Recent comments from SciRate

Since arXiv now supports supplementary material, we did not host the source externally. The easiest way to view the code is using https://nbviewer.jupyter.org: https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/urls/arxiv.org/src/1707.05088v1/anc/specdens-est.ipynb.

By the way, if you are having difficulty navigating

...(continued)

Thanks! Yes, I think a generalisation of this form ought to work, though I didn't work out the details.

Nice result! It looks like the technique is easily generalizable to qudits, isn't it, by replacing the bell states with $|b_{ij}\rangle = (X^iZ^j \otimes I) \frac{1}{\sqrt{D}}\sum_{k=0}^{D-1}|kk>$, where $X|i\rangle=|i\oplus1>$ and $Z|i\rangle=\omega^i|i\rangle$? Fo course $\mathbb{F}_2^n$ will beco

...(continued)

Eight hundred forty-four!

Even if we kickstart evolution with bacteria, the amount of time until we are capable of von Neumann probes is almost certainly too small for this to be relevant. See for instance [Armstrong & Sandberg](http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/science/article/pii/S0094576513001148). It

...(continued)

Wow, from one-way QC to AI! :)

It has been [published][1]

[1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-016-2911-0

Ah yes I see, thank you for the clarification!

Hi Kenneth, more precisely that plot is for a particular "Pauli-damping" channel, i.e., a qubit channel that is decomposable into a Pauli channel (1) and an amplitude damping channel (2). This "Pauli-damping" channel can be simulated by performing noisy teleportation over a resource state that corre

...(continued)

Interesting work! I was wondering, how do the new upper bounds for the amplitude-damping channel in Fig. 2 compare to previous bounds?

The secret-key capacity of the pure-loss channel -log(1-t) was proven in [9], not in the follow-up work [13] (which appeared 4 months later). Ref. [13] found that this capacity is also a strong converse bound, which is Eq. (1) here. Same story for Eq. (4) that was proven in [9], not in [13]. Again t

...(continued)

I have posted an open review of this paper here: https://github.com/csferrie/openreviews/blob/master/arxiv.1703.09835/arxiv.1703.09835.md

Updated summary [here](https://github.com/eddiesmo/papers).

# How they made the dataset
- collect youtube videos
- automated filtering with yolo and landmark detection projects
- crowd source final filtering (AMT - give 50 face images to turks and ask which don't belong)
- quality control through s

...(continued)

Yes, that's right, thanks!

For (5), you use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $\left| \operatorname{tr}(X^\dagger Y) \right| \leq \sqrt{\operatorname{tr}(X^\dagger X)} \sqrt{\operatorname{tr}(Y^\dagger Y)}$ for the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product $\langle X,Y\rangle := \operatorname{tr}(X^\dagger Y)$ wi

...(continued)

Just reading over Eq (5) on P5 concerning the diamond norm.

Should the last $\sigma_1$ on the 4th line be replaced with a $\sigma_2$? I think I can see how the proof is working but not entirely certain.

I think this thread has reached it's end.

I've locked further comments, and I hope that the quantum computing community can thoughtfully find an approach to language that is inclusive to all and recognises the diverse background of all researchers, current and future.

I direct your attention t

...(continued)

While I would never want to antagonize my peers or to allow myself to assume they were acting irrationally, I do share your concerns to an extent. I worry about the association of social justice and inclusivity with linguistic engineering, virtual lynching, censorship, etc. (the latter phenomena sta

...(continued)

I think you are just complaining about issues that arise from living with other people in the same society. If you disagree with their values, well, then some of them might have a negative opinion about you. If you express yourself in an aggressive way, and use words like "lynch" to mean having pe

...(continued)

I agree with Noon that the discussion is becoming largely off topic for SciRate, but that it might still be of interest to the community to discuss this. I invite people to post thoughtful and respectful comments over at [my earlier Quantum Pontiff post][1]. Further comments here on SciRate will be

...(continued)

I've moderated a few comments on this post because I believe it has gone past useful discussion, and I'll continue to remove comments that I believe don't add anything of substantial value.

Thanks.

The problem with your argument is that no one is forcing anyone to say anything, or banning anything.

If the terms really were offensive or exclusionary or had other bad side effects, then it's reasonable to discuss as a community whether to keep them, and possibly decide to stop using them. Ther

...(continued)

Fair enough. At the end of the day I think most of us are concerned with the strength of the result not the particular language used to describe it.

But how obvious is ancilla? To me it is not even remotely obvious (nor clear as a term, but as the literature used it so much, I see such word in much the same way as I see auxiliary, in fact - now if you want to take offense with auxiliary, what can I say? I won't invent words just to please you).

...(continued)

I don't think science can or should avoid the perpetuation of existing "historical unequal social order" by changing the language, as to me it seems that, if you try hard enough you can find problem with anything you want to be offended at - rationalizations are tricky things you can often get carri

...(continued)

I am not sure if the ArXiv is the best venue for this kind of paper/rant. Also, I’m concerned that so much energy is being put into the discussion. As a non-native speaker, I might not get all nuances of the language, but I have a hard time understanding why we should drop a scientific jargon like “

...(continued)

I'm sorry if my comment came across to you as "authoritative" or aggressive. It was intended in the spirit of scholarly debate, and is of course as subjective and completely non-authoritative as anything else written here: your comment, the original article, and this reply! Karoline and I were frien

...(continued)

@Ancilla, you're welcome to contribute your opinion here, but you have to respect the [moderation guidelines][1]. You have made repeated personal insults to people posting here (calling them "twisted", "unhinged", "slow thinkers", etc.) and any more such conduct is going to end with me deleting the

...(continued)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that anyone offended was merely looking to take offense. However, the author specifically mentions (for example) "racial segregation", something that, although I cannot claim to know for certain, I'm assuming they have little experience of. Hence: the act of taking offense on

...(continued)

Sorry but how is language not a significant part of the "underlying systemic issues"?

@Stan, I think that it is misplaced to think that anyone is calling for *censorship*. (Certainly I am not, and I don't support censorship at all.) It is just that we as a community are choosing to create this language, and we have the option to use whatever term we like. Why should we choose a term

...(continued)

I can see both sides of the argument, but so far find the proof unconvincing for censorship.

If we want to make science "unoffensive", there are *many* potentially "offensive" terms - 'retarded potentials' in E&M, 'dominating sets', etc. Do we accept that language evolves and thus rewrite scient

...(continued)

The connotation I thought of when I first heard this term was Air supremacy (which is distinct from air superiority in the same way that quantum supremacy is distinct from quantum advantage). Then Trump got elected. Now hearing "quantum supremacy" is like poking at a broken tooth with a metal spike.

...(continued)

Aram, I think the case you are making is the best possible case for keeping the term. That said, the term "quantum supremacy" clearly touches a nerve with some large number of people, whereas I haven't observed that with any of the other terms you've mentioned. So there is some weakness in your argu

...(continued)

I think sampling and analog simulation are clearly within the scope of "computational." The way I see it is that they do something which is information-theoretically possible with classical computers but would take them too long. So it would exclude precision measurement, but include a cold-atom s

...(continued)

I get that these words may remind us of something bad, but it doesn't follow that they cause any actual bad effects. For example, they don't strengthen white supremacist groups (as far as I can tell) or make racial minorities feel unwelcome (as far as I can tell). Words have multiple meanings, som

...(continued)

I didn't mean capacity or Bell inequalities. I meant that (for example) "computational" might be inferred to include digital but not analog quantum simulators, or to exclude (say) boson sampling, while I had intended for "quantum supremacy" to encompass both. Perhaps I hear it that way because "comp

...(continued)

Thanks Er. That sounds to me like a much more coherent argument than the one made in the comment. My main problem with the comment was the author's claim that it was "nonsensical" and had no merit (and the attempt to invalidate the use of the term incorrectly). I agree that perhaps replacing the ter

...(continued)

But i also agree that it is not easy to come up with an alternative term which captures both the breadth of the 'advantages' & the possible break-through character of them.

Regarding the narrowing of the scope by adding "computational", I think that this has somehow already happened with just the original term. I've never heard anyone use the term QS in the context of, say, a Bell experiment or the classical capacity of a quantum channel.

it is not even about being directly offensive to other people, i simply can't get myself to say 'quantum supremacy', it suggests some superiority involving human beings (the whole field of QC hitting other people over the head with their 'quantum-supreme experiments').
I mean how do you read a pop

...(continued)

The trouble with "quantum computational supremacy" is that the modifier "computational" may invite a narrower interpretation than I intended. For example, does it apply to sampling algorithms, or to super-classical tasks performed with analog quantum simulators? That's why I suggest "quantum ascenda

...(continued)

Just my mind and the 30 other people that have commented here. If you want a quantitative argument, do an n-gram search for "{adjective} supremacy".

Ok, that's reasonable. Still, I think it is more than fair to assert that the ancilla example holds (much) less merit than the supremacy example. For one, I am willing to bet that very few people know the origins of the word ancilla (even in such a biased sample as the academic community) Indeed, I

...(continued)

I don't think it matters if there is a specific oppressed group or not. The issue is simpler than that: there is just a negative connotation and we'd like to avoid it.

But who is the oppressed group here? Classical computer scientists?

Well, I have never referred to myself or any other subset of the quantum information community as simply "quantum" as this would easily lead to confusion due to the imprecise use of the word. Moreover, I have never encountered the phrase "quantum supremacy" in a situation where it had any other mea

...(continued)

The issue Markus is that "{adj} supremacy", where the adjective denotes a group of people, is offensive. In the quantum computation community, we typically refer to ourselves as simply "quantum", so the bigram precisely fits this pattern. As I advocated above (see also [my blog post][1]), changing t

...(continued)

Speaking of a scientific approach, the first point in my comment was to provide evidence to verify the use of the word to mean a maid, even in English, contrary to what was claimed.
However I can understand why you might have overlooked that. Secondly if what you are saying about the image search

...(continued)

Until today it had not occurred to me that one could associate the phrase "quantum supremacy" with racism or racial subordination. And even after this realisation I have to insist that such an association does not make very much sense.

The word supremacy taken on its own has no meaning directly r

...(continued)

Also, I am going to use my admin privileges to delete any uncivil comments here. Scirate is a venue for constructive discussion, not flame wars. See the [moderation policy][1].

[1]: https://scirate.com/moderation