Dabacon

6 ms·

1.
by Dabacon 15y ago
Is it me or is it odd that it bottomed out at 0.0123456?
2.
by Dabacon 15y ago
Those are the most cited from the Physical Review journals: http://bit.ly/jMN0SP Interesting because they have such high citation counts in part because they hit a nice spot relevant to both physics and chemistry.
3.
Using Yahoo image search to do astronomy(arxiv.org)
1 points by Dabacon 15y ago|0 comments
4.
by Dabacon 15y ago
Still alive and kicking. There are also a few other quantum cryptograph companies around including http://www.idquantique.com/ and http://www.quintessencelabs.com/
5.
by Dabacon 15y ago
The worldwide community of quantum computing researchers is probably around a couple thousand. p.s. your namesake is one of them http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Cross_A/0/1/0/all/0/1
6.
by Dabacon 15y ago
The D-wave machine is different from a general purpose quantum computer which is why it can have many more qubits than the more traditional approach that you are most like to have heard of in the press. That said no one knows what the powe
7.
Guesstimate of the payoff matrix for startup versus finance(infoproc.blogspot.com)
1 points by Dabacon 15y ago|1 comments
8.
by Dabacon 15y ago
So to me it seems that the people building tools for collaborative science need to start with a system whose sole goal is to produce papers :) How to do this is a fun problem.
9.
by Dabacon 15y ago
"Mark wrote a paper about this ten years later, after physicists had published thousands of bogus papers using bogus statistics." Agreed, but to be fair a lot of non-physicists were also doing this. For example in their excellent review ar
10.
by Dabacon 16y ago
e^(τi)-1=0. This is obviously better since it not only contains the fundamental constants e, tau, and the beautiful numbers 0 and 1, it also includes a minus sign, emphasizing the fact that we are working over a field with an additive inve
11.
by Dabacon 16y ago
The result, IIRC, is that all of QIP can be done in three rounds, whereas if the same held in the classical world the polynomial hierarchy would collapse (which is considered about as likely as P=NP). Not of practical value, but it does poi
12.
by Dabacon 16y ago
No. It means that for the complexity class of interactive proofs quantum and classical are the same (when you ignore the number of rounds involved.) This doesn't tell us anything about whether quantum polynomial time equals classical polyn