Comments on: Biweekly links for 12/04/2009 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/ Mon, 07 May 2012 21:35:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: jp http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/comment-page-1/#comment-26546 jp Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:18:54 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/#comment-26546 No problem, thank you for your time. No problem, thank you for your time.

]]> By: jp http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/comment-page-1/#comment-26545 jp Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:53:12 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/#comment-26545 extensive comments, hmm, good, bad, both? i guessing my math background is most likely not high enough. if it was to advance for that Singularity summit crowd. but it's seem from my simple understanding that dwaves processor is natural fit for linear algebra calculation. and that there something more then analog computing going on, would you agree or to early to tell? <em>[MN: I'd prefer not to comment. Dwave is a controversial topic. The problem with commenting on controversial topics is that it's often not possible to comment briefly, because no matter what your position people will wish to argue points, and you get drawn in. That's not a conversation I'm interested in having.]</em> extensive comments, hmm, good, bad, both?

i guessing my math background is most likely not high enough. if it was to advance for that Singularity summit crowd.

but it’s seem from my simple understanding that dwaves processor is natural fit for linear algebra calculation.

and that there something more then analog computing going on, would you agree or to early to tell?

[MN: I'd prefer not to comment. Dwave is a controversial topic. The problem with commenting on controversial topics is that it's often not possible to comment briefly, because no matter what your position people will wish to argue points, and you get drawn in. That's not a conversation I'm interested in having.]

]]> By: Michael Nielsen http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/comment-page-1/#comment-26542 Michael Nielsen Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:31:35 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/#comment-26542 I omitted it because of time constraints. I went to the event assuming that most audience members would have a fair amount of mathematical background. While a few did, most didn't, and so I had to greatly restructure my presentation at the last minute. (I'm not so happy with the talk, as a result - it's difficult to make that kind of change fast.) A lot of things got shifted around, or dropped, and in the end I dropped Dwave. My comments about Dwave are rather too extensive to write out with the time I have available. I omitted it because of time constraints. I went to the event assuming that most audience members would have a fair amount of mathematical background. While a few did, most didn’t, and so I had to greatly restructure my presentation at the last minute. (I’m not so happy with the talk, as a result – it’s difficult to make that kind of change fast.) A lot of things got shifted around, or dropped, and in the end I dropped Dwave.

My comments about Dwave are rather too extensive to write out with the time I have available.

]]> By: JP http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/comment-page-1/#comment-26539 JP Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:02:38 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/biweekly-links-for-12042009/#comment-26539 I was watching your video from the Singularity summit and one of your slides had a question "What about Dwave?" but you didn't say anything about Dwave. why did you omit that from your presentation? and what were you going to said. if you would mind commenting about it. I was watching your video from the Singularity summit and one of your slides had a question “What about Dwave?” but you didn’t say anything about Dwave. why did you omit that from your presentation? and what were you going to said. if you would mind commenting about it.

]]>