 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 281 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613457 Today 0 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
quantum computing fascinates me. i was reading an article about a very basic quantum computer at yale that can predict with 80% accuracy the results of a flip of a coin. or something like that. something having to do with tapping into the ether of the universe via entanglement that allows problem solving to be done with an efficiency that would appear miraculous to us. we're used to "yes" or "no," or binary computing, whereas quantum computing has both yes and no and neither yes nor no in full effect. i was also reading that our own brains use quantum computing, which is pretty much the foundation for consciousness. we're living in crazy times, people. *pops a wheelie* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*pops back* 30% consisted of the neither yes or no predictions which somehow got counted to the "good predictions" class. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
run and entangle that |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
any good recommended reading for a novice? i'm reading "quantum" by manjit kumar right now but it's more of a historical account of bohrs v einstein back in the day. a good primer it seems. but i'm ready to trip the fuck out really hard and have a brain anurism on an entaglement tip. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is it fair to say that the most capable minds in history were/are physicists? also, how much DMT do I have to smoke before I can grasp reality the same way someone like niels bohr did? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you'd do good to finding books on how to understand women. you don't get more entanglement with any other subject. and brain aneurisms are common as well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
seriously though: if you really want to understand, try to understand the thinking of someone with a combination of schizophrenic autism and narcissistic tendencies. success almost guaranteed. roughly 80%, apparently. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
L S D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fuckwagon- Apparently the videos are not numbered but the link should show the playlist on the right. Hadamard gate is the first quantum gate explained that can't be done in with classical mechanics. What's this article you are talking about? The only application I've heard for quantum computers is factoring (ie cracking cyphers). Predicting the outcome of a coin toss doesn't really make any sense. You can build a machine to toss a coin with approaching 100% outcome of heads or tails using just classical mechanics. (It really should be noted though that there is still "divergent" behavior in classical mechanics whether that has to do with quantum mechanics I couldn't say) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think the idea was to build a machine which was able to flip a coin and throw 100% heads. The flipping is random (a perfect 50/50), and the quantum-computer predicts the right side in 80% of the throws, consistently. (Everyone/thing has a chance to predict 100%, it's just unlikely) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A quantum computer predicting 80% of coin flips seems nonsense btw. Because, by definition a coin flip needs to be 50/50. And a computer being able to consistently predict 80% of the flips, implies non-randomness (and therefore it's not an actual coin flip). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Internet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck this shit. tails never fails. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Big deal my comnputer can flip the coin itself then read what the coin says with 100% accuracy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what if its a bitcoin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
THERE IS NO COIN |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
taking_the_piz I am using the example to demonstrate that the uncertainty of the outcome isn't the result of quantum mechanics. It's because of the fact that a coin toss is a linear dynamical system that is sensitive to initial conditions. In the case of a human coin-tosser the initial conditions are different and unknown each time the outcome approaches 50% in the limit. Fix (or measure) the initial conditions and you can simulate the outcome. Nowhere does quantum computing enter the picture. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I haven't seen anyone in this thread making the claim that the uncertainty of the outcome of a coin toss is (directly) related to quantum mechanics. Only that a quantum computer can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 80% accuracy. Somehow a very basic quantum computer at yale that can predict with 80% accuracy the results of a flip of a coin evolved into a machine to toss a coin with approaching 100% outcome of heads or tails using just classical mechanics. This looks like a very non-linear and chaotic development. I probably still don't understand your post. But seeing your reply, I get the feeling this is mutual. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why would you say that a QUANTUM COMPUTER can predict the outcome of a coin toss with 80% accuracy? What prevents ANY COMPUTER from predicting the outcome of a coin toss with 80% accuracy? Can you not see the difference or are you just taking the piss? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1. who did? 2. randomness 3. those are two questions with an "or" in between. so the answer is 42. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes 42. my pocket calculator has confirmed it. i like to recalculate everything i do by head. but it always takes a little longer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1. a very basic quantum computer at yale that can predict with 80% accuracy the results of a flip of a coin did 2. Wrong. The answer is: nothing does, it is a problem in classical mechanics, not quantum mechanics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1. see the op 2. again mechanics and physics. how about the statistical concept of "the coin flip" instead of "the mechanical process"? i've got a hunch that the op was referring to the "statistical" coin flip. not the "mechanical". is this where our difference is? because, otherwise you might as well talk chinese. i don't see how classical or quantum mechanics is of any importance to the statistical coin flip. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fuck wagon! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To put it that way is completely misleading to the average person which is why I was making example of it. And quantum mechanics has everything to do with the "statistical coin flip" by which I think you mean "normally distributed stochastic process" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right on all accounts. you sir deserve a medal. but the average person would still have no clue. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
more specifically, i read the coin flip as a bernoulli trial. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
