Slashdot Mirror
Michael Nielsen's Free Video Courseware On Quantum Computing
New submitter quax writes "Michael Nielsen, who co-authored the book on Quantum Computing, released a set of short video lectures on his blog this summer (link to Google cache). They make a great introduction to the subject. But here's the catch: Due to other work responsibilities, he stopped short of completing the course, and will only complete it if he sees enough interest in the videos. Let's show him some numbers."
But you can?
I misread and thought that said Mike Nelson. Got excited about a Rifftrax about quantum computing.
For me, a major fundamental revolution is one that goes beyond improving on itself. A concept or group of concepts that begins and in the end permeates nearly every product and concept throughout the human world.
We are very much into the run of the "Information" or "Computer" or "Digital" revolution in how people are now in mass looking at every single mundane product or process and seeing how this "new" way of looking at things can change/improve/simplify. Evidenced by the Refrigerator with Ethernet port, TCP/IP stack and webserver.
Quantum, or more specifically quantum mechanics will be the next Major human revolution.
Once pure quantum systems are produced and seen to have value we will see an explosion of devices, products, processes.
You will have Quantum Disk Suite, a way of linking drives together so that backups aren't needed.
and Quantum Transceivers to that all those Optical SFPs in your switches and routers won't need cables anymore
and Quantum Video technology so you don't see that lame bloody delay when someone from NY is talking to someone on TV from Paris.
When? Very hard to tell. It will however, just as Industry and 0's&1's did before, change _everything_
Let's have this post as a placeholder for all the Heisenberg and Schrodinger superposition jokes that show up in every single quantum computer story. Thanks!
Do you want the jokes or not? You can't have it both ways.
Let's have this post as a placeholder for all the Heisenberg and Schrodinger superposition jokes that show up in every single quantum computer story. Thanks!
Do you want the jokes or not? You can't have it both ways.
In quantum mechanics, you can. But only as long as you don't look.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Interesting. Please, tell me, what area of chemical mathematics tells you that quantum computing is ... er ... "not stargazer". Whatever that means.
just ignore the whatever, they have posted this exact same comment on other threads, which has nothing to do with chemical mathematics, its just some spamdouche
just ignore the whatever, they have posted this exact same comment on other threads, which has nothing to do with chemical mathematics, its just some spamdouche
Yeah, found them : http://slashdot.org/~ThatCopyrightMadow
Weird. It's like spam, but also like a high troll. Oh well.
It's idiotic to prove that. The right way to do things is define them as inner product preserving and then it's immediate that they are length preserving.
I was going to share a joke about UDP, but I was afraid ya'll would not get it.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
It's idiotic to prove that. The right way to do things is define them as inner product preserving and then it's immediate that they are length preserving.
... what?
That's like saying "It's idiotic to prove the Pythagoras theorem. The right way to do things is to define 'right-angled triangle' as a triangle that has sides obeying a^2=b^2+c^2". Sure, you could do that, but then you have to prove that a triangle is 'right-angled' iff it has one of its angles equal to 90 degrees.
Similarly, if you define "unitary" as "inner product preserving", then you have to prove that U is unitary iff UU*=U*U.
After watching the first 4 og 5 videos, I was amazed as I realized I was able to think about some things as he explained about qubit computation. Perhaps for the first time I got an idea what a "complex conjugate" could be and a vague idea for how it might be interesting. He did not explain this though, but I have been following some videos on quantum mechanics. Perhaps I will come to realize later on, that I have misunderstood something I thought made sense, but right now it made math more interesting.
Right. Which is the correct logical order, since unitary transformations are isometries. Then the property you mention follows easily.
It does seem automated, though I wonder if it's someone testing something. Maybe to see if a script can build karma or something? I don't see any product links...
Too bad the replies are mostly variations on the same few words and it comes out sounding like some nonsensical babelfish translation.
I've read a few articles on quantum computing before this, and while they tend to give a general idea of what it's about, they tend not to go into any depth on quantum logic and what you can actually do with individual qubits (or if they do, they're so dry I end up falling asleep before that point). These videos show what kinds of operations you can perform on qubits mathematically and how you can form concrete quantum circuits/algorithms out of quantum gates. The bits on superdense encoding and quantum teleportation certainly helped put everything into perspective. They're aimed more at the computer scientist or mathematician rather than the physicist, which suits me just fine. My only critiques would be that he goes into (imho, superficial) proofs too often, he could have drawn more parallels with boolean logic and illustrated a lot of the linear algebra with visual representations.
Then the property you mention follows easily.
No, you can't do that. There's a difference between "iff" ("if and only if") and "if"; you don't just have to prove
"inner product preserving" => UU*=U*U=I
What you need is
"inner product preserving" <=> UU*=U*U=I
If you do that, it doesn't matter what you use as definition and what you prove, the work is exactly the same. So you might as well use the same definition as everyone else.
OK, sure, you certainly do want that. From a geometer's point of view though, one of course always defines things first with the inner product. Either direction is fine, but they are both exceeding easy to show. I shot from the hip, I admit. The idiotic statement was really reacting to this latter point that this isn't hard to show. It call me back to classical mechanics texts/courses where there is a huge amount of effort put in to showing that an element of O(3) has an eigenvector, when it is a 3 line observation. (Try looking it up in Goldstein for example, and compare with Artin.)