Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Follow dabacon on Twitter

Profile

davidog.pngDave Bacon is a theoretical ski bum who is also a pseudo professor. His research is on quantum computing, his scientific passions extend to everything in physics, mathematics, computer science and beyond, and his personal pleasures include making wine, playing poker, skiing, camping, and daydreaming (although not all of those at the same time.) Nothing he says on this blog should be construed as having anything to do with his employer or his dog.


Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Other Information

The use of Occam's razor on this website is strickly prohibited.

Cows are well approximated by a sphere.
rss.jpg   Subscribe to RSS feed

Follow dabacon on Twitter

« March Meeting Summary | Main | Bristol Summer School on Probabilistic Techniques in Computer Science »

In Conclusion...Can You Hold For a Second?

Category: Quantum Computing
Posted on: March 12, 2008 8:27 PM, by Dave Bacon

Share:

How cut-throat is arXiv:0803.0272? This cut-throat (taken from v2 of the paper):

X. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER READING
This section will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
Reminds me of my idea to write a paper and submit it to the arxiv entitled "An Efficient Quantum Algorithm for the Graph Isomorphism Problem." Sure, version 1, won't have the algorithm, but hey, why should I make you wait?

Share on Facebook
Share on StumbleUpon
Share on Facebook
Find more posts in: Physical Science

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/66632

Comments

1

Hi Dave,

I've taken the liberty to tag you for one of those internet memes - see here Please feel free to ignore the meme if these chain-process things annoy you.

Best,

Phil

Posted by: Phil Warnell | March 13, 2008 2:11 AM

2

This comment will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.

Posted by: astephens | March 13, 2008 9:25 AM

3

And this is version 2, no less? No mercy for these authors.

Apparently the difference between versions is a correction to the Acknowledgments section.

Posted by: Eric Lund | March 13, 2008 9:46 AM

4

Very funny, indeed. But I wonder: will the new data be part of the Further Reading?

Posted by: Pieter Kok | March 13, 2008 1:13 PM

5

I guess the age-old practice of citing an "in preparation" doesn't work when it would refer to the same paper. On the other hand, a self-referencing citation like that could easily drop the reader into an infinite-loop that would give the authors ample time to finish their work. That's probably the best approach, assuming you lack the technology to write papers on a closed time-like curve.

Posted by: JM Geremia | March 14, 2008 10:44 AM

6

I'm the author responsible for putting this paper on the archive even though it's not quite complete. Keep in mind that the incomplete threshold section is only intended to duplicate work already in the literature -- Raussendorf and others have already done the threshold calculation, we intend to redo it for our own satisfaction and learning and to provide a check of the prior work. Everything that is new and interesting is already in the paper.

The decision to put it on the archive in its current state was not made lightly -- the annual APS meeting was last week, and the easiest way to distribute further reading on the talk I gave there on this paper was to have the paper on the archive.

Posted by: Austin Fowler | March 15, 2008 12:40 PM

7

This comment no verb.

Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | March 15, 2008 1:15 PM

Comments have been closed as this blog has moved to http://dabacon.org/pontiff.
Click here to search for this post on the new blog.

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.