tezthenerd

5 ms·

1.
by tezthenerd 3y ago
If you want to see this kind of thing done “really in real time” check out Terry Tao’s recent mathstodon posts where he learns Lean while formalizing a paper of his own. Fascinating stuff.
2.
by tezthenerd 3y ago
"Most important" by whom? For example the early 1900s photos of Congo atrocities ended up being pretty important IMO! https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/father-hand-belgian-congo-1...
3.
by tezthenerd 4y ago
“In fact, it isn’t even clear that depositors were going to be wiped out, absent federal intervention. When SVB was shut down, it still had real assets that were worth money, which can be sold to pay back investors. ” Would conservatives su
4.
by tezthenerd 4y ago
Argh - yes it can. Bell explicitly have a pretty trivial one in one of his early papers. QM cannot be explained by a non-contextual hidden variables model. (The simplest physical version of contextuality is locality - so as Bell showed yo
5.
by tezthenerd 7y ago
And heres a free chapter from mine that does the Deutsch-Josza algorithm using only a very simple graphical (really string rewriting) set of rules: http://qisforquantum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/PART
6.
by tezthenerd 7y ago
A few months ago a couple of physics postdocs set up a website (vanityindex dot com) and proposed a few "vanity metrics". Can be fun to check out your own vanity index and that of your colleagues.
7.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
I presume its explained in Scott Asronsons book, its implicitly there in Nielsen and Chuang. But the best way to understand it is by example - try to write out how you would describe classical probabilistic computation on two classical bits
8.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
[typo note its 2^N quantum amplitudes] A clear description but potentially very misleading and one that will certainly screw up your intuition about what to expect from quantum computers. As pointed out below, a classical probability distri
9.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
Let me present it a different way. Someone comes to you with two formal models of computing. Both models involve representing the state of the computer as a vector of real numbers, they both involve finite dimensional subsystems combined wi
10.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
Its not meant to be an analogy. We also will not attempt to generate all quantum states on a quantum computer. As with classical monte carlo, we will only ever generate a tiny fraction of the possible quantum states/distributions, and
11.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
Here is a way to see the fallacy of the OMG, its 10^300 variables, thats crazy style of “argument”. Consider a probabilistic classical algorithm on 500 bits. Perhaps a Monte Carlo simulation of an Ising model for example. Note first tha
12.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
Many would argue that Copenhagen is not local, but its very hard to even define locality if you are genuinely non-realist about everything . Regardless, if it was possible to be "local + non-deterministic" many of us would be fin
13.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
Bell's theorem rules out locality even for non-deterministic theories as well. Don't get determinism and realism confused...
14.
by tezthenerd 8y ago
Try reading "Q is for Quantum", by the end of Part I you will understand one quantum algorithm thoroughly. All necessary gates are explained carefully and the linear algebra gets sneaked in without using bras and kets and so on...
15.
by tezthenerd 9y ago
+1 for the (giant) list of idiotic quantum metaphors...