Cartoon aided design: The lighter side of computing

Product Information

IMO it’s just very different from how classical algorithms are designed, and the circuit model is so familiar that it’s totally misleading. Students might like to create their characters in the paint program (such as Paint or Tux Paint). Students should draw their characters in a number of poses. This allows for more realistic movements, such as walking. Students can import digital photographs (Scratch and PowerPoint® both allow users to import images from elsewhere.) MAIN ACTIVITIES Quantum mechanical NMR simulation algorithm for protein-size spin systems” by Ilya Kuprov and collaborators (JMR 2014). The abstract of this article leads off with the challenging pro-skeptic assertion And I do have further speculations for the kind of micro-structure such a mechanism may have. However, in theory, you have to put it in terms of the micro-structure of the wavefunction.) plan sequences of instructions to produce desired effects, test them out, decide how to change the instructions to improve their effect and then refine them as required and clearly describe the effect of their instruction sequences in a way that a non-expert can understand.

The outline of the solution has long been clear: namely, to find a basis where branching and decoherence happen, search for observables that get redundantly encoded in many different locations in space. But what exactly does that mean? Does redundant encoding in one basis preclude redundant encoding in a different basis? How many copies of an observable are needed? (The example of the singlet state shows that 2 copies can’t possibly be enough.) Can we prove that this redundant encoding will happen in realistic quantum systems? Is there a reasonably efficient algorithm to identify the redundant encoding while it’s happening, given a description of a quantum system? Even if redundant encoding suffices for us to say that branching has happened, are there other conditions that would also suffice? I applaud Scott for his intelligent discussions with both the people who overhype and the people who think its not worth studying. but while we’re on this topic of what is sufficient for describing QM, what about getting rid of reals too? Could you just describe QM in terms of rationals, floating point, or some finite theory? Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy is one of the few remaining areas of physical chemistry for which polynomially scaling quantum mechanical simulation methods have not so far been available. In this communication [we simulate] a protein containing over a thousand nuclear spins… In the comic, Mom means XOR, but it appears, at least to me, that she is likely “intending” to use AND and OR not as conjunctions from plain English, but as logic gates from Computer Science, simply because she is being precise, and because she is talking about computing, and also because AND and OR are written in bold in that panel.

Get to know us

gasarch #41: I can say from experience that Oded Goldreich does indeed know a lot, but the lot that he knows is not about QC (and he readily admits as much).

From this perspective, the Martinis/Google group’s recent preprint “Characterizing quantum supremacy in near-term devices” (2016) might alternatively been titled “Characterizing the spukhafte Fernwirkungen associated to large-dimension metric isomorphisms in quantum dynamics”. Further discussion of this thought-provoking preprint would be welcome by many Shtetl Optimized readers (including me). Fleen: The Awkward Christmas Dinner Of Our Obligation To Existence » Did I Say It Was The Quiet Time Of Year? Yesterday Me Was Wrong Says: Jon K. #51: Feynman Lectures on Computation is, frankly, not one of his best works. QED is a masterpiece.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.

Weinersmith — 62 panels³ of deep-dive on quantum computing (with a writing assist from Scott Aaronson), which is a pretty damn good primer on an entire field of theoretical work, in the form of a […] 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. 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.But since *any* quantum system can be simulated on a classical digital computer, can’t we always reduce the physics of the known universe to be the output of such a simulation? Actually electrical engineers do use complex numbers to talk about electrical pulses. So yes you could use electrical impulses to talk about complex numbers. QM needs Complex Numbers but they might have a more complex or a simpler way for working with them. We are accustomed to working with a+bi form or some other equivalent form but they might be using pulses of electricity or be more comfortable with some matrix notation….. Now, can you make comics for ‘consciousness’, ‘free-will’ and ‘time’ which brilliantly cut through to clear simple explanations of these things in the same way? 😉

I think Nature must do all the random jumps, at a statistical time period close to Plank time unit, and then the rest of the universe updates via a huge unitary evolution so it knows what just happened. If it wasn’t unitary we could get infinities or zero states – maybe those are ruled out by anthropic arguments ? Yet, IMO (for whatever it is worth), speaking overall, the way this model is built is not how people should go about thinking about QM. The QM is about going (i) from one measured (definite) state (in whatever basis) (ii) through the deterministic Schrodinger evolution (iii) to another, probabilistically measured (but definite) state (in whatever basis). Starting a description in the middle—at (ii)—-is conceptually more difficult if not dangerous. The best way to approach QM is to start at (i), and also end at (iii). That’s what I think. OK. There are two different flavors of deterministic theories. One is linear, another nonlinear. The nonlinear theory (viz. that at least for some regimes of the input data, the output does not scale linearly with the input) is a good candidate for producing randomness. (Oh, BTW, “randomness” is “random-ness”: it is a matter of degrees.) All pseudo-random number generators rely precisely on such a (deterministic) nonlinearity. They do have some relevance to some points “related to QM.” All software simulations of QM phenomena rely on the pseudo random number generators—i.e. on the nonlinear determinism. If they thus are practically useful, so is the linear vs. nonlinear distinction, esp. in the context of a software model like CA. You failed to make it. I therefore had trouble understanding what you had in mind. This comic is exactly where we should be going with our children, we should help children explore quantum computing at their own pace. Far too often these days the media pressurizes children into performing their first superposition at too young an age, most are not ready for it. Of course, the meaning of what she’s trying to say is still clear, but this was bothering me and I thought I’d point it out.If you think that I am wrong, feel free to say so too. It won’t be an ad hominem if you are careful to distinguish the idea from the ideator. Niraj #27: Not sure if I understand the error. Had the OR/XOR distinction been relevant given the context, the mom could’ve added, “superposition doesn’t mean AND, and it doesn’t mean OR, and it doesn’t mean XOR either.” 🙂 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. I realise parents can be embarrased, in previouas generations superposition was done in private and entanglement was practically a taboo, the end result is people too embarrassed to talk about real problems, 58.567% of all left handed american men can’t sustain an entanglement long enough to satisfy their spouses. In the quantum world it’s difficult to break things down into steps. It’s like you’re given an explosive… and you have to figure out how to blow up the kitchen such that you get a cup full of water among the debris.