Comments for Michael Nielsen http://michaelnielsen.org/blog Mon, 07 May 2012 21:35:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 Comment on Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted? by Michael Nielsen: Doing Science In the Open at the University Campus in Rijeka, Croatia | InTechWeb Blog http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/is-scientific-publishing-about-to-be-disrupted/comment-page-4/#comment-36487 Michael Nielsen: Doing Science In the Open at the University Campus in Rijeka, Croatia | InTechWeb Blog Mon, 07 May 2012 21:35:26 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=629#comment-36487 [...] Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted? [...] [...] Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted? [...]

]]> Comment on The Polymath project: scope of participation by Week 10 – Open Science « Let it happen, Let it go http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/the-polymath-project-scope-of-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-36480 Week 10 – Open Science « Let it happen, Let it go Sun, 06 May 2012 13:11:14 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=584#comment-36480 [...] Nielsen, M 2009, blog, “The Polymath project: scope of participation” [...] [...] Nielsen, M 2009, blog, “The Polymath project: scope of participation” [...]

]]> Comment on Quantum computing for everyone by Ivo Rutten http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-everyone/comment-page-1/#comment-36449 Ivo Rutten Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:09:02 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=459#comment-36449 Further to the above, I spotted a few typo's that make things confusing, here is the text improved: ___________ Thank you for your courageous attempt to explain what a QC is like. I -however- got stuck with the following, and this nags me too much to be able to follow the rest: You state a 20-bit conventional ‘computer’ can be described in 20 numbers, and a 20-qubit QC needs 2^20 numbers to be fully described. ….but that is not right, is it? Even if the conventional (binary) computer were to consist of nothing more than 20 flipflops (which it doesn’t, it consists of millions of them), even then the group of 20 flipflops can be in any of 2^20 states. Of course these 2^20th states could each be given a number, and to do that one -indeed- needs 20 binary digits only. My point is: I do not get why this is different in a QC with -say- 20 of them berylium atoms? It would imply a single of these atoms can have two states, and if you bring two of them together the pair could have more than 4 states, where the proximity triggers the emergence of the extra ones, correct? If I try to follow your description, we would need 2^2=4 numbers to describe the state of two atoms….are those numbers not 00, 01, 10 and 11, then? Or do you mean to say that a single Qubit (a qubit in a group of 1 can have 2 states), and each qubit in a group of 2 can have 4 individual states, so that the group of two can have not 2^2 but 4^2 states?? If the latter is what you mean, an QC -unlike a binary cc, has a double exponential growth of states: an n-flipflop binary CC can be in any of 2^n states, and an n-qubit QC can then be in any of (2^n)^n states. Anyhow..I’m confused, as may be obvious from the above. Would love your clarification, thanks in advance. Ivo. Further to the above, I spotted a few typo’s that make things confusing, here is the text improved:
___________
Thank you for your courageous attempt to explain what a QC is like. I -however- got stuck with the following, and this nags me too much to be able to follow the rest:

You state a 20-bit conventional ‘computer’ can be described in 20 numbers, and a 20-qubit QC needs 2^20 numbers to be fully described.

….but that is not right, is it? Even if the conventional (binary) computer were to consist of nothing more than 20 flipflops (which it doesn’t, it consists of millions of them), even then the group of 20 flipflops can be in any of 2^20 states. Of course these 2^20th states could each be given a number, and to do that one -indeed- needs 20 binary digits only.

My point is: I do not get why this is different in a QC with -say- 20 of them berylium atoms? It would imply a single of these atoms can have two states, and if you bring two of them together the pair could have more than 4 states, where the proximity triggers the emergence of the extra ones, correct?

If I try to follow your description, we would need 2^2=4 numbers to describe the state of two atoms….are those numbers not 00, 01, 10 and 11, then? Or do you mean to say that a single Qubit (a qubit in a group of 1 can have 2 states), and each qubit in a group of 2 can have 4 individual states, so that the group of two can have not 2^2 but 4^2 states??

If the latter is what you mean, an QC -unlike a binary cc, has a double exponential growth of states: an n-flipflop binary CC can be in any of 2^n states, and an n-qubit QC can then be in any of (2^n)^n states.

Anyhow..I’m confused, as may be obvious from the above. Would love your clarification, thanks in advance.

Ivo.

]]> Comment on Quantum computing for everyone by Ivo Rutten http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-everyone/comment-page-1/#comment-36448 Ivo Rutten Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:03:24 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=459#comment-36448 Dear Dr. Nielsen, Thank ou for your courageous attempt to explain what a QC is like. I -however- got stuck with the following, and this nags me too much to be able to follow the rest: You state a 20-bit conventional 'computer' can be described in 20 numbers, and a 20-qubit QC needs 2^20 numbers ....but that is not right, is it? Even if the conventional computer were to consist of nothing more than 20 flipflops (which it doesn't, it consists of millions of them), even then the group of 20 flipflops can be in any of 2^20 states. Of course these 2^20th states could each be given a number, and to do that one -indeed- needs 20 binary digits only. My point is: I do not get why this is different in a QC with -say- 20 of them berylium atoms? It would imply a single of these atoms can have two states, and if you bring two of them together the pair could have more than 4 states, where the proximity triggers the emergence of the extra ones. If I try to follow your description, we would need 2^2=4 numbers to describe the state of two atoms....are those numbers not 00, 01, 10 and 11, then?, or do you mean to say that each Qubit in a group of 1 can have 2 states, and each qubit in a group can have 4 individual states, so that the group of two can have not 2^2 but 4^2 states?? If the latter is what you mean, an QC -unlike a binary cc, has a duble exponential growth of states: a n flipflop binary CC can be in any of 2^n states, and an n-qubit QC can be in any of (2^n)n states. Anyhow..I'm confused, as may be obvious from the above. Would love your clarification, thanks in advance. Ivo. Dear Dr. Nielsen,

Thank ou for your courageous attempt to explain what a QC is like. I -however- got stuck with the following, and this nags me too much to be able to follow the rest:

You state a 20-bit conventional ‘computer’ can be described in 20 numbers, and a 20-qubit QC needs 2^20 numbers

….but that is not right, is it? Even if the conventional computer were to consist of nothing more than 20 flipflops (which it doesn’t, it consists of millions of them), even then the group of 20 flipflops can be in any of 2^20 states. Of course these 2^20th states could each be given a number, and to do that one -indeed- needs 20 binary digits only.

My point is: I do not get why this is different in a QC with -say- 20 of them berylium atoms? It would imply a single of these atoms can have two states, and if you bring two of them together the pair could have more than 4 states, where the proximity triggers the emergence of the extra ones.

If I try to follow your description, we would need 2^2=4 numbers to describe the state of two atoms….are those numbers not 00, 01, 10 and 11, then?, or do you mean to say that each Qubit in a group of 1 can have 2 states, and each qubit in a group can have 4 individual states, so that the group of two can have not 2^2 but 4^2 states??

If the latter is what you mean, an QC -unlike a binary cc, has a duble exponential growth of states: a n flipflop binary CC can be in any of 2^n states, and an n-qubit QC can be in any of (2^n)n states.

Anyhow..I’m confused, as may be obvious from the above. Would love your clarification, thanks in advance.

Ivo.

]]> Comment on Quantum computing for the determined by Adrian Jackson http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-the-determined/comment-page-2/#comment-36420 Adrian Jackson Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:12:32 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=927#comment-36420 Thanks very much. Superbly clear presentation. Another vote for the complete series. Thanks very much. Superbly clear presentation. Another vote for the complete series.

]]> Comment on Reinventing Discovery by Thoughts on Michael Nielsen’s “Reinventing Discovery” « Barbara T. Ozog's Blog http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/reinventing-discovery/comment-page-2/#comment-36405 Thoughts on Michael Nielsen’s “Reinventing Discovery” « Barbara T. Ozog's Blog Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:42:46 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=983#comment-36405 [...] Last week’s New Media Faculty Seminar reading was “Reinventing Discovery” [Chapter 1 in Michael Nielsen's Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Information on the book may be found here http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/reinventing-discovery/. [...] [...] Last week’s New Media Faculty Seminar reading was “Reinventing Discovery” [Chapter 1 in Michael Nielsen's Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Information on the book may be found here http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/reinventing-discovery/. [...]

]]> Comment on Kasparov versus the World by Michael Nielsen http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-36392 Michael Nielsen Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:53:06 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-36392 It appears to have been a hack, unfortunately, by someone acting alone. A real pity, although in its way this also carries lessons about the capacity of individuals to sabotage collective problem-solving. It appears to have been a hack, unfortunately, by someone acting alone. A real pity, although in its way this also carries lessons about the capacity of individuals to sabotage collective problem-solving.

]]> Comment on Reinventing Discovery by Libros para el 23 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/reinventing-discovery/comment-page-2/#comment-36389 Libros para el 23 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:47:36 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=983#comment-36389 [...] al que alguna vez detentó el monopolio de la verdad. Michael Nielsen aporta ejemplos claros, en su Reinventing discovery. The new era of networked science, de la necesidad de reinventar la lógica del descubrimiento científico abriéndose a la [...] [...] al que alguna vez detentó el monopolio de la verdad. Michael Nielsen aporta ejemplos claros, en su Reinventing discovery. The new era of networked science, de la necesidad de reinventar la lógica del descubrimiento científico abriéndose a la [...]

]]> Comment on Kasparov versus the World by Bruce Arnold http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-36384 Bruce Arnold Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:45:26 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267#comment-36384 This is a very interesting article, but what I find more interesting is how much one's understanding of the episode is enhanced by the diverse and informative comments. This webpage effectively replicates the conditions of the game it describes, where (original post + comments) produces a deeper knowledge. Kudos to all. On a related issue, I haven't yet done my research, but it's curious what went wrong at move 51. Was it a hack / foul play? Was it that Ms. Krush's advice had been so overwhelmingly accepted by that point that the voters simply endorsed her move without working quite as hard to help inform her recommendation (i.e., had group-think set in)? Fascinating. This is a very interesting article, but what I find more interesting is how much one’s understanding of the episode is enhanced by the diverse and informative comments. This webpage effectively replicates the conditions of the game it describes, where (original post + comments) produces a deeper knowledge. Kudos to all.
On a related issue, I haven’t yet done my research, but it’s curious what went wrong at move 51. Was it a hack / foul play? Was it that Ms. Krush’s advice had been so overwhelmingly accepted by that point that the voters simply endorsed her move without working quite as hard to help inform her recommendation (i.e., had group-think set in)? Fascinating.

]]> Comment on Quantum computing for everyone by Urock http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-everyone/comment-page-1/#comment-36378 Urock Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:32:53 +0000 http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=459#comment-36378 Would a decent comparison be a vinyl record that uses natural mechanics and has no numerical values of sound compared to a cd with a digital, numerical representation of what used to be a smooth continuous sound wave? You can get pretty close with a cd, and using a higher bit and sample rate (aka, stronger computer) gives you a more refined version of the soundwave, but you can still zoom in and see jagged edges to the wave no matter how refined you go, whereas the analogue piece of vinyl is a pure wave which really represents what actually happened (or will happen) ... Still don't know how you would actually apply the quantum computer to a real life situation, it seems to be a tool to measure itself, like a magic 8 ball Would a decent comparison be a vinyl record that uses natural mechanics and has no numerical values of sound compared to a cd with a digital, numerical representation of what used to be a smooth continuous sound wave? You can get pretty close with a cd, and using a higher bit and sample rate (aka, stronger computer) gives you a more refined version of the soundwave, but you can still zoom in and see jagged edges to the wave no matter how refined you go, whereas the analogue piece of vinyl is a pure wave which really represents what actually happened (or will happen) …
Still don’t know how you would actually apply the quantum computer to a real life situation, it seems to be a tool to measure itself, like a magic 8 ball

]]>