Okay, I was off by 0,000000000125%. Very sorry, I am a complete idiot for wanting to save some time and do a quick approximation. I do think my point remains valid, though.
Nice try. Since we are naturally considering an infinitely large population each person can be considered an independent coinflip.
If you claim that it is not an independent pick, you also have to include yourself.
Saying that it is "most certainly not the binomial one.", when the binomial distribution is an approximation to the hypergeometric is typical slashdot arrogance. This is a perfect example of when to use this approximation. 4 persons out of billions.
-----We are after all "made in his image".-----
I love how people think they can quote the bible as truth in a scientific discussion. Are you trying to annoy us, or do you seriously think scientists view the bible as a credible source of information?
If god is made of matter he will most likely have a gravitational pull and should therefore be measurable. Actually, if God has any influence on the world, he should be measurable.
And what is the point of such a god? You would not be able to feel his presence(that feeling would be measurable). He would not be able to answer prayers. There would be absolutely no difference in a world with a god and one without. So why claim there is?
Can someone on slashdot please make sense of the article. It claims
1. That quantum computing needs vastly fewer bits to represent data. I thought it dealt with multiple possibilities simultaneously, but that the final reality just needed small number of bits. (Ideal for encryption cracking. Crap for storing a database)
Well... The article does a very bad job of explaining what is essentially Grover search. As you say, you have all possibilities simultaneously(think an entire phonebook cramped down to one line). Whenever you measure you'll get one of them. All the other possibilities disappear into thin air(or parallel universes if that seems more fun), which indeed does make it very bad for storing data.
You can use it to search for data though by making the quantum state giving you the outcome you're looking for. Just need to store the data elsewhere in good ol' classical bits.
4. That faster than light communication is possible. I thought that collapsing entanglement does appear to happen faster than light, but that no information transfer happens. Mind you, that's my memory of my take on a New Scientist comment some time back. My brain has its share of garbage. Compost help ideas grow.;-)
I suspect there is great science here being reported as little more than magic.
Quantum mechanics and relativity does disagree on some issues, but this is not one of them. You really have to get your pen and paper out to understand why entanglement doesn't help you get faster than light communication... Even Einstein had his problems with it.
What's more, people don't realize that "playing perfectly" is a misnomer. It deals with making statistically correct decisions given the available information, which in poker, is not all of the information.
People familiar with the game understand that perfect play doesn't mean "you always get it right". It means you are playing based on the idea of expected value. This is discussed in the theory of poker.
When you talk about multiway play, you also are overlooking that decision making changes significantly in multiway pots, which is discussed in Morton's theorem.
I'm also at reasonably sure that given time, a pattern of "perfect play" would be found to be exploitable. Since the computer is using incomplete information, it must make assumptions. These assumptions, if anticipated, could be used to influence the computer's decisions.
Since this story is about limit, it's no wonder the computer has so much success. The structure of limit makes it a very straight mathematical game, where you're frequently calling river bets when you are certain you are beaten, simply because statistically it is correct to do so.
This structure is not present on all poker games, and indeed, many of the most popular games are not limit, but pot limit or no limit instead. I'd be interested to see what kind of progress is being made on those games, which strike me as vastly harder problems.
Oh poor researchers! The hand waving by a random guy on the Internet has really disproven their mathematical proof.
A perfect play is NOT exploitable, thats really the heart of the definition. I don't wanna throw a wikipedia entry in your face, because you've done enough, but google "Perfect play" and/or "Game Theory".
Perfect play should, however, not be mistaken for optimal play(maximizing EV).
Everybody is a freakin' scientist these days. Why do people thing they know more than serious researchers?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I was off by 0,000000000125%. Very sorry, I am a complete idiot for wanting to save some time and do a quick approximation. I do think my point remains valid, though.
Nice try. Since we are naturally considering an infinitely large population each person can be considered an independent coinflip. If you claim that it is not an independent pick, you also have to include yourself. Saying that it is "most certainly not the binomial one.", when the binomial distribution is an approximation to the hypergeometric is typical slashdot arrogance. This is a perfect example of when to use this approximation. 4 persons out of billions.
It is not the same thing. However, the statement might be true for both, depending on how you measure intelligence.
That is not correct. The chance is really binom(4 ; 2) / 2^4 = 37.5%.
So you are just really bad at sarcasm? Anyway, just let it be, dude. Watch your language btw.
Okay?... Erhmmm... Thank you for the information?
-----We are after all "made in his image".----- I love how people think they can quote the bible as truth in a scientific discussion. Are you trying to annoy us, or do you seriously think scientists view the bible as a credible source of information? If god is made of matter he will most likely have a gravitational pull and should therefore be measurable. Actually, if God has any influence on the world, he should be measurable. And what is the point of such a god? You would not be able to feel his presence(that feeling would be measurable). He would not be able to answer prayers. There would be absolutely no difference in a world with a god and one without. So why claim there is?
Make a text file containing those two lines and show me a c compiler that actually compiles that. I seriously doubt it.
Pass the weed :)
Suggesting that NBC canjumped back and forth in a _live_ broadcast makes me wonder if there weren't a better use of their time machine.
Can someone on slashdot please make sense of the article. It claims 1. That quantum computing needs vastly fewer bits to represent data. I thought it dealt with multiple possibilities simultaneously, but that the final reality just needed small number of bits. (Ideal for encryption cracking. Crap for storing a database)
Well... The article does a very bad job of explaining what is essentially Grover search. As you say, you have all possibilities simultaneously(think an entire phonebook cramped down to one line). Whenever you measure you'll get one of them. All the other possibilities disappear into thin air(or parallel universes if that seems more fun), which indeed does make it very bad for storing data. You can use it to search for data though by making the quantum state giving you the outcome you're looking for. Just need to store the data elsewhere in good ol' classical bits.
4. That faster than light communication is possible. I thought that collapsing entanglement does appear to happen faster than light, but that no information transfer happens. Mind you, that's my memory of my take on a New Scientist comment some time back. My brain has its share of garbage. Compost help ideas grow. ;-)
I suspect there is great science here being reported as little more than magic.
Quantum mechanics and relativity does disagree on some issues, but this is not one of them. You really have to get your pen and paper out to understand why entanglement doesn't help you get faster than light communication... Even Einstein had his problems with it.
What's more, people don't realize that "playing perfectly" is a misnomer. It deals with making statistically correct decisions given the available information, which in poker, is not all of the information.
People familiar with the game understand that perfect play doesn't mean "you always get it right". It means you are playing based on the idea of expected value. This is discussed in the theory of poker.
When you talk about multiway play, you also are overlooking that decision making changes significantly in multiway pots, which is discussed in Morton's theorem.
I'm also at reasonably sure that given time, a pattern of "perfect play" would be found to be exploitable. Since the computer is using incomplete information, it must make assumptions. These assumptions, if anticipated, could be used to influence the computer's decisions.
Since this story is about limit, it's no wonder the computer has so much success. The structure of limit makes it a very straight mathematical game, where you're frequently calling river bets when you are certain you are beaten, simply because statistically it is correct to do so.
This structure is not present on all poker games, and indeed, many of the most popular games are not limit, but pot limit or no limit instead. I'd be interested to see what kind of progress is being made on those games, which strike me as vastly harder problems.
Oh poor researchers! The hand waving by a random guy on the Internet has really disproven their mathematical proof. A perfect play is NOT exploitable, thats really the heart of the definition. I don't wanna throw a wikipedia entry in your face, because you've done enough, but google "Perfect play" and/or "Game Theory". Perfect play should, however, not be mistaken for optimal play(maximizing EV). Everybody is a freakin' scientist these days. Why do people thing they know more than serious researchers?