Strilanc

44 ms·

451.
by Strilanc 8y ago
Consider that the distance between opposite corners of a square is √2 meters, but for a cube it's √3 meters. In general, for an n-dimensional hypercube of diameter 1m, the exactly-opposite corners are √n meters apart. Meaning, in a mil
452.
by Strilanc 8y ago
I don't follow the logic here. How are you getting the equation nV >= 0.01^1000000? Shouldn't there be a packing efficiency constant in there? It almost looks like you're trying to pour the spheres like a liquid.
453.
by Strilanc 8y ago
The spheres and the cubes are of the same dimension, so it's not like trying to put flat things inside of a thing with volume. (Technically I should have said million dimensional balls instead of spheres. Sorry if that was confusing.
454.
by Strilanc 8y ago
I don't know the exact answer, but the lower bound I computed had over a quarter million digits . See [1] 1: http://algassert.com/puzzle/2014/07/08/Boxing-Megaspheres.ht...
455.
by Strilanc 8y ago
Try this one. I give you a megabox: a million dimensional hypercube spanning one meter along each axis. I also provide a bunch of megaspheres, million-dimensional hyperspheres scaled to be 0.99 meters in diameter. How many megaspheres can y
456.
by Strilanc 8y ago
> It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to explain quantum effects as numerical errors in the Matrix. Have you studied quantum mechanics? Numerical errors in a simulation do not produce similar effects. For example, consider Shor&#x
457.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Why are the signals being multiplied together instead of added together? Multiplying them is very unusual. Even the wikipedia article linked by the site, with the text "Bringing the signals into a context for multiplying is called &#x2
458.
by Strilanc 9y ago
For superconducting qubits, without error correction, each operation takes tens of nanoseconds. With error correction... it depends how many spare qubits you have. All the non-trivial operations are done by "magic state distillation&qu
459.
by Strilanc 9y ago
To encode 100 logical error-corrected qubits, you need on the order of 100K to 1M physical qubits. People mix up the two types all the time.
460.
Why will quantum computers be slow?(algassert.com)
1 points by Strilanc 9y ago|0 comments
461.
by Strilanc 9y ago
> if it's done in a closed room, the wave function won't collapse and you'll get an interference pattern, but if you're in the room, it will collapse That is absolutely 100% not what happens. The experiments play
462.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Well, the simplest way to "monitor" it is to just block one of the slits. Then you definitely know which slit photons that hit the screen went through! Alternatives include: - Marking the photon itself (e.g. by rotating its polari
463.
by Strilanc 9y ago
In a quantum logic circuit, every "observation" can be thought of as ultimately compiling down into a controlled-Z gate between the qubit-you-want-to-measure A and a qubit-to-hold-the-measurement-result B. The interesting thing ab
464.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Twitter has a much higher cost for false positives. If 1% of the accounts this article thought were bots were actually legitimate, no big deal. If Twitter banned that 1%, that's ten thousand pissed off people. Also, bot makers don&#x27
465.
Quantum weirdness in your browser(hackaday.com)
2 points by Strilanc 9y ago|0 comments
466.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Did they give any numbers on the quality of the qubits? For example, IBM's 20 qubit chip has 2-qubit operations with error rates on the order of 5% [1] (some pairs of qubits are better, some are worse). Quantum supremacy experiments
467.
by Strilanc 9y ago
For a rotation angle of x° the probability of failure for each check+rotate when a bomb is present is sin(x°)^2. It takes 90°/x° repetitions of a rotation by x° to get a useful effect in the safe case. So the overall failure rate is 1-
468.
by Strilanc 9y ago
You can tweak the experiment to get arbitrarily close to 0% chance of exploding the bomb. Instead of using a 50/50 beam splitter and passing the photon through the system once, you pass the photon many times while gradually rotating it
469.
by Strilanc 9y ago
> In fact, you can show that solving a linear systems has to have O(n^3) as a lower bound Where did the author get this idea? It can be done more efficiently than that: https://mathoverflow.net/a/52557/40272
470.
by Strilanc 9y ago
If you restrict the possible coefficients, and limit the maximum degree, you get interesting fractal patterns: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/the-beauty-o...
471.
by Strilanc 9y ago
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics [1] strikes again. 1: https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
472.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Do you have a citation for that?
473.
by Strilanc 9y ago
The bar is actually pretty high. Making a system that fails less than once per hundred thousand kilometers is not trivial.
474.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Congratulations, your AI wants to convert all matter in the universe into lobotomized humans.
475.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Well, for example, the no cloning theorem has a classical analogy. I prepare a coin so that it is heads with probability p. I give you the coin. Your job is to prepare two coins so that they are independently heads with probability p. You
476.
by Strilanc 9y ago
> We argue that many popular "quantum paradoxes" stem from a confusion between mathematical formalism and physics [...] most "conceptual puzzles" of QM are not much different from the well-known paradoxes from probab
477.
by Strilanc 9y ago
You have to divide the qubit count by 100 to account for error correction.
478.
by Strilanc 9y ago
> An interesting project would be to create a single environment which can be used for both education and research. This does happen sometimes, by accident. I wrote Quirk [1] as an educational tool for learning about quantum circuits.
479.
by Strilanc 9y ago
There are, but quantum computers won't have the ability to solve these problems for many years to come (because error correction is required). Quantum supremacy will happen sooner because it can choose from more esoteric problems that
480.
by Strilanc 9y ago
The work is about simulating wide-but-shallow quantum circuits (e.g. 49 qubits with 27 layers of operations, or 56 qubits x 23 layers [edit: HN title much better now]). The article entirely fails to mention the depth restriction. (The paper

More ›