tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post4742894045125441619..comments2021-04-20T09:52:56.297-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Quantum Computing Fast and SlowLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-89545156714434985132013-05-30T23:19:47.684-05:002013-05-30T23:19:47.684-05:00I've been calling "Quantum Computing Sinc...I've been calling "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" a 'pop-science' book for very smart people. The technical details are possible to follow and some of the earlier ones can be pretty helpful (QCSD was my first exposure to the Cook–Levin theorem and I rather liked the explanation), but for some of the later complexity results, you'd better have a textbook with you if it's the first time you're hearing about interactive proofs and the like.Joshua Bruléhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07163957187678854120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-322030997877697202013-05-26T21:14:33.146-05:002013-05-26T21:14:33.146-05:00Uhm I'd actually say I learned a lot from the ...Uhm I'd actually say I learned a lot from the details in Scott's notes, when doing undergrad...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-56624931772763916182013-05-25T14:53:00.488-05:002013-05-25T14:53:00.488-05:00There has been strong relations between mathematic...There has been strong relations between mathematicians and computer scientists, but mainly with theoretical computer scientists. Computer science is more of an algorithmic perspective. These days you can find people with graduate degrees in not just mathematics but almost any field working in computer science departments, from health sciences to biology to economics to psychology. And often mathematicians suffer more as they start working in computer science than others because of leaving in their Platonic world. Mathematics lacks the pragmatic computational perspective of computer science which is arguably the unifying principle of what we refer to computer science. In that sense, it is kind of misleading to call computer science part of mathematics. A mathematician may work in economics or physics or biology or whatever as mathematics is the language of the science. The sciences has become so dependent on mathematics that doing any advanced science without mathematics is completely impossible. But if we look at the trend we see that a similar trend in adoption of algorithms in other sciences, even in mathematics to lesser extend. We see a increasing trend in use of computers and mathematics. In a few decades the use of computers and knowledge of algorithms will become the norm in mathematics. A mathematician may think any person who uses mathematics or proves theorems is a mathematician. I would consider any person who has the pragmatic computational perspective and a sound understanding of algorithms a computer scientist. Other scientist have similar encompassing definitions of their fields. There is no point in arguing about someone being a mathematician or computer scientist or physicist or economist or ... unless one has a huge ego. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-24467705658692606082013-05-24T01:21:06.974-05:002013-05-24T01:21:06.974-05:00Theory of computer science is naturally a part of ...Theory of computer science is naturally a part of mathematics. Not physics. Both in practice and in principle (many CS theoreticians are in math departments; especially in Europe). Professornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-61103190848703393732013-05-23T21:52:22.371-05:002013-05-23T21:52:22.371-05:00>There is a computer science analogy, in that h...>There is a computer science analogy, in that his fast refers to what we can do with machine learning, simple trained models to make quick judgments that occasionally gets things wrong.<br /><br />While that works as an analogy it fall flat when taken literally. The fast thinking is common sense, sarcasm/humor detection, object categorization, intuition, pattern recognition on high dimensional data; exactly those things which ML and AI have found very difficult to replicate. The Slow system based on probabilistic and logical reasoning, consistency, rationality + convex preferences, and calculation are much more of a breeze for ML. Proximus Primehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13824707436993245935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-49893556757969222662013-05-23T12:13:17.884-05:002013-05-23T12:13:17.884-05:00Let the physicists first give a Nobel prize to Gro...Let the physicists first give a Nobel prize to Grover / Simon / Shor - or Bennett -- we'll talk about department take-overs after that.D. S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-22435972532747105562013-05-23T11:55:58.373-05:002013-05-23T11:55:58.373-05:00There's a recent email of Kahneman (regarding ...There's a recent <a href="http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf" rel="nofollow">email</a> of Kahneman (regarding a few "priming effect" results) that might justify some amount of skepticism.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-26163057003371049882013-05-23T11:29:13.042-05:002013-05-23T11:29:13.042-05:00I can see I came out much more negative than I tho...I can see I came out much more negative than I thought, as I do agree with most of what is in both books and I really enjoyed reading the books.<br /><br />Why I'm not a big fan of behavioral economics is a topic I'll return to in a future post.Lance Fortnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-53121226904193955712013-05-23T11:01:55.758-05:002013-05-23T11:01:55.758-05:00Yes Lance, for all this griping you ought to provi...Yes Lance, for all this griping you ought to provide at least one substantive critique. If you don't like philosophy you can just say so, without complaining that Aaronson gets "way too philosophical." If it's not just a matter of taste, but you actually disagree with something in his argument, why don't you make that clear. And if you are "not a huge fan of behavioral economics," is it because of an actual scientific disagreement or what?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-91553708752979849622013-05-23T09:57:12.633-05:002013-05-23T09:57:12.633-05:00"Kahneman gives a readable tour of behavioral..."Kahneman gives a readable tour of behavioral economics with a variety of examples, though I don't agree with his interpretation of many of them"<br /><br />Lance, what's an example where you disagree with his interpretation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com