<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Better safe than sorry</title>
	<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334</link>
	<description>The Blog of Scott Aaronson</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Vos Post</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21966</link>
		<author>Jonathan Vos Post</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21966</guid>
		<description>Let me resubmit with care to avoid the less-than sign which the system mistook.

Do we know anything interesting about the QC equivalent of:

&lt;a href="http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/a57241.txt" rel="nofollow"&gt;Notes from Richard Schroeppel (rcs(AT)CS.Arizona.EDU) concerning A057241&lt;/a&gt;
Tue, 9 Jan 2001

I'll offer the sequence 0,0,3,6,10, less-than-or-equal 23.
"Circuit cost of hardest boolean functions of N inputs.
Metric: 2-input And-gates cost 1, Not is free,
Fanout is free, Inputs are free, no feedback allowed."

The next term may be pretty hard to compute.
The 10 took several weeks of Alpha time, and the following term
is thousands (millions?) of times harder.  (There are more than half a
million functions of five variables; you have to locate a function
that requires an alleged maximum gate count, do the search to
show it can't be done in fewer gates, and supply no-worse circuits
for all the other functions.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let me resubmit with care to avoid the less-than sign which the system mistook.</p>
<p>Do we know anything interesting about the QC equivalent of:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/a57241.txt" rel="nofollow">Notes from Richard Schroeppel (rcs(AT)CS.Arizona.EDU) concerning A057241</a><br />
Tue, 9 Jan 2001</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll offer the sequence 0,0,3,6,10, less-than-or-equal 23.<br />
&#8220;Circuit cost of hardest boolean functions of N inputs.<br />
Metric: 2-input And-gates cost 1, Not is free,<br />
Fanout is free, Inputs are free, no feedback allowed.&#8221;</p>
<p>The next term may be pretty hard to compute.<br />
The 10 took several weeks of Alpha time, and the following term<br />
is thousands (millions?) of times harder.  (There are more than half a<br />
million functions of five variables; you have to locate a function<br />
that requires an alleged maximum gate count, do the search to<br />
show it can&#8217;t be done in fewer gates, and supply no-worse circuits<br />
for all the other functions.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Sidles</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21932</link>
		<author>John Sidles</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21932</guid>
		<description>In sympathy and agreement with Sparrow Letov ... 

Fundamental science aside, the LHC is a highly public global-scale, highly federative, global-scale enterprise.

From this federative point of view, the LHC is &lt;i&gt;already&lt;/i&gt; functioning admirably.  This is a good sign for the future ... because a planet with ten billion people on it requires &lt;i&gt;many&lt;/i&gt; such enterprises.

It is therefore interesting (to me) to inquire "How is it that this very good thing has come about?"  This IMHO is a very fruitful question to ask.

As for &lt;i&gt;answering&lt;/i&gt; that question ... well ... IMHO we are still pretty far from having a  satisfactory answer.   So for the present maybe we had better just enjoy our good luck.  :)

There is a little bit of "zen" in the above point of view.  Maybe the real breakthrough of the LHC is already in our hands?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In sympathy and agreement with Sparrow Letov &#8230; </p>
<p>Fundamental science aside, the LHC is a highly public global-scale, highly federative, global-scale enterprise.</p>
<p>From this federative point of view, the LHC is <i>already</i> functioning admirably.  This is a good sign for the future &#8230; because a planet with ten billion people on it requires <i>many</i> such enterprises.</p>
<p>It is therefore interesting (to me) to inquire &#8220;How is it that this very good thing has come about?&#8221;  This IMHO is a very fruitful question to ask.</p>
<p>As for <i>answering</i> that question &#8230; well &#8230; IMHO we are still pretty far from having a  satisfactory answer.   So for the present maybe we had better just enjoy our good luck.  <img src='http://scottaaronson.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>There is a little bit of &#8220;zen&#8221; in the above point of view.  Maybe the real breakthrough of the LHC is already in our hands?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sparrow Letov</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21930</link>
		<author>Sparrow Letov</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:40:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21930</guid>
		<description>This is so pathetic!  It's taken 3 million years to evolve monkeys smart enough to begin asking real questions about the cosmos.  So far as we know, we're the only ones who have ever gotten this far.  Our time may well be limited. If we don't solve several  very big problems in a hurry our technological civilization will be over in a century, at most.  We're running a whitewater river between high canyon walls.  The only way out is through.  There's no stopping or going back.  We've built a wonderful tool that may well give us knowledge we're going to need very badly, but some of the monkeys are scared to turn it on.  

Throw the switch! The chance of  the LHC destroying the world is zero, for crying out loud!  And if I'm wrong, so be it. I'd rather die asking questions and finding answers than die from stupidity and ignorance, freezing to death in the dark.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is so pathetic!  It&#8217;s taken 3 million years to evolve monkeys smart enough to begin asking real questions about the cosmos.  So far as we know, we&#8217;re the only ones who have ever gotten this far.  Our time may well be limited. If we don&#8217;t solve several  very big problems in a hurry our technological civilization will be over in a century, at most.  We&#8217;re running a whitewater river between high canyon walls.  The only way out is through.  There&#8217;s no stopping or going back.  We&#8217;ve built a wonderful tool that may well give us knowledge we&#8217;re going to need very badly, but some of the monkeys are scared to turn it on.  </p>
<p>Throw the switch! The chance of  the LHC destroying the world is zero, for crying out loud!  And if I&#8217;m wrong, so be it. I&#8217;d rather die asking questions and finding answers than die from stupidity and ignorance, freezing to death in the dark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ScottO</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21802</link>
		<author>ScottO</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:55:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21802</guid>
		<description>So, in these LHC experiments, where do the particles created during the collisions in the detectors go? I know many will just decay, but what about the rest?

For instance, I assume something like a neutrino could be created. Since it's stable, where does it go? Doesn't it just fly off into space?

What I'm getting at is, if micro black holes were created, and they didn't decay, where would they go? Sure they might briefly interact with some with earth matter. But wouldn't they have some huge momentum imparted upon them from the collision, and so zip off to space never to be seen again? And if so, why worry about it?

Scott</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, in these LHC experiments, where do the particles created during the collisions in the detectors go? I know many will just decay, but what about the rest?</p>
<p>For instance, I assume something like a neutrino could be created. Since it&#8217;s stable, where does it go? Doesn&#8217;t it just fly off into space?</p>
<p>What I&#8217;m getting at is, if micro black holes were created, and they didn&#8217;t decay, where would they go? Sure they might briefly interact with some with earth matter. But wouldn&#8217;t they have some huge momentum imparted upon them from the collision, and so zip off to space never to be seen again? And if so, why worry about it?</p>
<p>Scott</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KaoriBlue</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21729</link>
		<author>KaoriBlue</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 05:26:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21729</guid>
		<description>I'm convinced that the folks at the LHC are quietly seeding paranoia about the supercollider via a seemingly endless stream of news reports and ~4th-page snippets in the NY Times.  Forget traditional press releases, physicists have finally taken a hint from Hollywood and gone all-out on a viral marketing campaign.  There couldn't possibly be a more effective strategy for raising public awareness and interest in particle physics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m convinced that the folks at the LHC are quietly seeding paranoia about the supercollider via a seemingly endless stream of news reports and ~4th-page snippets in the NY Times.  Forget traditional press releases, physicists have finally taken a hint from Hollywood and gone all-out on a viral marketing campaign.  There couldn&#8217;t possibly be a more effective strategy for raising public awareness and interest in particle physics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Asymptote</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21713</link>
		<author>Asymptote</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:34:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21713</guid>
		<description>Awesome!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Awesome!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sysboy</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21711</link>
		<author>sysboy</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21711</guid>
		<description>It's quite obvious that the LHC won't destroy the world by creating a black hole. 

That would mean that the World would be sucked to nothingness which is in no way compatible with the Word of God laid down in Revelations. 
.
.
.
.

Unless of course there are by some strange coincidence, 144000 people working at CERN.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s quite obvious that the LHC won&#8217;t destroy the world by creating a black hole. </p>
<p>That would mean that the World would be sucked to nothingness which is in no way compatible with the Word of God laid down in Revelations.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.</p>
<p>Unless of course there are by some strange coincidence, 144000 people working at CERN.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Polkovnikov</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21634</link>
		<author>Philip Polkovnikov</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21634</guid>
		<description>OMG, I just want shut that bunch of cowards up! Scientists won't stop just because "unpros" are asking to do this without any math-proven reasons. If you're really sure experiments must be stopped, act decisively. Try to start a demo or whatever!
P.S. Sorry for emotional style, I can't stand it anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMG, I just want shut that bunch of cowards up! Scientists won&#8217;t stop just because &#8220;unpros&#8221; are asking to do this without any math-proven reasons. If you&#8217;re really sure experiments must be stopped, act decisively. Try to start a demo or whatever!<br />
P.S. Sorry for emotional style, I can&#8217;t stand it anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Gallagher</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21598</link>
		<author>Charles Gallagher</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21598</guid>
		<description>I think all the noise about turning on the collider is just..silly. I mean, besides the fact that scientists are pretty certain nothing's going to happen, you have to figure there are other more advances civilizations out there that have tried this, and have survived. I just don't think its that easy to destroy the planet, or Tesla woulda done it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think all the noise about turning on the collider is just..silly. I mean, besides the fact that scientists are pretty certain nothing&#8217;s going to happen, you have to figure there are other more advances civilizations out there that have tried this, and have survived. I just don&#8217;t think its that easy to destroy the planet, or Tesla woulda done it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Sceptic</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21595</link>
		<author>A. Sceptic</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:20:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=334#comment-21595</guid>
		<description>Where is the Flying Spaghetti Monster when we need him/her/it so much?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where is the Flying Spaghetti Monster when we need him/her/it so much?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
