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 31-Dec-02, Hal Finney wrote: One correction, there are no known problems which take exponential time but which can be checked in polynomial time. If such a problem could be found it would prove that P != NP, one of the greatest

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Hans Moravec writes: > Hal Finney: > > there are no known problems which take > > exponential time but which can be checked > > in polynomial time. If such a problem could > > be found it would prove that P != NP ... > > Communications glitch here. The definition > of NP is problems that can be

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Brent Meeker wrote: > On 31-Dec-02, Hal Finney wrote: > > One correction, there are no known problems which take exponential > > time but which can be checked in polynomial time. If such a problem > > could be found it would prove that P != NP, one of the greatest > > unsolved problems in computabi

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On 31-Dec-02, Hal Finney wrote: > One correction, there are no known problems which take exponential > time but which can be checked in polynomial time. If such a problem > could be found it would prove that P != NP, one of the greatest > unsolved problems in computability theory. What about Ham

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Hal Finney: there are no known problems which take exponential time but which can be checked in polynomial time. If such a problem could be found it would prove that P != NP ... Communications glitch here. The definition of NP is problems that can be solved in polynomial time on a "nondetermin

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On 30-Dec-02, you wrote: > Dear Stephen, ... > [Bruno]It is perhaps up to you to show me a quantum computable function not > being classicaly computable. But if you succeed you will give me > something like an unitary transformation, and then I will show you > how to write a classical program emul

RE: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Hal Finney wrote: One correction, there are no known problems which take exponential time but which can be checked in polynomial time. If such a problem could be found it would prove that P != NP, one of the greatest unsolved problems in computability theory. Whoops, I've heard of the P=NP pro

RE: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Jesse Mazer writes: > I had a science-fictional idea about a way to build an oracle machine after > reading Hans Moravec's article on "Time Travel and Computing" here: > > >http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/users/hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1991/TempComp.html > > As I understood it, the basic id

RE: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Ben Goertzel wrote: Jesse & Stephen: About quantum computing getting around the limitations of Turing machines: you don't have to cite Feynman, this matter was settled fairly clearly in David Deutsch's classic work on quantum computation. He showed that the only quantum-computable functions ar

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: >Dear Jesse, > > Please read the below referenced paper. It shows that QM comp *CAN* " >"solve an undecidable problem" > (relative to a classical computer)." Where does it say that? [SPK] In the abstract of http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/coinsQIP.pd

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On Monday, December 30, 2002, at 11:18 AM, Tim May wrote: On Monday, December 30, 2002, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: QM comp seems to operate in the space of the Reals (R) and TM operates in the space of Integers (Z), is this correct? Any finite system, which of course all sys

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On Monday, December 30, 2002, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: QM comp seems to operate in the space of the Reals (R) and TM operates in the space of Integers (Z), is this correct? Any finite system, which of course all systems are, can have all of its quantum mechanics calculations

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 consideri

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

t for, at least, the "illusion" of time and concurrency of events. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 12:38 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision T

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Dear Jesse, - Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:40 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > >Dear Jesse, >

RE: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

> When a finite quantum computer can break the Turing barrier, that will > prove something. But when your first step is to prepare an infinite > superposition, that has no applicability to the physical universe. > > Hal Finney > Precisely. Deutsch's arguments make a lot of assumptions about th

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King references: > http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/coinsQIP.pdf whose abstract begins, "Is there any hope for quantum computer to challenge the Turing barrier, i.e., to solve an undecidable problem, to compute an uncomputable function? According to Feynman's '82 argument, th

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

There are two sides to this question that may be clouding the argument and maybe suggest a change in thread. Here go my 2 cents: 1) Yes, indeed there is no hope that a Quantum Computer _as we understand it today_ (and I underscore this last point) is likely to violate the Turing's Halting Theorem

RE: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

ut I'm of course open to new ideas and new information... -- Ben Goertzel > -Original Message- > From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > &

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Jesse, Please read the below referenced paper. It shows that QM comp *CAN* " "solve an undecidable problem" (relative to a classical computer)." Where does it say that? I do not see how I misread Feynman's claim Again, the paper says: "Is there any hope

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

st regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory snip http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/coinsQIP.pdf > > &g

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Dear Bruno, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: "Marchal Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:26 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > >There

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: Also, any quantum computer or physical system can be simulated by a classical computer. [SPK] Bruno has made similar statements and I do not understand how this is true. I have it from multiple sources that this is not true. Do you recall the famous statement by Ri

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: >There do exist strong arguments that the "macroscopic state" of neurons >is not completely classical and thus some degree of QM entanglement is >involved. But hand waving arguments aside, I would really like to understand >how you and Bruno (and others), given the pro

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Dear Wei, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Forgive me if my writting gave you that opinion. I meant to imply that > any mind, including that of a bat, is quantum mechanical and not classical > in its nature. My ideas follow the implications of Hitoshi Kitada's theory >

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Original Message - > From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:47 PM > Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > &g

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

ginal Message - From: "Joao Leao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:47 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > I am sorry but I have to ask: why

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

I am sorry but I have to ask: why would "minds" be quantum mechanical but "bat minds" be classical in your suspicions? I am not sure I am being "batocentric" here but I can anticipate a lot of bats waving their wings in disagreament... -Joao Stephen Paul King wrote: > [SPK] > > Yes. I stro

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

ephen - Original Message - From: "Marchal Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 4:03 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > >Yes. I strongly suspect that "

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: it seems to me that if minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine, i.e. compute, what it is like to "be a bat" or any other classical mind. I see this as implied by the ideas involved in Turing Machines and other "Universal" classical comp

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: >Yes. I strongly suspect that "minds" are quantum mechanical. My >arguement is at this point very hand waving, but it seems to me that if >minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine, >i.e. compute, what it is like to "be a bat" or any

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Wei, > > Interleaving. > > [SPK] > > Yes. I strongly suspect that "minds" are quantum mechanical. My > arguement is at this point very hand waving, but it seems to me that if > minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine,

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Dear Wei, Interleaving. - Original Message - From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:54:30PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Two ideas would seem to mute this strange thought. > > 1) The no-cloning theorem, iff the world follows QM and not just classical > physics. Are you saying the no-cloning theorem will prevent copying of minds? What about AIs

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:00:07PM +0100, Marchal Bruno wrote: > > Have you read the "revisited" paper by Wallace on Everett/decision > > theory? Quite interesting imo, and relev

Re: Quantum Probability and Decision Theory

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 04:00:07PM +0100, Marchal Bruno wrote: > Have you read the "revisited" paper by Wallace on Everett/decision > theory? Quite interesting imo, and relevant for some discussion, > about MWI and decision theory we have had on this list. > > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/docum