Scott Aaronson speaks for the computer scientists, partly in response to the same Times piece that I blogged about recently.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I forgot to link to Sunday's New York Times article about D-Wave and their controversial claim to have made a working quantum computer, which prominently features quotes from the world's second funniest physics blogger:
Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at the Institute for Quantum…
Scott Aaronson takes up the eternal question of why there are so few women in science. His contribution to the nature/ nurture side of the debate is particularly noteworthy:
To put the point differently: suppose (hypothetically) that what repelled women from computer science were all the vending-…
Slow blogging this weekend, as yesterday was taken up with activities that will be blogged about later. Today promises to be a sticky and unpleasant day outside, so I'll probably end up doing a lot of blogging in my nice, comfortable, air-conditioned home office. Of course, there's not much point…
The Links Dump item about software patents this morning includes a lament that there are so many silly little software patents, organized so badly, that finding one you might be infringing would take forever. This may or may not be a convincing argument against them, but for a physics geek like me…
I don't like his answers. He also says that the examples don't have the flavor of pure math, but they bloody do. They're not even new examples: Turing machines are from 1930s. Computational complexity was founded in the 70s.