Comments on: Spanning Multiple Universes http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/spanning-multiple-universes/ Quick brown foxes and lazy dogs. Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:47:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Still unresolved » Ganesh Swami http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/spanning-multiple-universes/comment-page-1/#comment-1303 Still unresolved » Ganesh Swami Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:46:10 +0000 http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/15/spanning-multiple-universes/#comment-1303 <p>[...] As Evgeny commented, the D-wave folks didn’t claim to solve NP-hard problems. [...]</p> [...] As Evgeny commented, the D-wave folks didn’t claim to solve NP-hard problems. [...]

]]> By: ganesh http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/spanning-multiple-universes/comment-page-1/#comment-1270 ganesh Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:49:04 +0000 http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/15/spanning-multiple-universes/#comment-1270 <p>Kamil: Even better -- my time machine can reach -1 year and 12 months. </p> <p>Sure, the demo was interesting, but doing some background reading raises a lot of red flags. For one, most of their technology is not published in reputed journals. Geordie says that they are in the business of making quantum computers, not in writing publications. That seems like a weak explanation. But, if this does work out, that's a sign of the failure of peer review and publications.</p> <p>Secondly, they've proposed adiabatic quantum computing as a model of computation. I'm not really sure if this is a quantum computer according to standard literature. </p> <p>You'll have to give them credit though for bringing the spotlight to BC's high-tech community. They were called the Fairchild Semiconductors of BC. That's good for engineers like you and me. Cheers.</p> Kamil: Even better — my time machine can reach -1 year and 12 months.

Sure, the demo was interesting, but doing some background reading raises a lot of red flags. For one, most of their technology is not published in reputed journals. Geordie says that they are in the business of making quantum computers, not in writing publications. That seems like a weak explanation. But, if this does work out, that’s a sign of the failure of peer review and publications.

Secondly, they’ve proposed adiabatic quantum computing as a model of computation. I’m not really sure if this is a quantum computer according to standard literature.

You’ll have to give them credit though for bringing the spotlight to BC’s high-tech community. They were called the Fairchild Semiconductors of BC. That’s good for engineers like you and me. Cheers.

]]> By: Evgeny Skvortsov http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/spanning-multiple-universes/comment-page-1/#comment-1247 Evgeny Skvortsov Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:06:25 +0000 http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/15/spanning-multiple-universes/#comment-1247 <p>As far as I understood they admit that quantum computation is not capable of solving NP-hard problems and at one of videos claim that their computer gives quadratic speedup. But if time grows exponentially with size of the problem, then quadratic speedup will allow to solve problems only several bits longer. Probably without understanding of what is adiabatic computation model there is no way to understand why and how this machine works.</p> As far as I understood they admit that quantum computation is not capable of solving NP-hard problems and at one of videos claim that their computer gives quadratic speedup. But if time grows exponentially with size of the problem, then quadratic speedup will allow to solve problems only several bits longer. Probably without understanding of what is adiabatic computation model there is no way to understand why and how this machine works.

]]> By: Kamil Kisiel http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/spanning-multiple-universes/comment-page-1/#comment-1217 Kamil Kisiel Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:28:24 +0000 http://ergodicity.iamganesh.com/2007/02/15/spanning-multiple-universes/#comment-1217 <p>Amazing, the blog claims this post was posted 1 year and 12 months ago. That's some foresight you've got there ;)</p> <p>While I think the promise of this technology is interesting, I think this demonstration was a bit premature, or maybe just underwhelming. Really, anyone could have put on the same demo and made the same claims. I'll be watching with a guarded skepticism until they allow this to be verified, or at least show some more impressive results. My interpretation right now is that they're trying to drum up some more funding, but maybe I'm just being cynical.</p> Amazing, the blog claims this post was posted 1 year and 12 months ago. That’s some foresight you’ve got there ;)

While I think the promise of this technology is interesting, I think this demonstration was a bit premature, or maybe just underwhelming. Really, anyone could have put on the same demo and made the same claims. I’ll be watching with a guarded skepticism until they allow this to be verified, or at least show some more impressive results. My interpretation right now is that they’re trying to drum up some more funding, but maybe I’m just being cynical.

]]>