531–540 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure pilot wave is the same kind of unfalsifiable interpretation of the experimental results that MWI is. Also I think people are making too big a deal out of the comment in the article. I took it as kind of tongue-in-cheek. An expert would know MWI is unfalsifiable and inconsequential.
No, Bell Inequality test falsified it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have thought whoever writes the google tech blogs is more competent than bottom tier science journalists. But in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume malice, as the post is authored by the Google Quantum AI Lead, and makes more sense as hype-boosting buzzw…
There are compelling arguments to believe in the many-worlds interpretation. No sign of a Heisenberg cut has been observed so far, even as experiments involving entanglement of larger and larger molecules are performed, which makes objective-collapse theories hard to consider seriously. Bohmian theories are nice, but require awkward adjustments to reconcile them with relativity. But more importantly, they are philoso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have thought whoever writes the google tech blogs is more competent than bottom tier science journalists. But in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume malice, as the post is authored by the Google Quantum AI Lead, and makes more sense as hype-boosting buzzw…
There are compelling arguments to believe in the many-worlds interpretation. No sign of a Heisenberg cut has been observed so far, even as experiments involving entanglement of larger and larger molecules are performed, which makes objective-collapse theories hard to consider seriously. Bohmian theories are nice, but require awkward adjustments to reconcile them with relativity. But more importantly, they are philoso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
also that paper (IMO) is ridiculously conservative. Just using 1GB keys is plenty sufficient since it would require a quantum computer with a billion bits to decrypt.
How long does it take to generate a key that big? What probabilities do you need to put on generating a composite number and not a prime? Does the prime need extra properties?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
also that paper (IMO) is ridiculously conservative. Just using 1GB keys is plenty sufficient since it would require a quantum computer with a billion bits to decrypt.
Although I know it’s an apocryphal quote, I am reminded of “640K should be enough for anybody.” The Intel 4004, in 1971, had only 2,250 transistors. A handful of qubits today might become a billion sooner than you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://youtu.be/pmcrG7ZZKUc?t=220 If we're a simulation of a parent universe that is exactly like us just of it's past or an alternate past, then we likely should be able to achieve simulating our own universe within ourselves. Otherwise we're not actually a simulation. There's another line of counter argument that various results in QM and computing theory would suggest that it's mathematically impossible for the u…
>If we're a simulation of a parent universe that is exactly like us just of it's past or an alternate past Yes, this is a MASSIVE and COMPLETELY UNTESTABLE if Everything about simulation theory is like, science-hostile or something it seems.
In the past five years I participated in a project (with Yosi Rinott and Tomer Shoham) to carefully examine the Google's 2019 "supremacy" claim. A short introduction to our work is described here: https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2024/12/09/the-case-against-g... . We found in that experiment statistically unreasonable predictions (predictions that were "too good to be true") indicating methodological flaws. We also fou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ECC is easier to implement right. Even the older ones that are full of footguns have orders of magnitude less footguns than RSA. So don't fear them due to unfounded theories.
Is there consensus on what signature validation is correct? https://hdevalence.ca/blog/2020-10-04-its-25519am
In my opinion the correct approach here is the most liberal one for the Q, R points. One checks each point cofactor at parsing 8P=0 and then use unbatched equation for verification. This way implementations can be made group agnostic.
Having group agnostic implementations is important as it creates a proper separation of concerns between curve implementations and the code that uses them. For instance if we were to accept strict validation as the ground truth and best practice one would have enormously hard time specifying verifiers for zero knowledge proofs and would also double time and code for the implementers without any effect on soundness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the explanation. It's still an upwards update on the qubit timelines of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.05045 (see Fig. 7), but not by an insane amount. We've realized their 95% expectation of qubit progress (1 logical qubit) for 2026, in 2024.92 instead. Which to be clear is quite a bit faster than expected in 2020, but still within the realm of plausible stuff.
Nice, thanks for linking that paper. I also did below. The authors argue (e.g. in the first comment here https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8310#comments ) that by their definition, Google still only has a fraction of one logical qubit. Their logical error rate is of order 1e-3, whereas this paper considers a logical qubit to have error of order 1e-18. Google's breakthrough here is to show that the logical error rate can…