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 do exist strong arguments
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
**
1. INTRODUCTION
For over fifty years the Turing machine model of computation has
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 for
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
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, the
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 things
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,
Please read the below referenced paper. It shows
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 Theory
Stephen Paul King references:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/coinsQIP.pdf
whose abstract
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
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.pdf
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
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 idea here
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
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
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
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
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 computability
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 solved in
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
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
http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/crypt/crypt-intro/node23.html
... 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 quantum
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 time.
...
As
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.
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.
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
: Thursday, December 26, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: 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
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
of
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
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 08:21:38PM -0500, Stephen
: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 4:03 AM
Subject: 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
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 strongly
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 would minds be quantum
mechanical but bat minds be classical
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
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 other
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
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:54:30PM -0500, Stephen
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,
i.e.
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.
and that the
notion of updating and/or revising one's expectations is negligible.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marchal Bruno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Quantum Probability
37 matches
Mail list logo
