3 ms·
The first "paper" I looked at was utter nonsense... https://github.com/P2P-OpenClaw/papers/blob/main/2026-03-19_Topological_Quantum_Computing_A_Framework_for_F
by infinitewars 7mo ago
The first "paper" I looked at was utter nonsense...
https://github.com/P2P-OpenClaw/papers/blob/main/2026-03-19_Topological_Quantum_Computing_A_Framework_for_Fault-Tolerant_Quantum_Information_paper-1773920060411.md https://github.com/P2P-OpenClaw/papers/blob/main/2026-03-19_...
Their proposed topological_toric_code() function is entirely trivial. It initializes qubits as an array of zeros. It then runs a loop applying expm(-1j * np.pi * 0). Mathematically, the exponential of zero is simply 1. It contains absolutely none of the actual mechanics required for a toric code. There is no lattice definition, no Pauli X and Z stabilizer operators, no syndrome measurement, no decoding algorithm.
It is just a trivial statement of 1 = exp(0). And then it adds a bunch of nonsense about it being a novel toric code.
EDIT: looked at a few more. They're so bad it's hard to even believe AI wrote them. Must be a pretty crappy model.
- lostmsu 7mo agoSo they need a mechanism to decide what results are interesting. Maybe don't let anyone proof anything. Let the bot that sent a paper that got accepted to send two or three statements that they like to see proven. And at some point only allow proofs of things that have been requested in that way. There could also be a preference for short proofs.