mathgenius

And very creepy too. I loved it.

Keep looking!

People thought the invention of the telegraph was going to bring about world peace.

Yes, and it's worth pointing out these examples because they don't work as quantum memories. Two more: magnetic memory based on magnets which are magnetic because they are build from many tiny (atomic) magnets, all (mostly) in agreement. Optical storage is similar, much like parent's example of a signal being slowly sent over a wire.

So the next question is why doesn't this work for quantum information? And this is a really great question which gets at the heart of quantum versus classical. Classical information is just so fantastically easy to duplicate that normally we don't even notice this, it's just too obvious a fact... until we get to quantum.

Ternary computers have 8 tits to a byte.

This is likely the same as a distributive law of monads... https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/distributive+law on good days i might understand this stuff..

Another less high-brow connection: associativity of matrix multiplication relies on the usual distributivity law..

Can we add caffeine as a cause? It was introduced in england around 1650 and then a few decades of people getting high from that and voila, steam power!

For me objects capture some notion of invariants in data that would otherwise just be a bunch of variables. This is usually indicated by functions that act on the data maintaining the invariants. Those functions are the methods.

I get that many people either don't see, or don't place much importance on the invariants of their data and so they are happy writing functions and even get annoyed by people and their over use of objects. Maybe these people are just way smarter than me; I definitely need objects/classes to help me organize my code.

But no one seems to listen to me.

just buy it and give it to people.. that's how i came across this book & already i bought a copy for a friend.

Yeah I'm guessing these poles just get out in front of the wing aerodynamics enough that they can sense whats going on with the air so that air pockets/turbulence can be predicted. Either that or we are missing a decimal place, maybe they mean 10 milliseconds?

I don't think it's possible for a packer to become a mapper. We're talking about a strategy (being a packer) with some deep seated emotional roots. They have probably been at it since age 3. Rather than trying to turn them into a mapper, better to find what they are actually good at.

This has got me inspired again about my own history project. It is so easy nowadays to go back to original sources and unearth these hidden or forgotten narratives... and then return to tell these stories in a way that gives another point of view on our current day. Thankyou to the author of this article!

That's about how to solve problems, but to do research you need to find good problems, and that turns out to be more important, imo. How do you pick "major problem X" anyway? This strategy from Tao just leads to incremental results...

Yeah, this is actually a great way to explain the gate synthesis problem in a quantum computer, it's like solving a high dimensional rubik's cube !

There certainly is a cultural division, but maybe there is no fundamental distinction to be made. Both art and science help us make sense of the world. They both tell stories, about an apparently objective reality. They both excite and inspire, and enable us to transcend a limited point-of-view.

Galois theory is an inherent part of language.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2568

The answer to these questions is the Riemann hypothesis. John Baez just wrote a related paper about "motives" for beginners (undergrads?) [1]. It's worth a read even if you squint at the equations like i do, there's plenty of interesting commentary as well.

[1] https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/motives.pdf

Yeah, it's a reference to how "category theory" generalizes "group theory". So if transformations in a group are called "symmetries" then you might call the transformations in a category "generalized symmetries" or "non-invertible symmetries" as in this article.

Deterministic if/then statements

This was the pinnacle of AI in the 80's. They called them "expert systems".

Part of this I would attribute to the general collapse of western civilization that we seem to be witnessing. I think it helps to recognize this is what is happening.

As for exchanges, I would recommend Bitstamp [1]. It is the oldest crypto exchange & never been hacked (that i know of). The original owners sold out a few years ago, but it's still going rock-solid.

[1] https://www.bitstamp.net/

The fee is the y-intercept, and the exchange rate is the slope. These businesses make money by manipulating either or bother of these numbers.

Vitamin-B in liquid form.

I like the many-interpretations interpretation of quantum. It says that you should believe all of them, or rather, choose a different interpretation based on your mood. For the optimistic, it's many-worlds. If you are going out tonight & hoping to get lucky, it better be Copenhagen. If you are falling into despair then it's going to be superdeterminism for you.

Patrick Boyle on youtube is pretty good on this kind of thing. And the guy has just about the driest sense of humour i've ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/@PBoyle

John Baez has written a lot about this stuff. Try this: https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0340 . There's also his TWF column.

The article seems to be implying that mathematicians study knots because there's lots of fun to be had. This is partly true, but there's other more profound reasons. For example: higher dimensional algebra. The "usual" algebra is just one dimensional, but people have noticed that in many cases this is just a projection (shadow) of higher dimensional systems, where the symbols can interact in more than just a linear direction. And once you get to three dimensions hey presto your algebra can get knotted!

I think "higher dimensional algebra" is some kind of attempt at doing this. String diagrams (for tensor networks) is one example. John Baez has written about this stuff.

Great article. One thing missing: find some genius programmer and learn from them! It can be just a couple of hours of watching them work, or pairing with them, etc.

I'd suggest hanging out with some other creatives, of whatever flavour interests you. It's hard to light the fire all by yourself!

The Vic-20 had about that much, what a glorious beast it was.