5 ms·

Wow! Lisper, Ron Garret. This is Rod Rinkus, inventor of Sparsey. You and I had what I thought was a congenial email exchange about quantum computing a month ag

Wow! Lisper, Ron Garret. This is Rod Rinkus, inventor of Sparsey. You and I had what I thought was a congenial email exchange about quantum computing a month ago. And, here, out of the blue, you disparage my work in the public square, and in a cowardly fashion, behind my back. I guess that says a lot about your character. Yet, your comment really doesn't make much sense, does it? You even begin your comment with a disclaimer to the effect of "This is really not relevant to this thread"..but then you go on to disparage my work. Kind of a weird thing to do. We're you drunk? In any case, I demand a public apology from you, here in the public square, where you committed your cowardly wrongdoing. We'll see what you're made of in how you handle that. If you have enough conscience and consciousness to apologize for your behavior, then we can move to you explaining your specific criticism of my work, which is now incumbent on you, is it not?..since I've called out your unwarranted and thoughtless attack. This will be a lot of mental work for you, since, thus far, you demonstrate no knowledge of Sparsey, or any of the relevant computational principles. But again, that will take you a long time. So, I recommend you apologize first, rather than keep your audience waiting.

lisper 7y ago
> I demand a public apology from you, here in the public square What exactly is it you want me to apologize for? Have I said anything here that is factually incorrect? > You even begin your comment with a disclaimer to the effect of "This is really not relevant to this thread" No, I ended my comment with the following statement: "It's not P=NP but two similar problems that attract a lot of quackery." And I stand by that. > you demonstrate no knowledge of Sparsey I don't claim to have any. My opinion of you and your work is based entirely on the fact that you claimed to have achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer, an extraordinary claim which you failed to back up with any evidence. When I suggested how you could provide that evidence (implement Shor's algorithm) you balked. That is the sum total of the evidence on which my opinion of you and your work is based. It's quite possible that Sparsey has merit, I don't know. What I do know is that whatever merit it may have, it isn't what you told me it was. (The whole situation is very peculiar because in our private correspondence you really emphasized the quantum stuff, but your web site doesn't mention it at all. This leaves me nonplussed.) > you disparage my work in the public square, and in a cowardly fashion, behind my back If something is done in public it is, by definition, not behind anyone's back, so I think you should apologize to me for accusing me of behaving in a cowardly fashion. If you can demonstrate that something I said was wrong, I will absolutely apologize for it. But if you want me to change my opinion you will have to do with with evidence and persuasive argument, not insults and demands for apologies. But before this spins too wildly out of control, let's start by publicly clearing up the factual question at the heart of our disagreement: do you stand by the claim you made to me in private (but which I cannot find any record of you having made in public) of having achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer?
- roddyrink 7y ago
  Again, wow! "behind my back" means you denigrated my work in a public forum without apprising me. For all you knew, or cared, I'd never have seen this and the harm you inflicted would have been done. What if I went around in public forums and said, "Hey there's this crackpot out there, Ron Garret, check him out on your bogometer"? Most of us learn at a young age not to disparage people behind their back. Apparently you didn't learn that. You introduced the term "quantum supremacy" to our discussion. I don't usually think in such hype-y / marketing terminology, but I assented because I take it to be synonymous with there being a classical realization of quantum superposition. There is. Sparsey is an example. But you haven't taken the time, again by your own admission, to study or understand that. For the (apparently hundreds, based on hits on my website) of others watching this thread, my short 2012 paper, "Quantum Computation via Sparse Distributed Representation", clearly describes how the probabilities of multiple states can simultaneously, physically be active, in superposition if those states are represented as sparse distributed representations (SDRs). And, contrary Ron Garret's claim, my 2017 paper, "A Radically New Theory of how the Brain Represents and Computes with Probabilities", provides empirical evidence that the probabilities of all states (hypotheses) represented (stored) in an SDR coding field are updated (in a way that is semantically consistent with the learned dynamics of the input space) with a number of steps that remains constant as the number of stored states increases. That capability is minimally necessary for any quantum algorithm. I don't know of any other model that has shown this ability. I think the mental block that has existed thus far in quantum computing (QC), and in quantum theory (QT) more generally, is that theorists have been thinking in terms of the probability amplitudes of states as being represented in localist fashion A localist representation is one in which any single entity is represented by a single representational unit and that unit represents only that entity. Any localist simulation of QC on a classical machine will require exponential memory. But, an SDR coding space has a storage capacity of combinatorial order. This opens the possibility that an exponential order number of states can be represented in the polynomial number of units comprising the SDR coding field.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > you denigrated my work in a public forum without apprising me I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under any obligation to apprise you. You certainly never asked me to, and if there's some kind of universal social obligation that applies here that's news to me. (BTW, did it even occur to you that the reason I did this is not because I'm a coward or a drunkard, but simply because I might be clueless?) > the harm you inflicted would have been done What harm could I possibly inflict? I have no influence in the quantum computing community. I've never published anything in that field, and I've been retired from research in general for nearly 20 years. No one who matters has any reason to pay attention to what I say. The only way my critique could possibly harm you is if it has merit. (Does it?) > What if I went around in public forums and said, "Hey there's this crackpot out there, Ron Garret, check him out on your bogometer"? You mean like when Lubos Motl called me a "category 5 loon"? https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/10/evading-quantum-mechanics-again.html https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/10/evading-quantum-mechanics... I was actually flattered that someone of Lubos's stature would take notice of my work and put forth the effort to criticize it. I think it said more about Lubos than it did about me that he chose to lob an ad-hominem at me, but whatever, it's a win-win for me: either Lubos is right, and I learn something, or he's wrong, and I get to be smug about having taught him something. :-) It's certainly not worth getting upset over. > You introduced the term "quantum supremacy" to our discussion. That's true, but I introduced it in the context of a question: are you claiming that you have achieved quantum supremacy in a classical computer? To which you answered yes. > I don't usually think in such hype-y / marketing terminology, Quantum supremacy is not "hype-y / marketing terminology", it's a technical term, whose definition is common knowledge in the quantum computing community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy I assumed you knew that, but apparently I was wrong. (In retrospect, I guess the fact that you had to look Shor's algorithm up on Wikipedia should have been a clue.) So... now that you do know it, I am going to ask you again: are you claiming to have achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer?

lisper 7y ago

> I demand a public apology from you, here in the public square What exactly is it you want me to apologize for? Have I said anything here that is factually incorrect? > You even begin your comment with a disclaimer to the effect of "This is really not relevant to this thread" No, I ended my comment with the following statement: "It's not P=NP but two similar problems that attract a lot of quackery." And I stand by that. > you demonstrate no knowledge of Sparsey I don't claim to have any. My opinion of you and your work is based entirely on the fact that you claimed to have achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer, an extraordinary claim which you failed to back up with any evidence. When I suggested how you could provide that evidence (implement Shor's algorithm) you balked. That is the sum total of the evidence on which my opinion of you and your work is based. It's quite possible that Sparsey has merit, I don't know. What I do know is that whatever merit it may have, it isn't what you told me it was. (The whole situation is very peculiar because in our private correspondence you really emphasized the quantum stuff, but your web site doesn't mention it at all. This leaves me nonplussed.) > you disparage my work in the public square, and in a cowardly fashion, behind my back If something is done in public it is, by definition, not behind anyone's back, so I think you should apologize to me for accusing me of behaving in a cowardly fashion. If you can demonstrate that something I said was wrong, I will absolutely apologize for it. But if you want me to change my opinion you will have to do with with evidence and persuasive argument, not insults and demands for apologies. But before this spins too wildly out of control, let's start by publicly clearing up the factual question at the heart of our disagreement: do you stand by the claim you made to me in private (but which I cannot find any record of you having made in public) of having achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer?

roddyrink 7y ago
Again, wow! "behind my back" means you denigrated my work in a public forum without apprising me. For all you knew, or cared, I'd never have seen this and the harm you inflicted would have been done. What if I went around in public forums and said, "Hey there's this crackpot out there, Ron Garret, check him out on your bogometer"? Most of us learn at a young age not to disparage people behind their back. Apparently you didn't learn that. You introduced the term "quantum supremacy" to our discussion. I don't usually think in such hype-y / marketing terminology, but I assented because I take it to be synonymous with there being a classical realization of quantum superposition. There is. Sparsey is an example. But you haven't taken the time, again by your own admission, to study or understand that. For the (apparently hundreds, based on hits on my website) of others watching this thread, my short 2012 paper, "Quantum Computation via Sparse Distributed Representation", clearly describes how the probabilities of multiple states can simultaneously, physically be active, in superposition if those states are represented as sparse distributed representations (SDRs). And, contrary Ron Garret's claim, my 2017 paper, "A Radically New Theory of how the Brain Represents and Computes with Probabilities", provides empirical evidence that the probabilities of all states (hypotheses) represented (stored) in an SDR coding field are updated (in a way that is semantically consistent with the learned dynamics of the input space) with a number of steps that remains constant as the number of stored states increases. That capability is minimally necessary for any quantum algorithm. I don't know of any other model that has shown this ability. I think the mental block that has existed thus far in quantum computing (QC), and in quantum theory (QT) more generally, is that theorists have been thinking in terms of the probability amplitudes of states as being represented in localist fashion A localist representation is one in which any single entity is represented by a single representational unit and that unit represents only that entity. Any localist simulation of QC on a classical machine will require exponential memory. But, an SDR coding space has a storage capacity of combinatorial order. This opens the possibility that an exponential order number of states can be represented in the polynomial number of units comprising the SDR coding field.
- lisper 7y ago
  > you denigrated my work in a public forum without apprising me I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was under any obligation to apprise you. You certainly never asked me to, and if there's some kind of universal social obligation that applies here that's news to me. (BTW, did it even occur to you that the reason I did this is not because I'm a coward or a drunkard, but simply because I might be clueless?) > the harm you inflicted would have been done What harm could I possibly inflict? I have no influence in the quantum computing community. I've never published anything in that field, and I've been retired from research in general for nearly 20 years. No one who matters has any reason to pay attention to what I say. The only way my critique could possibly harm you is if it has merit. (Does it?) > What if I went around in public forums and said, "Hey there's this crackpot out there, Ron Garret, check him out on your bogometer"? You mean like when Lubos Motl called me a "category 5 loon"? https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/10/evading-quantum-mechanics-again.html https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/10/evading-quantum-mechanics... I was actually flattered that someone of Lubos's stature would take notice of my work and put forth the effort to criticize it. I think it said more about Lubos than it did about me that he chose to lob an ad-hominem at me, but whatever, it's a win-win for me: either Lubos is right, and I learn something, or he's wrong, and I get to be smug about having taught him something. :-) It's certainly not worth getting upset over. > You introduced the term "quantum supremacy" to our discussion. That's true, but I introduced it in the context of a question: are you claiming that you have achieved quantum supremacy in a classical computer? To which you answered yes. > I don't usually think in such hype-y / marketing terminology, Quantum supremacy is not "hype-y / marketing terminology", it's a technical term, whose definition is common knowledge in the quantum computing community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy I assumed you knew that, but apparently I was wrong. (In retrospect, I guess the fact that you had to look Shor's algorithm up on Wikipedia should have been a clue.) So... now that you do know it, I am going to ask you again: are you claiming to have achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer?