aaronson

People like Scott Aaronson who spouse this view use it as a fundamental reason why NP=P should be false.

In that sense, Scott Aaronson gets the relationship between oil in the ground and long stock in energy companies completely backwards.

For instance check out what Scott Aaronson says about probability in quantum mechanics.

Would love to read Scott Aaronson on Clifford Algebras (and computation, of course).

No, for the reason outlined by Aaronson in [0] - I don't see anything in the update which addresses this.

This is because, as Scott Aaronson is often forced to tirelessly point out, an inability to build a Quantum Computer must also show Quantum mechanics to somehow be in error.

> Scott Aaronson still seems to hold the line on quantum computing not doing anything too useful for NP-complete or a useful subset.

(Side note: until scott aaronson says otherwise, this paper is wrong.

[1] The model studied by Aaronson and Ambainis et al.

I'm inclined to agree but I pause when I read that Scott Aaronson still seems to hold the line on quantum computing not doing anything too useful for NP-complete or a useful subset.

When I mentioned writing a symphony I was essentially referring to your quote from Scott Aaronson and I am also aware that some known proofing methods have been shown not to be strong enough to settle the question.

While Feynman in his famous lectures just says that quantum mechanics is counter intuitive and you are not supposed to truly understand it, Scott Aaronson uses math to explain how to correct your intuition (and I am stressing, this is not just about learning the math, it is about basing your intuition on the math, not on the everyday experience).

One of the points of Scott Aaronson's excellent "Quantum Computing since Democritus" is that if you can quickly solve NP problems, you basically have super powers.

Edit: I'm also unsure on why you think Aaronson believes quantum "won't work"...

Scott Aaronson isn't "holding" the line...

Scott Aaronson showed that "Post-BQP" (BQP with postselection allowed) equals the complexity class PP, which contains NP and is equivalent to the counting class #P, so there is no surprise here.

Aaronson describes it as being comparably implausible to having faster than light communication.

Aaronson's talk on Computational Complexity and the Anthropic Principle [1] also looks interesting.

Either way, this is Scott Aaronson's argument, not mine.