Scott Aaronson on Computational Complexity Theory and Quantum Computers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2018
- Scott Aaronson - www.scottaaronson.com/ - is the David J. Bruton Centennial Professor of Computer Science at The University of Texas at Austin, and director of its Quantum Information Center. Before teaching at UT, he taught Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. His research interests center around the capabilities and limits of quantum computers, and computational complexity theory more generally.
If you’ve listened to our other episodes about quantum computers and are curious to learn more, check out Scott’s book Quantum Computing Since Democritus - www.amazon.com/Quantum-Comput...
And if you want to read Scott’s blog you can find that at - www.scottaaronson.com/blog/
Read the transcript on our blog - blog.ycombinator.com/scott-aa...
The YC podcast is hosted by Craig Cannon - / craigcannon - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Aaronson is well spoken. He approaches each topic with a steady pace.
Honestly, I disagree especially after watching the susskind session
Thank you, great interview. Scott Aaronson's talks helped me understand just a little bit
better quantum computing.
I really enjoy his book(quantum computing since Democritus)
56:39 "In a certain sense it encodes all of the mathematics"
This is a huge exaggeration. Not every problem can be transformed to a halting problem.
There is a whole en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetical_hierarchy
For example, Collatz conjecture (as it seems) can't be transformed to a halting problem.
It is a "next level" problem.
On the other hand, you can run that set theory solver machine to find the proof of the statement in a particular axiom system.
In other words, knowing busy beaver can give you the answer about derivability of the statement from an axiom system.
But it can't give you the answer about its "universal truth".
nice shirt Professor 👌
who is the host, i can't kinf any info about him anywhere
An Ode To C / C++ Thread SAFETY
Static constants abound in the lexical analyzer and compiler. Dynamic linking libraries deploy a plethora of data structures like trees and maps. The linker if static won't undergo modifications by system calls in the appended files at runtime. The loader generates the machine codecs always dynamic in binaries or hexadecimals. The compile time could be automatic or register prompting change in the volatile memory. That makes for thread safe in mutex or deadlock address locations. Any programming languages that are reporting segmentation fault or overflow and overrun are unsafe and need be pontificated for the perverse logic. It could make the operating system crash and the semaphore would rather be rectified to reinstate the infinite loop.
Sure there are some unanswered question they try to answer, but if your goal is to create a machine then you do "applied science" which is just another word for "engineering".
Right?
👍
Wife is asleep....was hoping for some captions
There's a transcript available here: blog.ycombinator.com/scott-aaronson-on-computational-complexity-theory-and-quantum-computers/
Y Combinator Thank you!!!!!
What You See Is, amplitude-frequency Spinfoam fractal bubble universe-image(s) of QM-TIMESPACE.., What You Get is "The Observer" singularity navigation pivot in-form-ation, the perspective placement Q-bits of the "black (hole) body" continuous creation connection Singularity positioning interval-spectrum here-now forever.., ie pure relative motion mathematical reciprocal => Superspin Superposition-point Singularity positioning Principle.
"Super isolated Q-bits", except for superconducting pseudo random entanglement? (Still a duality puzzle, related to Fusion, +/- Inflation and e-Pi-i resonances)
I've assumed that Mathematical Disproof is equivalent to "un-proving a negative", unfortunately "Two wrongs don't make a right", "so no one is right if everyone is wrong", which is why "no one wins a war", etc, etc, so it remains a Feynman type "good guess".
So maybe it's a "Law of Conjecture", like any empirical laws of evidence that are the reason people describe QM as weird and mysterious. (Two words I've become averse to)
Most persistent problems are resolved with a more impressive name change.., politicaly.
Such as, P = nP is a boundary or brane or firewall question in the same category as wave-particle holographic dualism, ..a particular POV of, necessarily, "inside the functional mechanism looking out" => macro-micro perspective, also the projection of quantization information is perceived to be instantaneously reflected, (entangled), and that is a physics-measure conception, because it's the functional and imaginary prelude to the mathematical conjecture of Spacetime timing-measure e-Pi sequences of curvature, defined by "perspective line of sight"-> amplitude-frequency, density-intensity, probability distribution, Hologram..
(Respects to the cross-discipline educational intentions of Professor Susskind)
Napoleon's observation that he thought stupidity was more likely than conspiracy, definitely applies to Artificial Intelligence, because it's starting with human intelligence, our biased memory associations, and spreading it out with more speed and no hesitation. We already exceed human intelligence, but call it fantasy.
And very entertaining as ever by Prof Aaronson.., thank you.
Looks like Antony Costas brainy brother...
I believe a fully functional balanced trinary quantum computer ie (-1,0,1) could crack the PvsNP Problem, matter of fact I think it'll prove they're equal!?
Lmao why?
When TF does he start talking about complexity?
In my point of view, Aaronson is not talking about anything, he is just babbling. The details he says might be correct, but trying to paint a picture of what he tries to says is hard. E.g. at 37:06 Aaronson is asked a straight forward question, with a straight forward answer. At 40:30 the host loses his patience and asks how his "answer" is related to the question. Five minutes later Aaronson has still not answer any question but keeps going on and on with with expressions like "it is a technical puzzle". He talks in abstract terms but never touch anything concrete. I.e. it seems like Aaronson does not know what the firewall problem or the holistic principle really is about, and he gives me the feeling he likes to babble about things just to create the illusion he knows more than he does. I might be wrong, but that is my impression of this guy.
Must the interviewer react to everything Scott says as he says it? Constantly saying "mhmm" and chuckling is distracting and does not make you look smart or like you're listening.
I think he's just trying to be polite
I --- uh, uh -- think Scott is -- uh, uh -- insightful and -- uh, uh -- a snappy --- uh, uh -- I lost my train of thought.
The grotesque aspect of this conversation is the denial of finance as the only force moving this science forward. Nerds can lie to themselves but get real, you guys are owned.
@Lorena Zak he expressing more of a general truth, he's just saying nerds arn't the high priests of moral uprightness