How cut-throat is arXiv:0803.0272? This cut-throat (taken from v2 of the paper):
X. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER READING
This section will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
Reminds 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?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
One of the coauthors on the paper which I claimed was shoddy has written a comment in the original post. Which merits more commenting! But why comment in the comment section when you can write a whole blog post replying!
The paper in question is 0804.3076, and the commenter is George Viamontes:…
Okay, well apparently the paper arXiv:0804.3076 which I mentioned in the last post is being picked up by other bloggers (see here and here as well as here) as a legitimate criticism of quantum computing. So before anymore jump on this bad wagon let me explain exactly what is wrong with this paper…
Yep, it's paper dance time. This one is less of a dance and more of a shuffle:
arXiv:0808.0174 (scirate)
Title: Simon's Algorithm, Clebsch-Gordan Sieves, and Hidden Symmetries of Multiple Squares
Author: D. Bacon
Abstract: The first quantum algorithm to offer an exponential speedup (in the query…
"Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see." -Sam Neill, Event Horizon
Are event horizons real? With data taken from around a dozen observatories earlier this year, simultaneously, the Event Horizon Telescope is poised to put together the first-ever direct image of the black hole at the center…
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
This comment will be completed when our error correction simulations have generated more data.
And this is version 2, no less? No mercy for these authors.
Apparently the difference between versions is a correction to the Acknowledgments section.
Very funny, indeed. But I wonder: will the new data be part of the Further Reading?
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.
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.
This comment no verb.