Yeah, it's a strange thing that psychotherapists put their patients on a couch. They should know that people lie there. So why do they expect to get any truthful answer?:-)
Hi. I have a very stupid question for someone working in the field of entanglement.
Spin is measured as up or down, but presumably the spin is actually at some angle in between. So the up or down measurement is rounding the actually spin. Is the resulting rounding error of any significance? Is the accumulation of rounding errors on multiple measurements of any significance? Or, as is most likely, is this a nonsensical question?
Thanks
The measurement is not rounding the real spin value. After the measurement, the spin is up or down (in the measurement direction), not any angle in between (assuming an ideal measurement, of course). And the direction of the spin before measurement decides the probability of getting up or down (that is, even if your spin is almost up you still have a (low) probability to get "down" (rounding "almost up" would instead always give "up"). Since there's no rounding, there are no rounding errors either (there are, of course, errors due to your necessarily non-perfect measurement equipment, just like in classical physics; unlike in classical physics, this can result in you getting sometimes the opposite result, but only with low probability).
In mathematics (which basically includes physics),
Your parenthetical remark is where you went wrong. There's a difference between the use of the word "theory" between mathematics and physics. A mathematical theory isn't a physical theory. A physical theory may qualify as mathematical theory as soon as you rip all the physics content from it, though.
Indeed, it's worse. While I don't know much about string theory, I do work in the field of entanglement. And there's no way you could experimentally test this classification, for the simple reason that it's a classification. It may be a more or less useful classification, but you cannot experimentally test whether a classification is right (apart from that an reasonable entanglement classification has to be SLOCC invariant, which this classification is, but of course the others are as well). Trying to experimentally test if a classification is right is like doing an experiment on whether classifying a fruit on its color or on its size is more correct. What you can do is to evaluate the usefulness of a classification (i.e. does it tell you something interesting about the state, like what you can do with it; in the fruit example, you might find that classifying fruits on nutrition value may generally be more useful than classifying on water content).
Since string theory cannot be distinguished from , e.g., QM (i.e., string theory is untestable), does that not also imply that QM cannot be distinguished from string theory (i.e., QM is untestable)? So why is QM given precedence?
Because string theory builds on QM. Therefore there are only three logical possibilities:
Both QM and string theory are right.
QM is right, but string theory is wrong.
Both QM and string theory are wrong.
Note that this does not include your suggestion (ST right, but QM wrong). Given that experimental data overwhelmingly confirmed QM, of those three options only two remain, which only differ in the question whether string theory is right.
That sort of fine means nothing to someone who makes MILLIONS of packages for their products and it may well lead to then knowingly using old patent information to both ward off other potential competitors - and in the worst case, pay a one off $250 fine.
As I read the GP, he didn't say that the company should only pay $250. He said that whoever brought it up should get $250, instead of half of the fine.
Well, if you want to keep tension, then just remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time, and information found there can always be inaccurate. Maybe just before you looked, someone modified the ending because he saw the play, was on the wrong track up until the end, and wanted at least to have been right according to Wikipedia.
Well, if you manage to get your "updates" accepted by the machine's update process, you pwn the machine after the update anyway, even with conventional rebooting updates.
The news is not that there exists technology to update without reboot (it indeed existed for a long time), but that this technology is now available for Linux.
A lot of murders are relationship related (like killing a wife or husband caught with infidelity). Those murderers generally won't be a threat to the public, because it's a very specific condition which led to the crime. Of course you'd not let the psychopathic killer on this system.
But the quantum-generated key is used as one-time pad, which is provably secure as long as the key isn't revealed. At least that's how it is supposed to be done (I don't know the specific device, but I can't imagine them doing it differently).
I actually debated with myself if it was NP or NP-complete or NP-hard, and I'll stand by the NP-Complete designation. If you tortured a travelling salesman for the optimal route he could easily spit out (along with his teeth, presumably) various possibles, which you could then "easily check" (including keeping an eye out for repetitions, of course.) Ergo: NP-Complete.
I also explicitly noted the exception that the tortured person has to know the answer for reliably getting a result (OK, strictly speaking, I only made that restriction for cryptographic keys). Since a salesman (or anyone else) generally doesn't know the optimal solution to the travelling salesman problem, torturing him will not reliably get you the correct solution, despite being able to check the solution. Therefore getting information through torture is not NP-hard, and therefore also not NP-complete.
The object of torture is not now and never has been to determine the truth.
In most cases it hasn't been. But I know of at least one case of (threatened) torture where the objective was to actually get information (about where an abducted child was hidden, after the abductor already admitted he had done it). And it was actually successful (well, sort of: the child was already dead by then).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's a strange thing that psychotherapists put their patients on a couch. They should know that people lie there. So why do they expect to get any truthful answer? :-)
Hi. I have a very stupid question for someone working in the field of entanglement.
Spin is measured as up or down, but presumably the spin is actually at some angle in between. So the up or down measurement is rounding the actually spin. Is the resulting rounding error of any significance? Is the accumulation of rounding errors on multiple measurements of any significance? Or, as is most likely, is this a nonsensical question?
Thanks
The measurement is not rounding the real spin value. After the measurement, the spin is up or down (in the measurement direction), not any angle in between (assuming an ideal measurement, of course). And the direction of the spin before measurement decides the probability of getting up or down (that is, even if your spin is almost up you still have a (low) probability to get "down" (rounding "almost up" would instead always give "up"). Since there's no rounding, there are no rounding errors either (there are, of course, errors due to your necessarily non-perfect measurement equipment, just like in classical physics; unlike in classical physics, this can result in you getting sometimes the opposite result, but only with low probability).
I'm sorry, can you state this in terms of cars? Thanks.
Your Fiat isn't a Porsche just because the motor of your Fiat is based on the same principles as the motor of a Porsche.
You mean, a string of turtles?
But isn't that difference just academic? :-)
Actually the God explanation replaces one question (Why does the universe exist?) with two (Why does God exist? And why did he make the universe?).
Your parenthetical remark is where you went wrong. There's a difference between the use of the word "theory" between mathematics and physics. A mathematical theory isn't a physical theory. A physical theory may qualify as mathematical theory as soon as you rip all the physics content from it, though.
Indeed, it's worse. While I don't know much about string theory, I do work in the field of entanglement. And there's no way you could experimentally test this classification, for the simple reason that it's a classification. It may be a more or less useful classification, but you cannot experimentally test whether a classification is right (apart from that an reasonable entanglement classification has to be SLOCC invariant, which this classification is, but of course the others are as well). Trying to experimentally test if a classification is right is like doing an experiment on whether classifying a fruit on its color or on its size is more correct. What you can do is to evaluate the usefulness of a classification (i.e. does it tell you something interesting about the state, like what you can do with it; in the fruit example, you might find that classifying fruits on nutrition value may generally be more useful than classifying on water content).
Because string theory builds on QM. Therefore there are only three logical possibilities:
Note that this does not include your suggestion (ST right, but QM wrong). Given that experimental data overwhelmingly confirmed QM, of those three options only two remain, which only differ in the question whether string theory is right.
I'm sure Apple will have no problem to sign a contract to never produce any golf equipment.
I never opted out of Google Buzz. Or any other personalized Google service. I don't think they just created a Google account for me.
But how should the general public know that it's an Apple product if they don't put an "i" at the beginning? :-)
As I read the GP, he didn't say that the company should only pay $250. He said that whoever brought it up should get $250, instead of half of the fine.
Well, you answered it yourself:
That's clearly success!
So you propose to plant trees at the upper edge of the atmosphere to prevent it from being blown away? :-)
You already can turn off the internet! (allow popups for that site).
Well, they want to make the failure faster: Instead of waiting for the malware to shut down the internet, they do it themselves.
Well, if you want to keep tension, then just remember that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time, and information found there can always be inaccurate. Maybe just before you looked, someone modified the ending because he saw the play, was on the wrong track up until the end, and wanted at least to have been right according to Wikipedia.
Well, if you manage to get your "updates" accepted by the machine's update process, you pwn the machine after the update anyway, even with conventional rebooting updates.
The news is not that there exists technology to update without reboot (it indeed existed for a long time), but that this technology is now available for Linux.
Unless they are in uninterruptible sleep.
Give me your phone and an axe, and I'll show you. :-)
A lot of murders are relationship related (like killing a wife or husband caught with infidelity). Those murderers generally won't be a threat to the public, because it's a very specific condition which led to the crime. Of course you'd not let the psychopathic killer on this system.
But the quantum-generated key is used as one-time pad, which is provably secure as long as the key isn't revealed. At least that's how it is supposed to be done (I don't know the specific device, but I can't imagine them doing it differently).
I also explicitly noted the exception that the tortured person has to know the answer for reliably getting a result (OK, strictly speaking, I only made that restriction for cryptographic keys). Since a salesman (or anyone else) generally doesn't know the optimal solution to the travelling salesman problem, torturing him will not reliably get you the correct solution, despite being able to check the solution. Therefore getting information through torture is not NP-hard, and therefore also not NP-complete.
In most cases it hasn't been. But I know of at least one case of (threatened) torture where the objective was to actually get information (about where an abducted child was hidden, after the abductor already admitted he had done it). And it was actually successful (well, sort of: the child was already dead by then).