I'm referring to just parsing in a random string. There's nothing pseudo about it. You don't reuse the input - assume an infinite number of them generated from quantum decay or something.
Actually yeah I do seem to be wrong indeed, but I think so are you. I've spent the last few hours trying to read up on this..
It appears that a quantum machine using qubits only would be just turing complete (at best). But its an open question - not yet determined - whether all of quantum mechanics can be done on a turing machine.
The interesting part is that its not known whether our universe can be simulated on a turing machine or not... One thing a turing machine can't do is work with uncomputable reals. A machine that can, I think, is called a hypercomputer. It is unknown whether our universe would support the existence of such a machine. Its quite fascinating.
The random numbers thing is a red herring imho - just require a supply of random numbers as an input. (I think its called a random turing machine or something).
Anyway, the answer seems to be that it is unknown whether you can simulate quantum phenomenon on a random turing machine (turing machine with a source of random numbers).
I'll try to check out the links you provided. Thanks:)
"and any finite value over infinity counts for zero"
Hmm, no.
If space covers a finite volume, then every part of that space would have an infinite amount of God per unit area inside it assuming God is infinite in space. Course you could have God outside of the space whatever that might mean.
I think the reason is that the smarter you are, the more you realise you know nothing.
It's like any complex problem where it seems easy until you look into it. The more you understand about it, the more you realise how little you understand.
Me? I know that I know nothing at all - so I must be the wisest guy alive *grin*.
"It can also be proven that Quantum Computers are not Turing Machines by the way"
What?? A quantum computer can be emulated by a turing machine so afaics this is just wrong.
Quantum machines are equally as powerful as a turing machine and so is the brain. We know of nothing that is more powerful than a turing machine. I'd be interested to see any (decent) literature that says otherwise. Preferably with a proof.
Also, afaics, it would mean that a God cannot even do this, or if he can, he cannot analyse himself. Either way there would be something God could not do.
Very soon now autopackage will support kde - so all kde apps can be installed via it. This will be a huge step IMHO. (There was some discussion how to handle c++ ABI changes which was holding back kde support)
I use pulsed lasers for holography, so use and rely on reciprocity failure. (Consider how short a pulse laser pulse is compared with a camera!) A linear approximation for calculating the exposure time is just that - an approximation. Where the approximation fails is what we call reciprocity failure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_failure
I doubt anyone will read this this late into the story.. oh well.
I spend most my hours in a dark room, doing holographic exposures. More fun than making ordinary photographs. Just get some holographic glass plates, from http://www.geola.com/ for example, then put an object behind the glass plate, and fire a laser through the glass plate. Then develop and bleach it (geola.com also do the chemicals for that - just add water)
Imagine you just threw cricket balls at the ship when it was stationary and it was a perfectly elastic collision. The balls would bounce off at the same speed and the ship would gain speed.
However now imagine you threw the cricket balls at a moving ship. Our cricket balls would bounce back at a slower speed. When it comes to photons, this would be the doppler effect and cause the wavelength to increase.
I fail to see however why the wavelength would decrease when we consider the ship to be stationary, and since we can always consider the ship to be stationary, the energy transfer can't be from this. I think.:)
jeez who on earth would want to derive the square root of a number by hand? Besides, just guess, see if it's too big or small, and guess again. Would get you there fairly quickly.
I agree with open university. My degree was computer science, and currently doing a phd in optics. I'm also doing a physics degree through OU. Its hard to maintain the discipline for OU, but worth it.
Agreed. I'm the sysadmin for about 12 people, and always being interupted to add a new email account, forward someones email to elsewhere, setup a vpn for someone else, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm referring to just parsing in a random string. There's nothing pseudo about it. You don't reuse the input - assume an infinite number of them generated from quantum decay or something.
Actually yeah I do seem to be wrong indeed, but I think so are you. I've spent the last few hours trying to read up on this..
:)
It appears that a quantum machine using qubits only would be just turing complete (at best).
But its an open question - not yet determined - whether all of quantum mechanics can be done on a turing machine.
The interesting part is that its not known whether our universe can be simulated on a turing machine or not...
One thing a turing machine can't do is work with uncomputable reals. A machine that can, I think, is called a hypercomputer. It is unknown whether our universe would support the existence of such a machine. Its quite fascinating.
The random numbers thing is a red herring imho - just require a supply of random numbers as an input. (I think its called a random turing machine or something).
Anyway, the answer seems to be that it is unknown whether you can simulate quantum phenomenon on a random turing machine (turing machine with a source of random numbers).
I'll try to check out the links you provided. Thanks
"and any finite value over infinity counts for zero"
Hmm, no.
If space covers a finite volume, then every part of that space would have an infinite amount of God per unit area inside it assuming God is infinite in space. Course you could have God outside of the space whatever that might mean.
I think the reason is that the smarter you are, the more you realise you know nothing.
It's like any complex problem where it seems easy until you look into it. The more you understand about it, the more you realise how little you understand.
Me? I know that I know nothing at all - so I must be the wisest guy alive *grin*.
"It can also be proven that Quantum Computers are not Turing Machines by the way"
What?? A quantum computer can be emulated by a turing machine so afaics this is just wrong.
Quantum machines are equally as powerful as a turing machine and so is the brain. We know of nothing that is more powerful than a turing machine. I'd be interested to see any (decent) literature that says otherwise. Preferably with a proof.
Also, afaics, it would mean that a God cannot even do this, or if he can, he cannot analyse himself. Either way there would be something God could not do.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sure why not - its not like windows uses it. I've yanked out the bios chip with windows running, put in a faulty one, then flashed that.
What bill is this? url?
And this is why there will always be a kde/gnome divide. Something I like btw. Speaking as KDE coder :)
Very soon now autopackage will support kde - so all kde apps can be installed via it. This will be a huge step IMHO. (There was some discussion how to handle c++ ABI changes which was holding back kde support)
"Not nearly as confusing as why everyone insists on perpetuating the Yes/No/Cancel paradigm."
In KDE having Yes/No/Cancel is considered a bug. If you find any please file a bug against the app.
So a company then says "pull your program or we'll sue you". You have no choice but to comply, guilty or not.
I use pulsed lasers for holography, so use and rely on reciprocity failure. (Consider how short a pulse laser pulse is compared with a camera!)
A linear approximation for calculating the exposure time is just that - an approximation. Where the approximation fails is what we call reciprocity failure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_failure
Makes me wonder why you had to hire 3 people to do the job that a college kid could do in his spare time :)
I doubt anyone will read this this late into the story.. oh well.
:)
I spend most my hours in a dark room, doing holographic exposures. More fun than making ordinary photographs. Just get some holographic glass plates, from http://www.geola.com/ for example, then put an object behind the glass plate, and fire a laser through the glass plate.
Then develop and bleach it (geola.com also do the chemicals for that - just add water)
Tons of fun
Hmm..
:)
Imagine you just threw cricket balls at the ship when it was stationary and it was a perfectly elastic collision. The balls would bounce off at the same speed and the ship would gain speed.
However now imagine you threw the cricket balls at a moving ship. Our cricket balls would bounce back at a slower speed. When it comes to photons, this would be the doppler effect and cause the wavelength to increase.
I fail to see however why the wavelength would decrease when we consider the ship to be stationary, and since we can always consider the ship to be stationary, the energy transfer can't be from this. I think.
No extra energy is needed. Before the momentum was for a stationary sail:
momentum_of_particle + 0
and after its:
-momentum_of_particle + 2*momentum_of_particle
Where 2*momentum_of_particle is now in the sail.
Both before and after have the same momentum.
My gf used to put it like 'If you don't show that you yourself take you seriously, how can you expect other people to?'
Actually the worst part is that Theo is often right, which means you do have to actually listen to him rather than the easier just ignore him.
jeez who on earth would want to derive the square root of a number by hand?
Besides, just guess, see if it's too big or small, and guess again. Would get you there fairly quickly.
I agree with open university. My degree was computer science, and currently doing a phd in optics. I'm also doing a physics degree through OU.
Its hard to maintain the discipline for OU, but worth it.
You the right idea, but totally opposite reasoning.
Confidence in the number one turn on, and generally geeks don't have it. It's certaintly not overconfidence, but underconfidence.
Agreed. I'm the sysadmin for about 12 people, and always being interupted to add a new email account, forward someones email to elsewhere, setup a vpn for someone else, and so on.
Yes, but the parent posts were talking about in the future. Sigh.
I heard that for these purposes the labour force of india+3rd world countries can be considered infinite, thus this wouldn't happen.