5 ms·

A random tweet about a concept not being "fundamentally ridiculous" is an awfully low bar to discredit intelligence. Have a look at his blog[0] and let me know

A random tweet about a concept not being "fundamentally ridiculous" is an awfully low bar to discredit intelligence. Have a look at his blog[0] and let me know if that reinforces your belief. Besides, if you read the whole thread you'd know he's acknowledging that if we could simulate QC classically, then we'd be able to have more efficient classical search algorithms. It's an if that's likely impossible at scale but not, by definition, impossible. [0] https://vitalik.ca/ https://vitalik.ca/

lottin 5y ago
It's not just a random tweet. He's had these ideas since 2013 at least. So here for more details: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/buterins-quantum-quest/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/buterins-quantum-quest/ But I'll take a look at his blog, thanks.
- proto-n 5y ago
  > competent observers would likely consider even that on the high side for a mathematical impossibility If the statement made by Vitalik "There's no proof that efficient classical simulation of QC is impossible" is indeed the case, then it's the linked blogpost that has discredited itself mathematically by treating this as "breaking mathematics" or a "mathematical impossibility". More like groundbreaking surprise, but there's a big difference between "unlikely" and "proven to be impossible" mathematically speaking.
  - lottin 5y ago
    The element of controversy isn't whether efficient quantum simulation is possible, but the idea that by running such a simulation one would be able to break cryptography, as if they were using an actual quantum computer. This is a talk where he makes this claim https://youtu.be/DkUpZkeqhF4?t=3372 https://youtu.be/DkUpZkeqhF4?t=3372 If this isn't crackpottery of the highest degree I don't what is.
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      A talk from 8 years ago, when he was 18 years old? I mean, even having a semi-half-baked opinion on quantum cryptography at 18 is pretty damn impressive. Just because everything is forever on the internet does not mean that opinions are forever.

lottin 5y ago

It's not just a random tweet. He's had these ideas since 2013 at least. So here for more details: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/buterins-quantum-quest/ https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/buterins-quantum-quest/ But I'll take a look at his blog, thanks.

proto-n 5y ago
> competent observers would likely consider even that on the high side for a mathematical impossibility If the statement made by Vitalik "There's no proof that efficient classical simulation of QC is impossible" is indeed the case, then it's the linked blogpost that has discredited itself mathematically by treating this as "breaking mathematics" or a "mathematical impossibility". More like groundbreaking surprise, but there's a big difference between "unlikely" and "proven to be impossible" mathematically speaking.
- lottin 5y ago
  The element of controversy isn't whether efficient quantum simulation is possible, but the idea that by running such a simulation one would be able to break cryptography, as if they were using an actual quantum computer. This is a talk where he makes this claim https://youtu.be/DkUpZkeqhF4?t=3372 https://youtu.be/DkUpZkeqhF4?t=3372 If this isn't crackpottery of the highest degree I don't what is.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    A talk from 8 years ago, when he was 18 years old? I mean, even having a semi-half-baked opinion on quantum cryptography at 18 is pretty damn impressive. Just because everything is forever on the internet does not mean that opinions are forever.