MIP*=RE · HackerPapers discussions

MIP*=RE — mentioned by l33t7332273

Sat, 19 Aug 2023 04:04:38 GMT

It’s interesting to think about, but the complexity classes are actually equal[1]. This sort of makes sense if you think of quantum computers as simulatable by a classical computer. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by kaymanb

Sun, 26 Mar 2023 15:07:12 GMT

I'm not really up to date, but a couple recent papers that I found interesting were: In theoretical distributed computing, The Space Complexity of Concencus From Swap [0] solves a problem that has been open for a couple decades, and won Best Paper at PODC 2022. In quantum complexity theory, MIP^* = RE [1] was really big deal when it was published in 2020. It got a (relative) ton of press coverage, and there are lots of articles and blog post available that give a high-level of the result and techniques used. I like this one [2] from Quanta Magazine. [0]…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — HN submission

Tue, 31 Aug 2021 23:41:52 GMT

MIP* = Re

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by bookofjoe

Sat, 15 Aug 2020 15:10:43 GMT

>MIP*=RE https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by fjfaase

Fri, 17 Apr 2020 08:26:37 GMT

The paper 'MIP* =RE' https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383, where the article is referring to, has already been discussed here extensively. It is also being studied by many people, because it is a very important and surprising result. I guess that Connes conjecture is but one of the many things that is affected by the MIP* =RE result.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by lwneal

Thu, 05 Mar 2020 07:57:47 GMT

The paper[1] claims that MIP* = RE. At first I wasn't sure whether that was true, because the paper is too long and complicated for me to verify. But then I found a series of questions and answers written by this quantum guy Scott Aaronson[2] and by this other quantum guy Kenneth Regan[3], who both know a bunch of quantum stuff. Each one of their blog posts makes me more certain about MIP* = RE, to the point that now I'm 99.9% sure it's true, even though I could never verify it myself. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383 [2] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4512 [3]…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by eyegor

Thu, 05 Mar 2020 03:00:02 GMT

For those interested, the arxiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383 Be warned, this is 160 pages of dense math. To anyone complaining that the quanta article is "unclear" or not descriptive enough, there's no way around that when summarizing a dissertation.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by lopsidedBrain

Mon, 20 Jan 2020 05:09:08 GMT

The paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — mentioned by dodobirdlord

Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:24:06 GMT

Perhaps a link directly to the arxiv page would be more appropriate? https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.04383

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — HN submission

Sat, 18 Jan 2020 18:40:54 GMT

MIP*=Re

11 points; 7 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — HN submission

Fri, 17 Jan 2020 20:43:32 GMT

MIP* = RE

1 point; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — HN submission

Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:39:43 GMT

Recent groundbreaking result in complexity theory: MIP*=RE

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

MIP*=RE — HN submission

Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:41:16 GMT

MIP*=Re

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.