It’s a lot easier for them to come up with a story if they don’t have to do the lion’s share of the research. And if there are errors, well they can blame them on the interviewee. But if the material is good, that reflects positively on them.

Not that that’s a reason to run from interviews, just to be judicious about which will be the best investment of your time, IMO.

PS – just found your blog, and enjoy what I’ve read so far. If you have links to what you think are some of your best interviews, it might be fun to read a few, especially if you cover material there that isn’t here.

]]>Of course, someone who understands it might *still* doubt that that’s how the world could actually work. But popularizing QC without getting across that that’s how the world *does* work (as far as physics can tell) strikes me as an unsolvable problem. It would be like trying to popularize evolution without getting into humans and fish having a common ancestor, because if you told people *that* then they might doubt the whole story.

Mateus #11:

Would a junior researcher’s (academic) career really benfit from the media attention??

How junior?

Maybe randomness can help win the “who can name the bigger number” game. A and B each have to constructively specify a number N on a fixed size piece of paper, the bigger N wins, and A and B both can use the axioms of Peano arithmetic but B can also roll dice. So B can generate more axioms of the sort “X has arithmetic complexity greater than k” which are true with high probability, then use those axioms in naming a number…

]]>Here’s the MO thread that set it off:

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/63423/checkmate-in-omega-moves

Here’s a mate-in-omega position:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/TaMqW.jpg

It’s part of Joel David Hamkins’ lengthy answer containing a lot of other diagrams and a pointer to his joint paper:

]]>Scott #72, I’m not sure which version of infinite chess that computability result considers, but quite a few of the results are about the version with an infinite board and a finite number of pieces, so all positions must be won or drawn in finite time. You still get positions with transfinite game values, like “white to mate in omega” but that means black has to pick a finite number n and make a move selected by that n. After seeing black’s choice, white can now mate in n. So it’s bounded by omega since n can be as large as black likes, but not infinite.

]]>