eigenket

35 ms·

511.
by eigenket 3y ago
Yes. In fact the proofs that quantum error correction works as long as you're below a certain error rate (so-called "threshold theorems" are very, very similar to the same proofs that error correction works in classical compu
512.
by eigenket 3y ago
People have already said here most of what I want to say in this comment, but just to make it as explicit as possible: Essentially the only reason anyone thinks that useful quantum computation is possible is because of things called thresho
513.
by eigenket 3y ago
For anyone looking for a "headline figure" from the linked arxiv manuscript, their estimate for breaking 2048 bit RSA is around the order of magnitude of a billion qubits.
514.
by eigenket 3y ago
Speaking as a researcher in quantum computing (albiet completely on the theory side, with no practical knowledge of experiments). It seems that actually making a quantum computer which is useful (i.e. has error rate below the threshold you
515.
by eigenket 3y ago
Other countries also had a much larger proportion of the population off fighting and dying. UK casualties in ww2 were 0.94% of the 1939 population, France's were about 1.44%, the USSR's were about 13.4% (of course the USSR was a w
516.
by eigenket 3y ago
Take a 1 meter by 1 meter square, and scatter a bunch of points inside. Every 3 of those points forms a triangle with those points as its vertices. Take the smallest one of those triangles and compute its area. This process (consider every
517.
by eigenket 3y ago
I love SymPy. Its so useful for doing calculations I don't want to do myself.
518.
by eigenket 3y ago
People write this sort of thing a lot, and I don't really understand it. Simulating quantum systems is dramatically (formally speaking exponentially) more expensive than simulating classical ones (at least as far as our current underst
519.
by eigenket 3y ago
No, in fact I would say almost the exact opposite. Einstein's famous quote was expressing his distaste for the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Among people who seriously think about interpretations of quantu
520.
by eigenket 3y ago
The link I provided shows copilot regurgitating a 21 line function pretty much exactly. The comments are changed from //comment style to /*comment*/ style and some of the variables have been renamed, but thats about it.
521.
by eigenket 3y ago
The link I provided shows copilot regurgitating a 21 line function pretty much exactly. The comments are changed from //comment style to /*comment*/ style and some of the variables have been renamed, but thats about it.
522.
by eigenket 3y ago
Isn't using someone else's work without attribution the whole point of (modern) AI? I don't get any attribution for the code or messages I wrote that GPT4 was trained on, and there are multiple examples of LLMs regurgitating
523.
by eigenket 3y ago
Its worth emphasising that entanglement is not a two-party / duality specific thing. You can entangle 2 particles, you can entangle 3 particles, you can entangle n particles (although actually doing so becomes a quite hard engineerin
524.
by eigenket 3y ago
What your son is learning (synthetic geometry) and what you learned (cartesian geometry) are essentially two ways of looking at the same stuff. One emphasises coordinates and one does not. What the post is about (non-Euclidian geometry) is
525.
by eigenket 3y ago
Wigner Functions are great and all, but they work quite badly for finite dimensional systems. Specifically they are a bit complicated for odd dimensional systems and don't work at all for even dimensional systems (see e.g. [1]). Given
526.
by eigenket 3y ago
I think that most people these days train runecrafting with the "guardians of the rift" minigame. At least at lower levels. It adds some rewards and makes it somewhat less tedious.
527.
by eigenket 3y ago
I'm not American, nor do I live in America, so my understanding of US culture is far from perfect, but from what I've seen it does appear that the vast majority of products, commercials and content in the US are aimed at white Chr
528.
by eigenket 3y ago
Some vampires may even be as old as the 14th century, which is when people first started using "they" as a gender neutral third person pronoun. Some 18th century people didn't like it because they thought it was too colloquia
529.
by eigenket 3y ago
Wallsend (where Hadrian's Wall stopped) is about 100km South-East of Berwick-upon-Tweed where the border between England and Scotland has been for a long time. There has been a lot of history since the days Roman empire.
530.
by eigenket 3y ago
This comment feels a little conspiracy theory-ish. If a sufficiently big block of customers likes the idea of 'minority, lgbt and women's rights as you put it, they you're gonna see a bunch of companies trying to present them
531.
by eigenket 3y ago
Its rather difficult for the French government to pursue the owners of a site when they happen to be in Russia/China/wherever.
532.
by eigenket 3y ago
By the way, if you're wondering if anyone has done anything useful with the method of describing numbers as prime exponents I mentioned the answer is yes, depending on your definition of "useful". The encoding in terms of pri
533.
by eigenket 3y ago
I don't think that anything exists which is going to be better than the normal representations we use in anything except fantastically niche situations.
534.
by eigenket 3y ago
Thanks :) I edited my comment so the arithmetic is (hopefully) right now
535.
by eigenket 3y ago
Its worth noting that this asymmetry between addition and multiplication happens because our usual representations of numbers (i.e. on a piece of paper or in a a computer) favour addition over multiplication. You can come up with different
536.
by eigenket 3y ago
This is so obviously incorrect that I don't understand how someone can write it. Why did Bill Gates found Microsoft and not someone of the same age from somewhere in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Obviously the kid from the Cong
537.
by eigenket 3y ago
There is no time when the particle is accelerating, or even moving, while not experiencing a net force in this setup. The argument you'd have to make would be to change Newtonian mechanics so the first law is no longer a special case o
538.
by eigenket 3y ago
Theres a couple of mistakes here. Firstly the particle is not on its own, it is being acted on by the dome and by gravity. The thing about symmetry breaking also doesn't make much sense. I guess you're trying to appeal to Noether&
539.
by eigenket 3y ago
That's a bit more challenging since Google didn't exist yet when Polish people started using the word kawa. On the other hand there were certainly people around who knew.
540.
by eigenket 3y ago
It never reaches the top in finite time on a cone, it just keeps going up and up getting slower and slower.

More ›