4 ms·

Given that nobody, and I mean nobody [including Scott Aaronson[0]] understands Grover's algorithm[1], one can only be certain that value was only delivered to t

Given that nobody, and I mean nobody [including Scott Aaronson[0]] understands Grover's algorithm[1], one can only be certain that value was only delivered to the stakeholders. The whole industry exists to prove Feynman, uh, consistent[2]. Didn't he say nobody understands quantum, but didn't he also claim that quantum computing can be useful? [0]https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976014.5 https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976014.5 Although Scott is the most honest of them all [1]3b1b was in good company, not sure about now? https://youtu.be/Dlsa9EBKDGI https://youtu.be/Dlsa9EBKDGI [2]he demonstrated that not fooling oneself was of the utmost importance by continuing to provide the prime example of fooling oneself?

fxwin 1y ago
How does the paper from [0] show that Aaronson doesn't understand Grover's algorithm? What level of "understanding" are you looking for here?
- gsf_emergency 1y ago
  (I'm prepared for my faith to be rejected here, short of a "zk proof", which, despite my earlier regrettably general claim, does seem to exist on the open web (after some inspired googling, no less)... if you really give a damn, but these appear to be sensitive matters) Scott's a careful guy so he skipped out saying explicitly what's "quantum" about Grover, only citing published lemmas where the question (obliquely) begs it. Investigate in particular the section on open problems, where he can afford to be more forthcoming. Here he mentions tight bounds on the "quantum depth" are unknown-- how about the classical? (Note Scott's repeated uh judicious use of quotes around quantum) No royal road to (quantum) geometry, but nobody says out loud that there easily exists tyrannical(/classical) ones (:( So,sorry, but I hope to have pointed in you in the general direction. E: Feynman's level is a good threshold. What I cannot create, I do not understand

fxwin 1y ago

How does the paper from [0] show that Aaronson doesn't understand Grover's algorithm? What level of "understanding" are you looking for here?

gsf_emergency 1y ago
(I'm prepared for my faith to be rejected here, short of a "zk proof", which, despite my earlier regrettably general claim, does seem to exist on the open web (after some inspired googling, no less)... if you really give a damn, but these appear to be sensitive matters) Scott's a careful guy so he skipped out saying explicitly what's "quantum" about Grover, only citing published lemmas where the question (obliquely) begs it. Investigate in particular the section on open problems, where he can afford to be more forthcoming. Here he mentions tight bounds on the "quantum depth" are unknown-- how about the classical? (Note Scott's repeated uh judicious use of quotes around quantum) No royal road to (quantum) geometry, but nobody says out loud that there easily exists tyrannical(/classical) ones (:( So,sorry, but I hope to have pointed in you in the general direction. E: Feynman's level is a good threshold. What I cannot create, I do not understand