- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:44 +0100

Hi Nicole,

I have promised to you some negative (and positive)

comments on Nielsen and Chuang book on quantum computation.

Rereading it in that state of mind, I realize I could make a comment

at each line, and I despair a little bit because it witnesses the gap

between "philosophers" "logicians" and "physicists" ("i" am

a mathematician, although I never asked for: I have studied math

because I suspected that Godel's theorem and Church thesis

bring light to the mechanist approach of the mind-body problem

which is the problem I am really working in).

First of all let me insist that Nielsen and Chuang book is one

of the better book for introducing quantum computation and quantum

information. It is also a beautiful book, and a solid one!

Below is a sentence, taken from the introduction, which illustrates

my perplexity (page 4) (emphasis by the authors):

"This assertion, known as the *Church-Turing thesis* in honor

of Turing and another pioneer of Computer Science, Alonzo

Church, asserts the equivalence between the physical concept

of what class of algorithms can be performed on *some physical

devices* with the rigorous mathematical concept of a Universal

Turing Machine. The broad acceptance of this thesis laid the

foundation for the development of a rich theory of computer

science." (Nielsen & Chuang page 4)

I challenge anyone to find the word "physical" or any allusion

to physics in the whole work of Church, or even in the whole

logical work of Church, Kleene, Turing, Post, Godel, etc. (See the

book edited by Martin Davis "The undecidable" which contains

the original papers. Church proposed to identify the set of

intuitive or effective computable functions with the mathematical

set of functions definissable in his "Lambda formal system".

The intuitive idea of effective computability is the idea of computing

by finite means whatever big the resource needed in the process are

once they are finite but unbounded.

Although Church never mentioned the notion

of "physical" I do appreciate the idea that going from "physical' to

mathematics is interpreted as an increase in rigor. I know David

should not appreciate this, because David has proposed a physical

version of Church Thesis as a more modern version of it, and

of course this is the point where I disagree in FOR. Deutsch thesis

is very interesting by itself, and it is better not to confuse it with

the proposal of Church. Note that the first who proposes "Church Thesis"

is Emil POST, who proposes it as a law of mind, and gives from it

the first simple and direct proof of the incompleteness theorem.

Post seems to have anticipated the whole story from Godel to the

immaterial monism of my thesis! (Well, actually in a footnote

added later Post said that after discussing with Turing he came

back to dualism, but he did anticipate the form of immaterialism

monism which I show inherent to the comp hypothesis.

Another example: more funny and more typical (in the spirit of

Copenhagen):

"Furthermore, measurement changes the state of a qubit, collapsing

it from from its superposition of I0> and I1> to the specific state

consistent with the measurement result. [...]

Why does this type of collapse occur? Nobody knows. As discussed

in chapter 2, this behavior is simply one of the fundamental postulates

of quantum mechanics." (N & C page 15)

I guess Nielsen and Chuang are just stating the quintessence of

the don't ask feature of Copenhagen philosophy. But why does people

add a "fundamental postulate" nobody knows, and actually nobody

can understand especially putted in that way? Here I would have

appreciate a footnote telling that some people does not believe that

such a collapse ever occur, and pointing to some literature (Everett,

Deutsch, etc.) which gives some explanation why the memory of such

collapse can be explained in strict respect of quantum linearity.

I believe in the long term the collapse gives a wrong idea of what

entanglement could possibly be in term of quantum information

(as I found apparent in the work of Cerf and Adami).

A last example is the box 8.4 on Schroedinger's cat, it gives the

wrong idea that information on a cat which is in a superposition state

(alive + dead), by leaking into the external world will transform

that superposition state into a ensemble of cat being either alive

or dead.

I really does not understand what they mean. Such explanation

is meaningfull in a MW, or in a non-collapse QM. The box gives the

wrong feeling that a real collapse can be explained in QM, ...

OK. It is an excellent book for learning QC and QI, but read

a book like "the conceptual foundation of QM" by Bernard

d'Espagnat, along with FOR book to prevent some implicit

Copenhagen "philosophical" prejudices.

Quantum computation is born through very fundamental

question asked by Einstein (notably) and dismissed by Bohr.

Through the work

of Bell, Feynman and Deutsch, those Einsteinian realist

questions have been shown testable (Bell ) and even

exploitable (Deutsch, Shor, etc.). It is a pity that, when

interesting fundamental questions leads to applications,

people feel to be allowed to dismiss the original questions.

It is on the contrary a sign that the questions were

meaningful, and, even if only for possible new future application (!)

worth to be taken seriously, and investigate closely.

For quantum computation, you can also read the very excellent

book by Gruska. This one is rigorous at all level, i.e. in the math,

in the physics, and in the philosophy (that's very rare!).

But nothing being perfect, the Gruska book is not so pedagogical,

so, read perhaps the book by Nielsen and Chuang, and consult

Gruska.

Regards,

Bruno

At 09:48 06/05/03 +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*>At 13:12 05/05/03 +0200, ISING (Barberis) Nicole <nicole.ising.domain.name.hidden>
*

*> wrote:
*

*>
*

*> >Is anyone on this list working their way through "Quantum Computation and
*

*> >Quantum Information",
*

*> >by Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang? Any comments? Do you know of
*

*> >any good student links regarding this book?
*

*>
*

*>My opinion is that Nielsen and Chuang 's book is one of the best textbook
*

*>on Q Comp and Q Information.
*

*>A good introduction to the Quantum which can serve as a bridge (from
*

*>elementary math to Nielsen and Chuang) is the book by David Albert (Quantum
*

*>Mechanic and experience, Harvard University Press 1992).
*

*>Having said this I should add that Nielsen and Chuang are clearly not
*

*>interested
*

*>in foundational matters and there is a definitive lack of rigor in philosophy.
*

*>I will give some example once I have the book under the hand. (Remind me if
*

*>I forget)
*

*>
*

*>Bruno
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
*

*>Get A Free Psychic Reading!
*

*>Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
*

*>http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/uetFAA/pyIolB/TM
*

*>---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*

Received on Wed Nov 26 2003 - 09:40:50 PST

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:35:44 +0100

Hi Nicole,

I have promised to you some negative (and positive)

comments on Nielsen and Chuang book on quantum computation.

Rereading it in that state of mind, I realize I could make a comment

at each line, and I despair a little bit because it witnesses the gap

between "philosophers" "logicians" and "physicists" ("i" am

a mathematician, although I never asked for: I have studied math

because I suspected that Godel's theorem and Church thesis

bring light to the mechanist approach of the mind-body problem

which is the problem I am really working in).

First of all let me insist that Nielsen and Chuang book is one

of the better book for introducing quantum computation and quantum

information. It is also a beautiful book, and a solid one!

Below is a sentence, taken from the introduction, which illustrates

my perplexity (page 4) (emphasis by the authors):

"This assertion, known as the *Church-Turing thesis* in honor

of Turing and another pioneer of Computer Science, Alonzo

Church, asserts the equivalence between the physical concept

of what class of algorithms can be performed on *some physical

devices* with the rigorous mathematical concept of a Universal

Turing Machine. The broad acceptance of this thesis laid the

foundation for the development of a rich theory of computer

science." (Nielsen & Chuang page 4)

I challenge anyone to find the word "physical" or any allusion

to physics in the whole work of Church, or even in the whole

logical work of Church, Kleene, Turing, Post, Godel, etc. (See the

book edited by Martin Davis "The undecidable" which contains

the original papers. Church proposed to identify the set of

intuitive or effective computable functions with the mathematical

set of functions definissable in his "Lambda formal system".

The intuitive idea of effective computability is the idea of computing

by finite means whatever big the resource needed in the process are

once they are finite but unbounded.

Although Church never mentioned the notion

of "physical" I do appreciate the idea that going from "physical' to

mathematics is interpreted as an increase in rigor. I know David

should not appreciate this, because David has proposed a physical

version of Church Thesis as a more modern version of it, and

of course this is the point where I disagree in FOR. Deutsch thesis

is very interesting by itself, and it is better not to confuse it with

the proposal of Church. Note that the first who proposes "Church Thesis"

is Emil POST, who proposes it as a law of mind, and gives from it

the first simple and direct proof of the incompleteness theorem.

Post seems to have anticipated the whole story from Godel to the

immaterial monism of my thesis! (Well, actually in a footnote

added later Post said that after discussing with Turing he came

back to dualism, but he did anticipate the form of immaterialism

monism which I show inherent to the comp hypothesis.

Another example: more funny and more typical (in the spirit of

Copenhagen):

"Furthermore, measurement changes the state of a qubit, collapsing

it from from its superposition of I0> and I1> to the specific state

consistent with the measurement result. [...]

Why does this type of collapse occur? Nobody knows. As discussed

in chapter 2, this behavior is simply one of the fundamental postulates

of quantum mechanics." (N & C page 15)

I guess Nielsen and Chuang are just stating the quintessence of

the don't ask feature of Copenhagen philosophy. But why does people

add a "fundamental postulate" nobody knows, and actually nobody

can understand especially putted in that way? Here I would have

appreciate a footnote telling that some people does not believe that

such a collapse ever occur, and pointing to some literature (Everett,

Deutsch, etc.) which gives some explanation why the memory of such

collapse can be explained in strict respect of quantum linearity.

I believe in the long term the collapse gives a wrong idea of what

entanglement could possibly be in term of quantum information

(as I found apparent in the work of Cerf and Adami).

A last example is the box 8.4 on Schroedinger's cat, it gives the

wrong idea that information on a cat which is in a superposition state

(alive + dead), by leaking into the external world will transform

that superposition state into a ensemble of cat being either alive

or dead.

I really does not understand what they mean. Such explanation

is meaningfull in a MW, or in a non-collapse QM. The box gives the

wrong feeling that a real collapse can be explained in QM, ...

OK. It is an excellent book for learning QC and QI, but read

a book like "the conceptual foundation of QM" by Bernard

d'Espagnat, along with FOR book to prevent some implicit

Copenhagen "philosophical" prejudices.

Quantum computation is born through very fundamental

question asked by Einstein (notably) and dismissed by Bohr.

Through the work

of Bell, Feynman and Deutsch, those Einsteinian realist

questions have been shown testable (Bell ) and even

exploitable (Deutsch, Shor, etc.). It is a pity that, when

interesting fundamental questions leads to applications,

people feel to be allowed to dismiss the original questions.

It is on the contrary a sign that the questions were

meaningful, and, even if only for possible new future application (!)

worth to be taken seriously, and investigate closely.

For quantum computation, you can also read the very excellent

book by Gruska. This one is rigorous at all level, i.e. in the math,

in the physics, and in the philosophy (that's very rare!).

But nothing being perfect, the Gruska book is not so pedagogical,

so, read perhaps the book by Nielsen and Chuang, and consult

Gruska.

Regards,

Bruno

At 09:48 06/05/03 +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Received on Wed Nov 26 2003 - 09:40:50 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*