On 10-Feb-03, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Dear Bruno and Friends,
> 
>    Let me point this paper as a possible counterexample to your
> argument:
> 
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0205093
> 
> Quantum Physics, abstract
> quant-ph/0205093
> From: Tien D. Kieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date (v1): Thu, 16 May 2002 12:10:57 GMT   (28kb)
> Date (revised v2): Mon, 18 Nov 2002 04:26:38 GMT   (38kb)
> 
> Quantum Principles and Mathematical Computability Authors: Tien D
> Kieu
> Comments: 9 pages in A4 size and 10pt fonts, 3 figures. Modified
> with a new reference added for submission to QS2002
> 
>  Taking the view that computation is after all physical, we argue
> that physics, particularly quantum physics, could help extend the
> notion of computability. Here, we list the important and unique
> features of quantum mechanics and then outline a quantum mechanical
> "algorithm" for one of the insoluble problems of mathematics, the
> Hilbert's tenth and equivalently the Turing halting problem. The key
> element of this algorithm is the {\em computability} and {\em
> measurability} of both the values of physical observables and of the
> quantum-mechanical probability distributions for these values.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Stephen

I don't believe this paper has the significance it's authors think. 
It invokes unrealisable infinities in setting up the computation and
in precision of measurements.

Brent Meeker

Reply via email to