Cartoon aided design: The lighter side of computing

Product Information

One part of the force between moving charges we call the magnetic force. It is really one aspect of an electrical effect.

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… 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.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. On my own part, I most certainly don’t wish to be sneering, by just putting an emphasis: “oh, you (possibly: you all) don’t understand me,” either. Hence, the suggestion—to just ask me! It helps keep the air clear. 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.)

The same argument goes the other way: six months from now its going to be just as hard for someone reading this blog post to find the particular comic (unless they read comment #19 of course!). Either way, I think it’s better to provide full information — doing otherwise just offends my nerdish OCD. There was a typo in my #80. Instead of “For QM to turn probabilistic,” it should be: “For CA to turn probabilistic.” 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.So all that is really necessary for quantum mechanics is the number zero and one. In large numbers. Either this, or that, or both. Equivalent to the OR logic gate. Example: “I wish I were richer or more good looking” to each state of a QM system, there exists a different state of the environment that it is immersed in”, IMO it’s just very different from how classical algorithms are designed, and the circuit model is so familiar that it’s totally misleading.