"The interesting thing about such a value is that it could be used to determine the correct value of any problem simply by casting it to the appropriate data type."
This is incorrect. Determining the superposition's state won't give you the correct answer. It will give you a random answer from all of its possible states -- weighted by the chance of that being the right answer. This makes quantum computing much trickier.
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 is a great article if you want to understand how some Quantum algorithms we know of will work using this "probable-answer" property.
I always wonder about experiments like this: exactly how certain can we be that the calculations aren't simply producing the theorized result because the calculations assume the theory (directly or indirectly) to begin with?
It's a subtle point, but I think it's something that should always be double checked. How do we know that our mathematical equations apply in all simulated situations, and that they don't break down under different circumstances? What assumptions are we making about reality, and how sure are we that they remain true under the circumstances being calculated?
IANAP, so I really have no clue how to begin answering these questions, but I think they should always be asked.
Actually, MacIntyre didn't make that mistake at all. He worked on a paper with a researcher named Ross McKitrick that criticized some established research. The article ends its talking about MacIntyre (and only in terms of his work with McKitrick) when it states that neither McKitrick or MacIntyre provided any response to the rebuttal published refuting their criticisms.
An entirely different paper (with which MacIntyre had no association) contained the degree/radian confusion you mention. It was a paper by McKitrick and Michaels, not MacIntyre. From your linked article: "Lambert checked and, amazingly enough, found that the data set used by McKitrick and Michaels had latitude in degrees, but the cosine function in the SHAZAM econometric package, they used expected input in radians (which is what any mathematically literate person would expect)."
Read your own links before posting them...
Slashdot Mirror
"The interesting thing about such a value is that it could be used to determine the correct value of any problem simply by casting it to the appropriate data type."
This is incorrect. Determining the superposition's state won't give you the correct answer. It will give you a random answer from all of its possible states -- weighted by the chance of that being the right answer. This makes quantum computing much trickier.
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 is a great article if you want to understand how some Quantum algorithms we know of will work using this "probable-answer" property.
I always wonder about experiments like this: exactly how certain can we be that the calculations aren't simply producing the theorized result because the calculations assume the theory (directly or indirectly) to begin with?
It's a subtle point, but I think it's something that should always be double checked. How do we know that our mathematical equations apply in all simulated situations, and that they don't break down under different circumstances? What assumptions are we making about reality, and how sure are we that they remain true under the circumstances being calculated?
IANAP, so I really have no clue how to begin answering these questions, but I think they should always be asked.
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF160-The_Dreamcatcher3000.gif
Actually, MacIntyre didn't make that mistake at all. He worked on a paper with a researcher named Ross McKitrick that criticized some established research. The article ends its talking about MacIntyre (and only in terms of his work with McKitrick) when it states that neither McKitrick or MacIntyre provided any response to the rebuttal published refuting their criticisms. An entirely different paper (with which MacIntyre had no association) contained the degree/radian confusion you mention. It was a paper by McKitrick and Michaels, not MacIntyre. From your linked article: "Lambert checked and, amazingly enough, found that the data set used by McKitrick and Michaels had latitude in degrees, but the cosine function in the SHAZAM econometric package, they used expected input in radians (which is what any mathematically literate person would expect)." Read your own links before posting them...