Strilanc

54 ms·

481.
by Strilanc 9y ago
That's surprisingly frustrating to watch. Protoss throwing away its army of zealots with terrible positioning, zerg wasting time attacking buildings instead of sealing the deal, probes walking by enemy forces that ignore them as they m
482.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Referring to the point where quantum computers are better at one esoteric thing that's not even useful as a "singularity" is laughably atrociously ridiculous. The actual relevant technical term is "quantum supremacy&quot
483.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Reversible computing still requires energy (or rather neg-entropy). It's used to perform error correction. Otherwise the computer won't last very long.
484.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Entanglement is more than the coin thing, and less than the FTL thing. Which can make it pretty frustrating to explain, because people just keep oscillating between "Oh, then it has instantaneous observable effects?" and "Oh,
485.
by Strilanc 9y ago
I think it's important to walk before you run. If social scientists aren't able to get compatible results from the same experiment done by two different teams, then I seriously doubt their ability to extract any relevant subtle tr
486.
by Strilanc 9y ago
They're obviously not using carbon dating. The ages are too big. IIRC The half life of carbon 14 is too short to distinguish samples that have been decaying for 50k years from background noise. You have to use other kinds of radiometri
487.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Funny, I was thinking the opposite. Imagine psychology... done properly . The beginning of a science. (I realize that "beginning" is too harsh, but psychology does have very serious problems with replicability. At the moment, it
488.
by Strilanc 9y ago
The article explains in substantive detail... - How quadratic residues can factor a modulus. - How to take a signal with peaks at k/P and derive P from a single sample. - The general flow of modular-exponentiation to period-finding to
489.
An Explanation of Shor's Quantum Factoring Algorithm(algassert.com)
61 points by Strilanc 9y ago|17 comments
490.
by Strilanc 9y ago
After quickly skimming it it seems well done. Leans towards mathematical rigor, which may not be ideal for some people. On the other hand, it'd be pretty hard to avoid math: quantum computing is linear algebra incarnate. The only thing
491.
by Strilanc 9y ago
How? You can't just keep measuring the position of the particle and keep a list. Recording quantum information entangles the recorder and the system under test, which affects how interference plays out, which affects the later parts of
492.
by Strilanc 9y ago
It's just a wrong statement. Follow the reference to the paper and see: > [...] we show that if we could examine the entire history of a hidden variable, then we could efficiently solve [...] Bohmian mechanics doesn't give yo
493.
by Strilanc 9y ago
My guess is that at first it will look like existing programming languages, but with some extra commands (apply Hadamard or QFT or whatever to a register). Over time, people will find good ways to incorporate concepts like reversibility, co
494.
by Strilanc 9y ago
Urgh, this "nul" filename / reserved filename bug is probably in a lot of software.
495.
by Strilanc 10y ago
Step (3) is not valid. You can't use "I would reason badly in case A" as a proof that A can't happen. At best it's an argument that, when deciding what to do, case A isn't worth worrying about. But that's
496.
by Strilanc 10y ago
They say black has to make a mistake for it to happen. So I'm guessing white promotes its pawn to a queen, after moving the king to a position where it can defend the new queen. The mistake black makes is trying to get its king out of
497.
by Strilanc 10y ago
Oh, yes, you can of course use a static or runtime type system to try to keep track of that kind of thing. The tricky thing is that measurement isn't always associated with a single qubit. For example, consider: if q1 != q2:
498.
by Strilanc 10y ago
Forcing a measurement is easy. The language would have something like: result = measure q Forgetting to use that was the source of the bug in the post. The code should have read `if measure qubit`. 'Caught you peeking' de
499.
by Strilanc 10y ago
It's actually really difficult to determine if a given action will decohere the condition, which makes the language design issue interesting. For example, consider this code: if (q1 != q2) != (H(q1) != H(q2)): apply Y to
500.
Bugs from the Future: Hadamard Coins and Implicit Measurement(algassert.com)
63 points by Strilanc 10y ago|9 comments
501.
by Strilanc 10y ago
I think it's a fair point that the reason dividing MCMLXVI by XXXIX seems daunting is mostly due to lack of familiarity with the notation. Roman numerals jump up in value by factors of 5 then 2, which is 10, so translation to/from
502.
by Strilanc 10y ago
> It's an absurd fantasy. There's no possibility for a disembodied, perfectly objective voice conveying facts. Fallacy of gray. Just because you can't ask for perfect doesn't mean you can't ask for better .
503.
by Strilanc 10y ago
Maybe I should put it this way... what do we gain by accepting qbism? For example, accepting many-worlds gives parsimony of postulates. The number of postulates goes down, because the Born rule is derived from decoherence and unitarity in
504.
by Strilanc 10y ago
> whether quantum simulation is indeed the fastest way to solve the quantum speckle problem on a classical computer. They give arguments for this in the paper. Intuitively, if there's some fast way to classically sample a random q
505.
by Strilanc 10y ago
> In QBism the quantum state of a system instead represents an agent's beliefs about what will happen in future interactions with the system. Okay, I think this is my problem. I don't see how these kinds of statement are abou
506.
by Strilanc 10y ago
Can someone explain what the deal with qbism even is? Like, I get that when you do weak measurements the random walk the qubit takes [2] looks basically identical to inference. That's not too surprising, given how similar the definitio
507.
by Strilanc 10y ago
> there are also no real signs that a quantum computer will beat a "classical" computer at anything any time soon John Martinis' group is planning to do that within the next two years [1][2]. Ten years might be realistic
508.
by Strilanc 10y ago
Imagine the tires were velcro'd to the ground. Or that they had giant spikes stabbing down for traction. Clearly you could go over 1g with that, right? The same kind of thing (not literally, but analogously) is already happening at the
509.
by Strilanc 10y ago
> But even lower accelerations will glue you to the seat because gravity acceleration affects every part of your body. Where as the car grabs you by the butt and yanks you forward. The feeling of weight we associate with gravity is not
510.
by Strilanc 10y ago
538 gave more than 25% chance to Trump winning. That's losing two coin flips, not "totally unexpected".

More ›