On 10-Feb-03, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Bruno and Friends,
>
> Let me point this paper as a possible counterexample to your
> argument:
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0205093
>
> Quantum Physics, abstract
> quant-ph/0205093
> From: Tien D. Kieu <kieu.domain.name.hidden>
> Date (v1): Thu, 16 May 2002 12:10:57 GMT (28kb)
> Date (revised v2): Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:26:38 GMT (38kb)
>
> Quantum Principles and Mathematical Computability Authors: Tien D
> Kieu
> Comments: 9 pages in A4 size and 10pt fonts, 3 figures. Modified
> with a new reference added for submission to QS2002
>
> Taking the view that computation is after all physical, we argue
> that physics, particularly quantum physics, could help extend the
> notion of computability. Here, we list the important and unique
> features of quantum mechanics and then outline a quantum mechanical
> "algorithm" for one of the insoluble problems of mathematics, the
> Hilbert's tenth and equivalently the Turing halting problem. The key
> element of this algorithm is the {\em computability} and {\em
> measurability} of both the values of physical observables and of the
> quantum-mechanical probability distributions for these values.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
I don't believe this paper has the significance it's authors think.
It invokes unrealisable infinities in setting up the computation and
in precision of measurements.
Brent Meeker
Received on Sun Feb 09 2003 - 23:04:43 PST