Hello Bruno,
I think you are correct, but allowing the observer to be mechanically
described as obeying the wave equation (which solutions obeys to comp),
Hmm well if you have a basis, yes; - but naked infinite-dimensional
Hilbert Space (the everything in QM)?
You put the finger on a
Thank you for a quick answer! I'll take a look at it, my curiosity
approves additional items on my TODO list :-)
Best,
mirek
The classical universal
dovetailer generates easily all the quantum computations, but I find
hard to just define *one* unitary transformation, without measurement,
Hi Bruno,
I have finished the reading of the paper I mentioned (Deutsch's
Universal Quantum Turing Machine revisited) and I see they have very
similar problems, probably better described.
I finished a rather careful reading of that paper (QTM revisited) too,
My question has perhaps no sense at all. Is there a notion of quantum
computation done without any measurement?
Quantum lambda calculus by Andre van Tonder does not containt measurement.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0307150v5
From the abstract, he proves equivalence between his quantum
Goldblatt 1993, Mathematics of Modality
this book is available online:
http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/detail?fileID=458253745
mirek
Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality
I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille
thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only
understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on the
list - so it was easy to translate. I am not so sure I can manage
the
huge Bruxelles
I'm sorry but I can't resist to paste this short conversation between
Lord Blackadder and his servant Baldrick. Maybe you know this british
blackadder comedy.
If you teach: III and III mean 3 and 7, then you said nothing,
just named them.
That was my point. To talk on notation. I
Günther Greindl wrote:
Kim,
great post, thanks!
I second that!
cheers,
mirek
Kim Jones wrote:
Let's keep it simple. Schools and universities (globally identifiable as
'the education industry') have traditionally fulfilled the role of
fountains of knowledge.
..
This blog post
http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/04/faster-than-speeding-photon.html
outlines the basics about the Unruh effect, if there is any.
From Wikipedia:
The Unruh effect is the prediction that an accelerating observer will
observe black-body radiation where an inertial observer would observe
Hi Bruno,
I'd like to let you know that I'm following the serie of your letters.
While I have the background you are covering right now, I still enjoy
your insights.
I joined the list like two years ago and from that time I've read most
of your key papers. Honestly, it is not the easiest stuff
Hi Bruno,
I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
google gave me upon entering
Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
Mirek
for some people I think. It is just unusual.
theorem and the Theaetetical definitions of knowledge.
I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
google gave me upon entering
Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
Well 144?
Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
list or the FOR list.
I am sorry for the delay, I've just got back from my
There has been progress in the direction of finding fully universal
quantum Turing machine.
Construction of a universal quantum computer
Antonio A. Lagana, M. A. Lohe, and Lorenz von Smekal
Physical Review A 79, 052322 (2009) (11 pages)
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.79.052322
I'll
Come on Mirek: Theaetetical is an adjective I have forged from
Theatetus.
Theatetus gives 195.000 results on Google.
Theatetus wiki 4310.
Of course, after all you reference the dialogue Theaetetus in your
papers thus one can easily match the word Theaetetical agains it.
Let me quickly
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Mirek,
Long and perhaps key post.
Thank you a lot for a prompt and long reply. I am digesting it :-)
Just some quick comments.
There is no shame in being ignorant. Only in staying ignorant :)
I've ordered the dialogue from a second-hand book shop :-)
3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { })
If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is
card(A^B)?
I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-)
It's almost like ASCII art. Just wanted to signal that I'm following.
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
m.a. wrote:
a towel into the ring.
I simply don't have the sort of mind that takes to juggling letters,
numbers and symbols in increasingly fine-grained, complex arrangements.
[...]
Marty,
If I can ask, I'd be really interested what do you think of this
socratic experiment
a .
- Original Message -
From: Mirek Dobsicek m.dobsi...@gmail.com
mailto:m.dobsi...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: The seven
Hi Bruno,
I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (DC) assumed
implicitly somewhere here or is it obvious that there is no need for it
(so far)?
Thanks!
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
strong opinion about the Axiom of
Choice. Just trying to understand it. May I ask about your opinion?
Mirek
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Mirek,
On 01 Sep 2009, at 12:25, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (DC)
assumed
implicitly somewhere
in
such fields.
Do you have some links please? Just to check it and write down few new
key words.
Cheers,
Mirek
On 01 Sep 2009, at 14:30, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
The reason why I am puzzled is that I was recently told that in
order to
prove that
* the union of countably many countable sets
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Question to David, and others who could be interested: is the notion
of enumerable and non enumerable set clear? Can you explain why the set
of functions from N to N is not enumerable?
Let us go slow and deep so that everybody can understand, once and for
Hi Bruno,
I'm ready. Luckily, it is not long time ago, I've received my university
degree in CS, so it was rather easy to follow :-)
Sincerely,
Mirek
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-nov.-07, à 17:27, Günther Greindl a écrit :
Dear Bruno,
thanks for your posts! I like them very much!
Hi Bruno,
thank you for your post. I read it a couple of times in order to more or
less grasp it, but it worth it. I have some questions...
Suppose there is a secure universal machine M. The set of expressions
it can compute provide a secure universal language L. That set is not
only
Hi Bruno,
From what you told me, I think you have no problem with Cantor 's
diagonal.
Yep, no problem.
Are you ok with the key post, that is with the two supplementary uses
of the diagonal in the enumerable context?
95% grasped, and for the rest I'm lacking time to do a
sufficient
If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you
simply don't get wavelike interference patterns.
To my knowledge, you don't get interference patterns for *positive*
real-valued Hilbert space, but for real-valued Hilbert space you do.
Check
The Shepherdson Sturgis coffee-bar formal definition of computability.
(A variant by Cutland).
Here is a job offer in an (infinite) coffee bar in Platonia.
(Infinite, just for making things a bit simpler.)
The basic instructions are the following 3 types + 1.
a. - Please
Very interesting thesis Mirek. I have download it, and will certainly
try to dig a bit more on it some week-ends.
Thanks, hopefully you will find something interesting in there.
I see you don't cite Everett, which indeed is not necessary for the
practice of quantum computing. But your
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:35PM +0100, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you
simply don't get wavelike interference patterns.
To my knowledge, you don't get interference patterns for *positive*
real-valued
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Title: SUMMARY (was: OM = SIGMA_1)
I send to David Nyman (the 06 Nov 2007) a little planning:
1) Cantor's diagonal
2) Does the universal digital machine exist?
3) Lobian machines, who and what are they?
4) The 1-person and the 3- machine.
5) Lobian machines'
5) describe informally the coffee-bar language, and, choosing an order
on its alphabet, write the first 7 jobs in the lexicographical order.
The alphabet contains all symbols needed in the jobs, including
commas,
parentheses, etc. + some grammatical rules making clear that Z(23) is
a
Hi Bruno and everybody,
I
hope to send my comments and/or 'OK' sign :-) on Monday.
Take it easy. There is no deadline on the list.
Making a declaration helps me to get things done. Yet I'm late. Whenever
you see such sentences in my posts, you can skip it, they are mostly for
me :-)
Time for the Kleene diagonal argument. Opps, a language L that I dreamt
of does not exist. I have to relax from the condition that M on E_i
always return a number in a finite time. Well, what to return if not a
number ... nothing - M experiences an infinite loop.
What a world, ok, my
But thanks to that crashing, *Church thesis remains consistent*. I
would just say An existence of a universal language is not ruled out.
I am ok with you. Consistent (in math) means basically not rule out.
Formally consistent means not formally ruled out, or not refutable.
That is:
Hi Bruno,
The UDA, in english, can be found here:
*/The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations/*, (Invited Talk SANE 2004).
Click on that title, or copy the following in your browser:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
(if you study it I would suggest
Hi Bruno,
yes, I am now a bit busy. Lecturing, seminars,.. wedding planning :-)
I am somewhere in the middle your paper. Regarding the very point of the
described 1-indeterminancy, I have no problem there at all. Anyone who
ever called a fork() unix function (read, cut, duplicate) followed by
Hi Bruno!
I wish you the best to you and to your girlfriend.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your wish.
offered to you through the windows, like it happened to a friend of
mine (and she threw the computer with!). I reassure you: I think that
was exceptional! Presently I am not so lucky
37 matches
Mail list logo
