A Discussion and a Debate

Heavier than air flight of the 21 century?

The very first post on this blog entitled “Combinatorics, Mathematics, Academics, Polemics, …” asked the question “Are mathematical debates possible?” We also had posts devoted to debates and to controversies.

A few days ago, the first post in a discussion between Aram Harrow, a brilliant computer scientists and quantum information researcher (and a decorated debator), and myself on quantum error correction was launched in Dick Lipton and Ken Regan’s big-league blog, Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP.

The central question we would like to discuss is:

Are universal quantum computers based on quantum error correction possible.

In preparation for the public posts, Ken, Aram, Dick, and me are having very fruitful and interesting email discussion on this and related matters, and also the post itself have already led to very interesting comments. Ken is doing marvels in editing what we write.

Dick opened the post by talking on perpetual motion machines which is ingenious because it challenges both sides of the discussion. Perpetual motion turned out to be impossible: will quantum computers enjoy the same fate? On the other hand (and closer to the issue at hand), an argument against quantum mechanics based on the impossibility of perpetual motion by no other than Einstein turned out to be false, are skeptical ideas to quantum computers just as bogus? (The answer could be yes to both questions.) Some people claimed that heavier-than-air flight might is a better analogy. Sure, perhaps it is better.

But, of course, analogies with many human endeavors can be made, and for these endeavors, some went one way, and some went the other way, and for some we don’t know.

Although this event is declared as a debate, I would like to think about it as a discussion. In the time scale of such a discussion what we can hope for is to better understand each other positions, and, not less important, to better understand our own positions.  (Maybe I will comment here about some meta aspects of this developing discussion/debate.)

A real debate

A real emerging debate is if we (scientists) should boycott Elsevier. I tend to be against such an action, and especially against including refereeing papers for journals published by Elsevier as part of the boycott. I liked, generally speaking,  Gowers’s critical post on Elsevier, but the winds of war and associated rhetoric are not to my liking.  The universities are quite powerful, and they deal, negotiate and struggle with scientific publishers, and other similar bodies, on a regular  basis. I tend to think that the community of scientists should not be part of such struggles and that such involvement will harm the community and science. This is a real debate! But it looks almost over.  Many scientists joined the boycott and not many opposing opinions were made. It looks that we will have a little war and see some action. Exciting, as ever.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Computer Science and Optimization, Controversies and debates, Information theory, Physics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Discussion and a Debate

  1. Chris says:

    It seems someone solved P vs NP just using the good Logic on his manuscript, published by International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, January 2012 Edition.

    • Gordon Royle says:

      Errr… no. The paper, once you dig it out, is largely irrelevant ramblings, published in one of the insidious “pay-to-publish” journals that are infesting the Internet.

  2. Chris says:

    Well, you could explain more why they are irrelevant… I saw a extreme logic, when he get the point, that when you going to infinite like Pi, or with the enlarging of the amount of bits on a security encoding, that can go to infinite too, these infinite NPs will never be solved in polynomial time like P (deterministic), proving that P diferent from NP in these cases, so, P different from NP. You pay for your food and it is probably good, a payed Journal still have an editorial board, and a name to care; I guess prejudice can´t be used to disconsider a paper, what they say about Einstein ideas on the beggining?

    • Gabor Pete says:

      I have just looked at the paper. Sorry for discouraging you, but neither the author nor you have understood the P vs NP question. The paper is partly trivial, partly wrong, not only mathematically, but even on a layman’s intellectual level. A journal that publishes such garbage is a trash can. No prejudice.

  3. Chris says:

    A 100 page paper, saying to be the answer for P vs NP, just with math theory and nothing about the solution of P vs NP passed a non payed Journal, then where is the control of quality of a non payed Journal?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s