A quantum computer works by trialling a superposition of wavefunctions or eigenfunctions (solutions of a matrix problem) as solutions of a problem (matrix operation). The resultant eigenvalues (conditions that show that the matrix problem is solved) are measured as observable results of an experiment (with probabilities gathered over a large number of experiments), and thus the eigenfunctions (solutions) are found.
Because every eigenfunction (of an infinte set) can be tested at once, over a certain number of trials, if the set of eigenfunctions (possible solutions) is infinite or very large, but the set of eigenvalues (actual solutions) is finite and smaller the problem is reduced from an infinite to a finite, or large to smaller problem and hence can be solved a lot quicker
That your only in trouble if you get caught. That's what encryption is for. Guess what anything that is even remotely questionable is encrypted via gpg with a 4096 bit ELG key with a very long passphrase protecting the secret key.
Hence the current bill going through the UK parliment to make it a crime to refuse to hand over all of your encryption keys on the demand of a magistrate, under penalty of imprisonment.
What makes this bill really fun is that that you can be imprisoned without the police, etc proving that you ever had possesion of the keys, and them being able to demand, say all the secure keys used by an e-commerce site, not just the specific ones they need.
Over Galactic scales you don't really need to use general relativity to model the motion of individual stars, as general relativistic effects only show up on short scales, where the force is strong, or on really large scale where the curvature of the spacetime of the universe begins to have an effect.
The short scale problem can be resolved by various approximation methods, such as adding a softening distance term to the force calculation, and the long distance problem has pretty much been resolved by measurements (of the cosmic microwave background) that place the curvature of the universe at zero.
Even if this wasn't true these would still be good calculations to make, using pure Newtonian gravity, as it would allow differentiation between the behaviour of galaxies under Newtonian gravity and in the real universe.
I just wish I could have played with this baby for my computing project this year, which was the simulation of the collision of two galaxies (using very heavy approximations).
Damn, that biotech company creates virus and cure and tries to unleash it on the world thing has blatantly been ripped from Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, that was supposed to be made into a film at some point.
I think R6 made much better use of this idea as a plot line and I think it would have made a pretty good film. I suspect that'll be the last we hear of it.
Can Hollywood action writers actually think for themselves? I'm excluding a few from this of course.
In an optical device, which is made up of some form of material, photons do not travel at the speed of light. e.g in glass photons travel at ~2/3 of the speed of light in vacuum.
In an electronic device, electrons travel at ~10 m/s, nowhere near the speed of light. Signals travel in an electronic device as electromagnetic waves, which are the same as light.
The actual advantage of optical devices is that the wavelength of the signal carriers is smaller, so faster switching is possible, if you can work out how to do it, and there's no problem with interference from external fields.
uh, no. Fermat's Last Theorem was solved analytically by Andrew Wiles, by hand, over a seven year period.
The problem cannot be solved empirically, and neither can any of the others above (except maybe by counter-example) as they involve absolute proof of general cases
And it was Fermat who wrote something like "I have a marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too small to contain"
It's common belief in the UK, not commonly known fact. It's not entirely true, as most of the funds available to the universities/colleges (that bit is really complicated) are donated with conditions attached. My College gets donated funds on the condition that they are used to repair the chapel, or to pay for a scholarship etc, and I won't even go into the amount the college is rumoured to have lost on the Far Eastern stockmarket.
Oh, and having just read the post above mine I'd like to point out that both my brother and his girlfriend are making money out of music, although neither is yet signed to a record deal etc. They're not making much cash at the moment as they are both still in school, taking A levels (UK exams at 18 years old), which takes a large amount of their time, but both could probably support themselves on the level of income they could get if they where gigging full time. This is without any distribution of recorded music, just on word of mouth and a few demo CD's that are sent around to tour promotions people.
Of course, patronage isn't only done for direct advertising purposes. Being able to support a well known band, and then get them to appear at a product launch is heaps of marketing, especially if the press turn out for the event.
Tony Blair made a fair amount of publicity through inviting musicians to 10 Downing Street for events, and I'm sure other politicians/companies have done the same (Sultan of Brunei getting Michael Jackson to do a gig for his child's birthday, etc.)
An individual with money might just pay for the recording of an album/creation of a work of art, because he likes the artists work, however unlikely it seems. This has happened before. (Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd paid for the filming of Monty Python's Holy Grail film, and George Harrison paid for The Life of Brian, without much hope of recovering the money)
Those with money regularily donate to arts foundations that then pass the money on to up and coming artists, so that they become known, and can get income from public visits to exhibitions (pretty much the visual arts form of a band gigging). There is very little reason why this could not happen for musicians as well.
You can add a few dimensions to Os and Xs (TicTacToe, etc.) by drawing extra grids side by side and deciding that they stack up. It's easy enough if you're good at visualising 3d objects to put three grids side by side and say they stack on top of each other.
It's a bit more difficult if you try drawing a three by three grid of grids and say that they stack up in dimensions 3 and 4, although deciding if you've won yet gets a bit difficult.
I've attempted a 6D game, but I just got a headache.
I'm wondering if it's possible to fall into a black hole in such way that this isn't true.
If you fall in from zero speed, at great distance with no force other than gravity acting on you, then you will hit lightspeed as you cross the event horizon. If you are in a stable orbit, and slowly change your velocity so that you move closer to the black hole, your orbital velocity will reach lightspeed as you cross the event horizon. In both these cases, time dilation causes it to appear that you stop exactly on the event horizon.
But what about if you fall in from a zero speed and a large distance, while continuously braking your descent by thrusting directly away from the black hole, so that your speed is never much above zero, even as you cross the event horizon. Gravitational time dilation at the event horizon isn't infinite, as the field strength isn't infinite. Would you therefore cross the event horizon in finite time, and vanish from the view of an outside observer?
In "A Brief History of Time" he says that, according to the theory of GR, in imaginary time, the Big Bang (or any other singularity) looks just like any other point. However when this is looked at in real time, the singularity is still there.
It is known that general relativity breaks down on timescales shorter than the Planck time, and quantisation effects begin to be large enough to affect results. General relativity doens't apply here, but whatever goes on after this time is indistinguishable from a Big Bang.
Einstein also didn't believe in quantum entanglement, despite laying some of the foundations for QM,
I understand that a lot of work has been put in on using this for quantum cryptography and this has been used to communicate over distances of at least 40km.
Disagreeing with the predictions of your own theories on aesthetic grounds is fairly normal, especially when the theory is revolutionary, and you are worried that you might be wrong.
As an extension my last post, the existence of an event horizon would keep most of the work of Hawking and Penrose on black holes, as most of their work is about the properties of the event horizons, rather than the singularities in black holes.
Removing singularities from the theory of gravity does not necessarily remove the possibility of black holes.
If there exists a region of spacetime with a field strength high enough that the escape velocity was greater than that of light, then an event horizon would exist. By the arguments backing up the cosmic censorship hypothesis, and the "no hair" theorem, it doesn't matter what is inside the event horizon, as the only observable features of a black hole are it's mass, angular momentum and electric charge.
If this alternative theory has allows event horizons to exist then black holes still exist, although with different limiting masses. I don't know the exact details of the new theory, so I can't check if event horizons are possible under it.
The exception to this rule is the gravitational field itself. While there is energy stored in the gravitational field, unlike all of the other known energy fields (the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions) the energy present in gravitation does not, in conventional GR theory, produce space curvature. Starting with Einstein, the justification for this is that to have gravitationally-produced curvature would be "double counting", that since gravitation was produced by the curvature, it should not make more curvature
I thought that gravitational energy did create more curvature. This is one of the reasons that GR results are hard to obtain, as the theory is fundamentally non-linear. That's what at least one of my physics texts says.
Capitalising the first letters of an expanded acronym, and the letters making up an acronym is grammatically correct, but I get told that it's like shouting if I try to post the above sentence correctly. Someone should fix this, given the number of acronyms in use on/.
Otherwise, why bother opening up the standard if you can't recoup licensing fees?
Because those standards can be used to ensure interoperability between your product and the content developed for other adhering products.
Thus you can produce a media player of some sort and be sure that there is some media to play on it, without having to go out and get people to convert to your non-standard format. People won't buy a media player of some sort if there's nothing to use it on.
Although if you can patent parts of it _and_ be sure of marketing success then it may be an idea to patent the methods, and wait for people to jump on the bandwagon.
Do news graphics creators verify their image integrity?
Doesn't seem so. The BBC ran a story on Iridium, with a picture of my mobile phone, which is GSM, over a picture of a random satelite (that they use for everything satelite related).
According to a book on the history of Python (Monty Python Speaks) Douglas Adams didn't write very much at all for Python, (Adams claims that about two words of his ever made it to broadcast), although he did write a small amount with Graham Chapman, and drive the entire Python crew the wrong way up a motorway in a camper van.
There's a quote from a 'computer analyst' on http://news.bbc.co.uk that says
"The chip that is going to be in this console is 20 times faster than the chip in the PCs, so you are going to get a better game on the console than the PC,"
Excuse me how many pc's out there are 20 times slower than a 600 Athlon?
It's probably filtered by censorware. Another reason why educational establishments shouldn't install poor filters. Who the hell named these URLs? They look really dodgy in my webcache, and I have to use them for research.
The software must also have fun with anything related to the (English) counties of East SusSEX, West SusSEX, EsSEX. Could filtering in english libraries lead to the library's own site being blocked, from itself?
Slashdot Mirror
A quantum computer works by trialling a superposition of wavefunctions or eigenfunctions (solutions of a matrix problem) as solutions of a problem (matrix operation). The resultant eigenvalues (conditions that show that the matrix problem is solved) are measured as observable results of an experiment (with probabilities gathered over a large number of experiments), and thus the eigenfunctions (solutions) are found.
Because every eigenfunction (of an infinte set) can be tested at once, over a certain number of trials, if the set of eigenfunctions (possible solutions) is infinite or very large, but the set of eigenvalues (actual solutions) is finite and smaller the problem is reduced from an infinite to a finite, or large to smaller problem and hence can be solved a lot quicker
Well yes the public would know about it
It's seven miles from the coast of Suffolk, and a good pair of binoculars should let you see it in pretty good detail.
Plus any explosion would probably be heard in Colchester which is a large town quite nearby.
That your only in trouble if you get caught. That's what encryption is for. Guess what anything that is even remotely questionable is encrypted via gpg with a 4096 bit ELG key with a very long passphrase protecting the secret key.
Hence the current bill going through the UK parliment to make it a crime to refuse to hand over all of your encryption keys on the demand of a magistrate, under penalty of imprisonment.
What makes this bill really fun is that that you can be imprisoned without the police, etc proving that you ever had possesion of the keys, and them being able to demand, say all the secure keys used by an e-commerce site, not just the specific ones they need.
Over Galactic scales you don't really need to use general relativity to model the motion of individual stars, as general relativistic effects only show up on short scales, where the force is strong, or on really large scale where the curvature of the spacetime of the universe begins to have an effect.
The short scale problem can be resolved by various approximation methods, such as adding a softening distance term to the force calculation, and the long distance problem has pretty much been resolved by measurements (of the cosmic microwave background) that place the curvature of the universe at zero.
Even if this wasn't true these would still be good calculations to make, using pure Newtonian gravity, as it would allow differentiation between the behaviour of galaxies under Newtonian gravity and in the real universe.
I just wish I could have played with this baby for my computing project this year, which was the simulation of the collision of two galaxies (using very heavy approximations).
Damn, that biotech company creates virus and cure and tries to unleash it on the world thing has blatantly been ripped from Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, that was supposed to be made into a film at some point.
I think R6 made much better use of this idea as a plot line and I think it would have made a pretty good film. I suspect that'll be the last we hear of it.
Can Hollywood action writers actually think for themselves? I'm excluding a few from this of course.
In an optical device, which is made up of some form of material, photons do not travel at the speed of light. e.g in glass photons travel at ~2/3 of the speed of light in vacuum.
In an electronic device, electrons travel at ~10 m/s, nowhere near the speed of light. Signals travel in an electronic device as electromagnetic waves, which are the same as light.
The actual advantage of optical devices is that the wavelength of the signal carriers is smaller, so faster switching is possible, if you can work out how to do it, and there's no problem with interference from external fields.
Emperically, with a computer.
uh, no. Fermat's Last Theorem was solved analytically by Andrew Wiles, by hand, over a seven year period.
The problem cannot be solved empirically, and neither can any of the others above (except maybe by counter-example) as they involve absolute proof of general cases
And it was Fermat who wrote something like "I have a marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too small to contain"
It's common belief in the UK, not commonly known fact. It's not entirely true, as most of the funds available to the universities/colleges (that bit is really complicated) are donated with conditions attached. My College gets donated funds on the condition that they are used to repair the chapel, or to pay for a scholarship etc, and I won't even go into the amount the college is rumoured to have lost on the Far Eastern stockmarket.
Oh, and having just read the post above mine I'd like to point out that both my brother and his girlfriend are making money out of music, although neither is yet signed to a record deal etc.
They're not making much cash at the moment as they are both still in school, taking A levels (UK exams at 18 years old), which takes a large amount of their time, but both could probably support themselves on the level of income they could get if they where gigging full time. This is without any distribution of recorded music, just on word of mouth and a few demo CD's that are sent around to tour promotions people.
Of course, patronage isn't only done for direct advertising purposes. Being able to support a well known band, and then get them to appear at a product launch is heaps of marketing, especially if the press turn out for the event.
Tony Blair made a fair amount of publicity through inviting musicians to 10 Downing Street for events, and I'm sure other politicians/companies have done the same (Sultan of Brunei getting Michael Jackson to do a gig for his child's birthday, etc.)
An individual with money might just pay for the recording of an album/creation of a work of art, because he likes the artists work, however unlikely it seems. This has happened before. (Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd paid for the filming of Monty Python's Holy Grail film, and George Harrison paid for The Life of Brian, without much hope of recovering the money)
Those with money regularily donate to arts foundations that then pass the money on to up and coming artists, so that they become known, and can get income from public visits to exhibitions (pretty much the visual arts form of a band gigging). There is very little reason why this could not happen for musicians as well.
Apologies for the ramblings in this post
It's a bit more difficult if you try drawing a three by three grid of grids and say that they stack up in dimensions 3 and 4, although deciding if you've won yet gets a bit difficult.
I've attempted a 6D game, but I just got a headache.
I've also seen a 4D Rubiks cube at superliminal
I'm wondering if it's possible to fall into a black hole in such way that this isn't true.
If you fall in from zero speed, at great distance with no force other than gravity acting on you, then you will hit lightspeed as you cross the event horizon. If you are in a stable orbit, and slowly change your velocity so that you move closer to the black hole, your orbital velocity will reach lightspeed as you cross the event horizon. In both these cases, time dilation causes it to appear that you stop exactly on the event horizon.
But what about if you fall in from a zero speed and a large distance, while continuously braking your descent by thrusting directly away from the black hole, so that your speed is never much above zero, even as you cross the event horizon. Gravitational time dilation at the event horizon isn't infinite, as the field strength isn't infinite. Would you therefore cross the event horizon in finite time, and vanish from the view of an outside observer?
In "A Brief History of Time" he says that, according to the theory of GR, in imaginary time, the Big Bang (or any other singularity) looks just like any other point. However when this is looked at in real time, the singularity is still there.
It is known that general relativity breaks down on timescales shorter than the Planck time, and quantisation effects begin to be large enough to affect results. General relativity doens't apply here, but whatever goes on after this time is indistinguishable from a Big Bang.
Einstein also didn't believe in quantum entanglement, despite laying some of the foundations for QM,
I understand that a lot of work has been put in on using this for quantum cryptography and this has been used to communicate over distances of at least 40km.
Disagreeing with the predictions of your own theories on aesthetic grounds is fairly normal, especially when the theory is revolutionary, and you are worried that you might be wrong.
As an extension my last post, the existence of an event horizon would keep most of the work of Hawking and Penrose on black holes, as most of their work is about the properties of the event horizons, rather than the singularities in black holes.
Removing singularities from the theory of gravity does not necessarily remove the possibility of black holes.
If there exists a region of spacetime with a field strength high enough that the escape velocity was greater than that of light, then an event horizon would exist. By the arguments backing up the cosmic censorship hypothesis, and the "no hair" theorem, it doesn't matter what is inside the event horizon, as the only observable features of a black hole are it's mass, angular momentum and electric charge.
If this alternative theory has allows event horizons to exist then black holes still exist, although with different limiting masses. I don't know the exact details of the new theory, so I can't check if event horizons are possible under it.
The exception to this rule is the gravitational field itself. While there is energy stored in the gravitational field, unlike all of the other known energy fields (the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions) the energy present in gravitation does not, in conventional GR theory, produce space curvature. Starting with Einstein, the justification for this is that to have gravitationally-produced curvature would be "double counting", that since gravitation was produced by the curvature, it should not make more curvature I thought that gravitational energy did create more curvature. This is one of the reasons that GR results are hard to obtain, as the theory is fundamentally non-linear. That's what at least one of my physics texts says.
The lethal dose for inhaling Pu-239 is 0.1 microgram Although that is because Plutonium is also poisonous, especially it's oxides.
litigation at metallica's expense
/.
Capitalising the first letters of an expanded acronym, and the letters making up an acronym is grammatically correct, but I get told that it's like shouting if I try to post the above sentence correctly. Someone should fix this, given the number of acronyms in use on
Otherwise, why bother opening up the standard if you can't recoup licensing fees? Because those standards can be used to ensure interoperability between your product and the content developed for other adhering products. Thus you can produce a media player of some sort and be sure that there is some media to play on it, without having to go out and get people to convert to your non-standard format. People won't buy a media player of some sort if there's nothing to use it on. Although if you can patent parts of it _and_ be sure of marketing success then it may be an idea to patent the methods, and wait for people to jump on the bandwagon.
Do news graphics creators verify their image integrity? Doesn't seem so. The BBC ran a story on Iridium, with a picture of my mobile phone, which is GSM, over a picture of a random satelite (that they use for everything satelite related).
According to a book on the history of Python
(Monty Python Speaks) Douglas Adams didn't write very much at all for Python, (Adams claims that about two words of his ever made it to broadcast), although he did write a small amount with Graham Chapman, and drive the entire Python crew the wrong way up a motorway in a camper van.
There's a quote from a 'computer analyst' on http://news.bbc.co.uk that says
"The chip that is going to be in this console is 20 times faster than the chip in the PCs, so you are going to get a better game on the console than the PC,"
Excuse me how many pc's out there are 20 times slower than a 600 Athlon?
It's probably filtered by censorware. Another reason why educational establishments shouldn't install poor filters. Who the hell named these URLs? They look really dodgy in my webcache, and I have to use them for research.
The software must also have fun with anything related to the (English) counties of East SusSEX, West SusSEX, EsSEX. Could filtering in english libraries lead to the library's own site being blocked, from itself?