Now on ScienceBlogs: Live Organ Transplants
Theoretical Musings
Dave 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.
« March Meeting Summary | Main | Bristol Summer School on Probabilistic Techniques in Computer Science »
Category: Quantum Computing
Posted on: March 12, 2008 8:27 PM, by Dave Bacon
How cut-throat is arXiv:0803.0272? This cut-throat (taken from v2 of the paper):
X. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER READINGReminds 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?
This section will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
Find more posts in: 
Physical Science
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/66632
Uncertain Principles 11.08.2009
Neurotopia 11.09.2009
The Primate Diaries 11.09.2009
Stoat 11.07.2009
Tomorrow's Table 11.07.2009
Subscribe to RSS feed
Comments
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
This comment will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
Posted by: astephens | March 13, 2008 9:25 AM
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
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
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
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
This comment no verb.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | March 15, 2008 1:15 PM