Announcement
I thought the eight people who still read this blog might be interested to know that the FOCS’2010 Call for Papers is now out.
I thought the eight people who still read this blog might be interested to know that the FOCS’2010 Call for Papers is now out.
Follow
Comment #1 February 14th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Sounds like a fun time!
Comment #2 February 15th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Scott, please don’t use the blog for generic announcements. It is very depressing for me to find these when I excitedly click on a new post in my newsreader. 🙂
Comment #3 February 15th, 2010 at 1:09 am
I bet there’s way more than eight, let’s sound off! I’m THREE!
Comment #4 February 15th, 2010 at 1:17 am
ditto to Daniel – four!
Comment #5 February 15th, 2010 at 1:18 am
FOUR!
Comment #6 February 15th, 2010 at 1:19 am
ok… FIVE !
Comment #7 February 15th, 2010 at 1:59 am
SIX!
Comment #8 February 15th, 2010 at 2:56 am
Seven!
Comment #9 February 15th, 2010 at 6:32 am
I volunteer to be the eighth, and last..
Comment #10 February 15th, 2010 at 6:36 am
NINE!
I have just disproved a conjecture by Scott Aaronson!
I think I’ll put this on my CV.
Comment #11 February 15th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Ten.
Comment #12 February 15th, 2010 at 8:31 am
At least eleven and counting.
Comment #13 February 15th, 2010 at 8:51 am
25, male, Germany here…not going to unsubscribe 🙂
Comment #14 February 15th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Sorry to confuse things; I’m still a reader of this blog, and I’m decidely uninterested in the FOCS call for papers. I’ll look forward to your summary of the new results, though.
Comment #15 February 15th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Scott, if you find some time to spend on your blog, the promised post about Ketan Mulmuley’s Geometric Complexity Theory would be greatly appreciated. I’ve recently learned quite a lot about the classical representation theory, though the algebraic geometry used is still well over my head, so it’s interesting to know what others feel about it.
Comment #16 February 15th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Google Reader reports 3079 subscribers to this feed. That number has to be increased by those who follow it via other newsreaders, or read it directly on the web.
Comment #17 February 15th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Twelve (this doesn’t prove that all of us are readers though).
Comment #18 February 15th, 2010 at 11:56 am
13
Comment #19 February 15th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
14
Comment #20 February 15th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
On the internet, nobody knows that all the commenters are actually the same person.
Comment #21 February 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
15
I guess we aren’t counting those that commented but don’t sound off as readers?
Comment #22 February 15th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I too still read your blog Scott 🙂 Hope you are having an awesome new year!
Comment #23 February 15th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I consider myself a reader.
Comment #24 February 15th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Reader here, but I make no claim of understanding the material.
Comment #25 February 15th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Thanks for the link Scott. As someone not based in a CS department I find it surprisingly easy to miss TCS calls for papers.
Comment #26 February 16th, 2010 at 4:13 am
I still read your blog!
Comment #27 February 16th, 2010 at 11:26 am
In this post you say “the eight people who still read this blog…” and a few posts ago you say “for the female readers of this blog: I thought all eight of you…”. Implications? Do you imagine your entire readership is composed of people of the female variety? Perhaps you just really like the number eight. For the record I have at least one X chromosome. That’s one X chromose out of 2 = .5 of my chromosomes are X chromosomes. If I learned anything from High School Chemistry (darn that was a long time ago) sig figs round up.
Comment #28 February 16th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
10000 (sounding off in binary, just because I can).
Comment #29 February 16th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
well, you can always start an argument about religion
or politics – seems to increase readership elsewhere.
Comment #30 February 16th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“I bet there’s way more than eight”
Maybe bellow link helps:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/scottaaronson.com#trafficstats
The interesting time series appears scrolling down.
Please note that Alexa “reach” statistics might not be representative since it only counts those visitors which
has installed the Alexa toolbar.
Jr, biggest bursts seems related with jobs offering (for instance Simon post docs in this blog) and not with political or religious issues.
Comment #31 February 17th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Scott- I see that you have been promoted to associate professor from assistant professor. Hearty Congratulations!
Comment #32 February 17th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I’d love to know more about the alleged promotion to associate professor from assistant professor, which, if true, deserves congratulations! I was so happy when my wife made that leap, and see every day what she does to get one more step up in the hierarchy, to Full Professor. What kind of portfolio did you submit in applying for the promotion? Did it include blog printouts? Is the path to tenure P or NP?
Comment #33 February 17th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Re: Ross Snider: “sig figs round up”. That might be true in chemistry. but in scientific and engineering computing, integer + 1/2 (should) round to even (nearest even integer). In theoretical CS, they are vaguely aware of floating point.
Comment #34 February 17th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Continued FP rap: BTW, for anyone interested in floating point, a great, easy to read book is: “Numerical Computing with IEEE Floating Point Arithmetic” by by Michael L. Overton. For an easy measure of how good a book this is, note the “Amazon Price” is still going up after 9 years.
Comment #35 February 17th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Scott, having just read the whole blog cover to cover, comments included, I can honestly say that all my other standard forms of procrastination are now about as exciting as a cup of gas station coffee would have been to Richard Pryor.
In other words, I need my fix!!! I can perhaps resign myself to the fact that I will no longer be reading a dozen spankin’ new (to me) entries a day, but the prospect of only one a month makes me, for lack of better words, a very sad panda.
Please post more; you owe it to me and Nagesh, and probably countless other junkies too bummed out to speak up! I’d ask you to refer me to another blog of similar quality, but that is widely believed to be at least NP hard…
Comment #36 February 18th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Seventeen!
If they handed out Swiss chocolate at QIP in Zurich, I can’t imagine what you’ll find on your seat at a conference in Las Vegas… 🙂
Comment #37 February 18th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Eighteen. Or is it Eightteen?
Comment #38 February 18th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I could become the potential Nineteenth (19th) reader then; I am heavily involved with the old-skool (Web) (3D) App Dev Universe … But I have an (ancient) computer science background, too … At that time, I have tackled the famous NP-Complete placement problem … Probably these two directions have eventually led me to this blog … As a matter of fact, I could imagine to enter the field of Quantum Computing myself … Perhaps this Blog may whet my appetite even more ? Or is there a crisis in the Quantum Computing Community, too (asking this question because of the thread subject …) ?
Comment #39 February 18th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I still read this blog too. Guess I’m lucky number 20?
Comment #40 February 18th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
21….so what if i am ungrateful?
I am still a regular reader of your posts
Comment #41 February 19th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Would they have an interest in Aharonov-style “weak measurements” that could reveal more about a wave function than thought possible? In particular, “thought experiments” that are theoretically interesting but not practical to do? tx
Comment #42 February 21st, 2010 at 3:46 am
Reader # 22.
Comment #43 February 21st, 2010 at 2:26 pm
this is ridiculous, but what a fun bandwagon to jump on. 22.
Comment #44 February 21st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
the absurdity continues. 23.
Comment #45 February 22nd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
in reality all comments under this post (including this last one) were written by Scott – to win a bet that he made with himself
Comment #46 February 23rd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Not true, Milkshake!
At breakfast I happened to run into Alice and Bob—who both happen to be huge fans of Shtetl Optimized—and they said they’ll soon be posting their final review of QIP 2010 … and perhaps some preliminary comments on SQuInt 2010 too! 🙂
Comment #47 February 23rd, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I know this is absurd but… 24.
Comment #48 February 23rd, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Hardly scientific methodology, but good enough to disprove the “8” conjecture.
26.
You know, you’d probably get *more* readers if you posted frequently again (says the guy who hasn’t posted much in the last three months)
Comment #49 February 24th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I intercepted a message from Alice to Bob and found that this thread is an attempt to experimentally determine Aa, the “Aaronson Number”, defined as #(respondents claiming a sequence number) / #(total responses). It is known on theoretical grounds that 0 .LE. Aa .LE. 1. The current best estimate to Aa is 0.541666667.
Comment #50 February 24th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
The current estimate for Aa is 0.530612245. On theoretical grounds, I predict it will be 0.5200000000 in about 4s.
Comment #51 February 24th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
27??? Just started reading it.
Comment #52 March 6th, 2010 at 10:47 am
heh:
http://aasi.ebm.fi/5987/quantum+junction.jpg
Comment #53 March 7th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
28. Although I’m not submitting there 🙂
Comment #54 March 10th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Jumping on as 29… More seriously, a question for everyone.
Recently QIP was proved to equal Pspace. This led to myself speculating about the consequences of this. I came up with is possibility.
If P = BQP then would QIP = AM ? (due to equivalence of Quantum and Classical computing?) Thanks in advance
Zelah
Comment #55 March 16th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Greetings. Initial I would like to say that I definitely like your weblog, just observed it last week but I’ve been following it ever since then.
I seem to come to an agreement with most of the views and beliefs and this submit is no exception. I fully
Thank you for the wonderful webpage and I hope you preserve up the excellent work. If you do I will continue to checked out it.
Possess a good evening.
Comment #56 March 18th, 2010 at 5:53 am
i would like to become the nineteenth 🙂
Comment #57 March 19th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
I like your posts. Please continue posting.
Comment #58 March 25th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Rumor has it you’ve stopped blogging… Say it ain’t so!
Comment #59 March 27th, 2010 at 7:35 am
could you please explain this limitations in a little more detail? ….. NP, or that factorization is impossible in polynomial time are widely believed. ….. state of spin-up and spin-down fermions, projected onto single occupancy on a site. …. and this is Khatchian result that LP is in P. His proof was based on …
Roloe
Comment #60 March 30th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Just stumbled upon this and after a quick glance at the past few posts I’ve already added to the short list of blogs I follow. Keep the posts coming. … And I think I’m number 37.
Comment #61 April 1st, 2010 at 11:34 pm
April fools day:
http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2010/04/introducing-qc2-the-quantum-compute-cloud.html
But it would be pretty sweet.
Comment #62 April 4th, 2010 at 10:40 am
i would like to become the nineteenth as well 🙂
Comment #63 April 5th, 2010 at 2:13 am
new paper from Scott
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0377
Comment #64 April 7th, 2010 at 1:46 am
Shtetl Optimizers, one and all: To while away the days or months until Scott has something clever to post, I challenge you to predict the near tech future. My previous revelation of future Apple products (the iTaco and iSkateboard) were due a brain branch misprediction. After a brain pipeline flush, the next three magical revolutionary breakthroughs are obvious: The iPed, the iPid, and the iPud.
It is pretty obvious that the iPed will be a device that records and broadcasts each footstep, so your followers can see where you were tweeting at.
But what about the iPid and the iPud? Piddle and Puddle? I am not getting a clean read on these. Any ideas?
Comment #65 April 7th, 2010 at 2:02 am
I predict that the market demand for wine will fall in the near future. After this a tax of $1 per bottle of wine will be placed on all wine produced and sold and after this the market price will rise by less than $2.
Comment #66 April 7th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
In a Quantum Blending theory update, the iPad, like the iPod, has been rigorously established to Blend. For the complete proof, see
Comment #67 April 8th, 2010 at 7:20 am
#32 + 24i
I read your blog too…although not regularly I must admit..