Cartoon aided design: The lighter side of computing

Product Information

Miles Berry is a senior lecturer and the subject leader for Computing Education at the University of Roehampton. His experience as a chartered fellow of the British Computer Society and formerly deputy head of St Ives School, Haslemere contributed to his support of lesson activity ideas for Rising Stars’ Switched on ICT programme of study for Computer Science at key stage 3. Switched On ICT was designed in partnership with the London Borough of Havering. KEY RESOURCE I think there is a more basic problem here, and it is the fact that the automaton has “a set of rules of physics that is classically deterministic.” By those words, I take it that ppnl does not mean a deterministic but chaotic process underlying those rules,… Jon K. #51: Feynman Lectures on Computation is, frankly, not one of his best works. QED is a masterpiece. Two particularly commendable aspect of the Kuprov et al. article are, first, the thousand-spin quantum mechanical predictions are compared in-depth with thousand-spin experimental observations, and second, the computational methods used are well-suited to scalably simulate the dozens-of-qubit experiments that the recent Martinis/Google preprint “Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices” (2016, see #75) envisions.

But isn’t this like saying that nature must be “using” quaternions rather than rotation matrices whenever we look around? And I don’t understand what you mean by measurement rules being deterministic. Quantum measurements are always irreducibly ontogicaly random. That randomness simply is. There is no underlying mechanism. That is the point of the Born rule. Zach has a link to your blog at the bottom of the comic, but it links to the blog itself (www.scottaaronson.com/blog) rather than to this particular blog post (www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3058). You should tell him to change that — otherwise a month from now it will be hard to tell what the comic and your blog have to do with each other. In a nutshell, Voevodsky’s philosophical agenda radically embraces, as a primary objective of mathematical practice, “to read and trust and enjoy, rather than doubt and work and eventually not read at all”; moreover Voevodsky sees “no other way for mathematics to prosper.” Yes, these philosophical ideas definitely are radical.🙂on Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 at 9:01 am and is filed under Announcements, Nerd Interest, Quantum, Rage Against Doofosity, Speaking Truth to Parallelism. Yes, entanglement is not a requirement of instantaneous action at a distance (IAD). IAD in QM (as in classical diffusion) comes about only because the Fourier theory itself has IAD built into it. And the Fourier theory comes in because measurements involve eigenstates. QM needs L2 norm but I was referring to ways of representation. You can do QM even without our notion of complex numbers but you’d need something equivalent and I conjuncture that that other form would be harder for humans to parse.

I applaud Scott for his intelligent discussions with both the people who overhype and the people who think its not worth studying. In ppnl’s model, presumably, not just the updating rules but also the measurement rules which the observer cell uses in making its measurements, follow a classical, deterministic criterion. If the criterion is deterministic, it will impart a preferred basis. I actually did struggle through QCSD. I guess you’re saying some of the most difficult questions of QM are related to exploring complexity classes and that sort, but I I was trying to poke around and ask whether the underlying theory of QM had any chinks in its armor/foundations. base 12 is obviously the better choice, it makes daily calculations much easier but we have 10 fingers and so we have an intuition for base 10 and we need to develop an intuition for base 12.

Even if both the categories of rules (updating and measurements) are kept deterministic, the machine would still show certain similarities to the quantum mechanical (i.e. the actually existing) world—viz., a reduction in the number of input states required to get to a given observed state.” In general, the description of objects (including humans and robots) by quantum mechanics depends on who is describing them, from whose observational viewpoint the description takes place. That agent, the observer, plays a special role in the description. In rather generic situations (often caricatured as the Wigner’s friend thought experiment), two observers may use very different wave functions in the same situation. A key point is that the collapse of the wave function is always a subjective event. describe how they’ve used the software to create their animation then comment on the finished product and evaluate how successful it is.

Now that I write that, I realize I could’ve just asked Zach for the URL, but that didn’t occur to me at the time. 🙂also I only just realized that talk of “digits” implicitly means we’re talking about bases. Which are pretty much fully arbitrary. Unless it’s base 2, in which case the distinction between π and 2π hardly matters. For people who, willfully or not, misunderstand my work and are open to reforming their ways I have a list of references of increasing mathematical precision that I send to help set them straight. This has now become first on that list. Overall, (1) is absolutely great to have. This property by itself does motivate me to “pre-pone” my studies of density matrices to an earlier date (even if it won’t be right away—not right this week or next week!).

Of course, the aliens simulating our universe might be fine with that nonlocality, and you might be fine with it too! But what it does is to push the alleged pseudorandomness of quantum measurement outcomes to a level that’s disconnected from what we actually know about physics. Note, in particular, that it’s extremely important that none of us ever discover the pattern to the pseudorandomness, since if we did, we could break the whole structure of QM, communicate faster than light, etc. Personally, I’d say that it’s of limited interest to postulate a theoretical superstructure that has to be so intentionally sequestered from everything we know about the workings of the world, but YMMV.In particular, notice the words: “if,”“would,”“certain,”“similarities” etc. (Is skipping such words the reason you have difficulty understanding what I write? Were you very rapidly browsing what I wrote?) Some time in future, when I do come to study the density matrix formalism, it would be interesting to pursue what its evolution would be like, in an *hypothetical* QM where the amplitudes are only real-valued, not complex-valued, and still, the idea of measurements and eigenstates applies. So should we say, on that basis, that you don’t need any nontrivial math to do physics: no complex numbers, no linear algebra, no calculus, not even arithmetic? Alas, not if you actually want to understand what the theories say, which David Deutsch reminds us is more important than calculating with them… I know this is the kind of question you hate answering over and over, so I apologize; I don’t mean to be another classical-hypothesizing troll on a QM blog. 🙂 But I’m wondering if the way in which this conversation has evolved makes you think any differently about this question. Don’t super-determinism theories which include the human experimenters as part of the system evade the consequences of Bell’s Theorem?) I can’t really wrap my head around quantum Darwinism. I don’t understand pointer states or why they are needed. I am clueless about redundant encoding. Well I’m not a physicist so not surprising. But it is frustrating.