Yes, please. It doesn't look like on this particular thread, there are many comments that are completely off.
Also, CS people are probably just as good talking about the CS aspect of quantum computing as quantum physicists are regarding the quantum aspect of it. no?
> Also, CS people are probably just as good talking about the CS aspect of quantum computing as quantum physicists are regarding the quantum aspect of it. no?
No, but that seems like an unfair comparison. Quantum physicists are by definition highly trained scientists; CS people range from teenagers hacking on word-press, to well-trained engineers without much science background, to highly-trained scientists.
Or put another way, that depends on what you mean by "CS People".
The top end of your range of computer science people is maxed out at, engineers without much science background?
The name Turing ring a bell? Just opinion, I consider him one of the greatest minds of his century. He worked on a lot of things but some would say he fits pretty well in cs. And there are more like him who just didn’t happen to become famous to the general public. I could give a dozen more examples of people’s contributions, profound insights, fundamentally important basic research results, that might make you extend, at least the top of your range a bit.
No. Reread my comment. It hasn't been edited and explicitly mentioned highly trained scientists. The last three words for the first paragraph... Your characterization of my comment is just a plain and obvious misreading.
More over, as a scientist, I don't think highly trained scientists are "higher" than highly trained engineers. They're different and not well-ordered. So your "maxes out at" verbage is not agreeable to me.
Wow, I must admit I somehow did not see the last fragment of that sentence. Reading it again it appears, unfortunately, those were exactly the few words someone would want to miss, to earn a promotion from mistaken to 180 degrees wrong with special recognition for offensive qualities.
I apologize with no reservations. I try to read precisely before responding, but clearly did not take care to do so in this case.
Ironically after reading/thinking more, we may actually have similar perspectives on the subject. I’m curious what you mean by “not well-ordered”? However if you do you feel like replying, no problem, I would understand that.
In any case, take care. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> I’m curious what you mean by “not well-ordered”?
Just that researchers aren't better/smarter/etc. than engineers and vice versa. They are different jobs, both essential in their own way, both difficult in their own way.
