>If you mean that he doesn't think "quantum" can solve NP-completeness, well, of course he doesn't... he understands the mathematical proof that it doesn't, so that's hardly surprising.
There's no proof BQP ≠ NP (as well as no proof it does).
Scott thinks it doesn't, but doesn't have a proof (if he did, he'd also have a proof of P≠NP (and showing something implies a resolution of P versus NP is a great proxy for "it's not easy and hasn't been solved yet")).
There's no proof BQP ≠ NP (as well as no proof it does).
Scott thinks it doesn't, but doesn't have a proof (if he did, he'd also have a proof of P≠NP (and showing something implies a resolution of P versus NP is a great proxy for "it's not easy and hasn't been solved yet")).