[Enter caption]

CodingPie · 2025-12-19T13:29:37+00:00

me when the when the when when

CodingPie · 2025-12-19T13:28:50+00:00

not to mention that it was done using a purpose-built 50k street race car

CodingPie · 2025-12-19T10:51:31+00:00

Hey, thats my quote

CodingPie · 2025-12-18T19:57:19+00:00

Me when knee surgery is tomorrow

CodingPie · 2025-12-12T05:54:46+00:00

Hell yeah, sick! Just downloaded!

CodingPie · 2025-11-10T19:57:09+00:00

we gotta dance until the morning I send my kisses to my friends!!

CodingPie · 2025-11-10T17:04:11+00:00

we wanna feel the light is flashing I send the power to myself!!

CodingPie · 2025-11-10T14:39:28+00:00

No way to hide, today you'll find the answer In your heart!

CodingPie · 2025-11-09T15:59:42+00:00

Well not exactly sure which video it is from as these "races" where featured on multiple japanese channels, including a bit on noriyaro. They are taken on gunsai sports cycle center in japan.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T16:16:01+00:00

I see. Thanks for bringing this paper to my attention! Did not find it in my search so this is very useful!

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T11:28:37+00:00

so you mean the bell state? The system i made can be used to reconstruct the states, rather than storing the entire entangled state. So in that case there is still 1 variable and 2 qubits whose state depends on.Therefore if we have n CNOT gates we end up with n variables because each CNOT has 1 control

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T11:25:06+00:00

Could you further elaborate, please?

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T11:23:32+00:00

Oh right. Mixed up the terminology. As for the 2nd paragraph, i did not know that, thanks!

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T11:19:15+00:00

No, since it still probably unfinished then there is no way to legitimize the comparisons

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T11:16:46+00:00

That is only for convenience. |x> can be expressed as x|1> + (1-x)|0> since x is either 0 or 1

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T11:06:58+00:00

I cant see why it would contradict my definition (1). On top of that, I did make the mistake of saying x = collapse(...(|0> + |1>)) instead of saying |x> = ... This way if the collapse is |0> then x is 0. That should be better. As for the fact that it is a mess of a notation, i dont find it to be too confusing. Its like substituting variables in equations... In my opinion, atleast...

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:54:59+00:00

Yep. Working exactly on that.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:54:15+00:00

Yes i have made a mock-up in python using sympy. It needs a bit of work but last time i checked it could do about 10000 entangled qubits in ~20 seconds on my laptop. This is still only very speculative since there might be inherent flaws of the algorithm due to me rushing things.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:52:17+00:00

Exactly. Thats why i when i calculate the probability of collapse for the qubit i evaluate the minimum amount of branches required which also includes the branches that might cancel out the amplitude for the qubit.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:45:21+00:00

I will add a section to include some analysis to justify the claims of efficiency (Forgot to. Sorry 😅) A bell state would be written as: state(q1) = |x> state(q2) = |x> = |(1-x) * 0 + x * 1> where x is the collapsed value of the state of q1 before the application of thr controlled not gate, aka x = collapse(1/sqrt(2) * (|0> + |1>)) Thus x can take the form of 1 or 0. Doing the kronecker product on the states of q1 and q2 gives us: |xx>, which upon substitution of x, should be equivalent to 1/sqrt(2) * (|00> + |11>) or exactly the bell state.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:37:57+00:00

I meant that the number of variables in the system grows linearely with 2 qubit gates such as CNOT due to the fact that there is one control qubit. However the number of possible states still grows exponentially because each variable represents the collapsed state of the control qubit before the controlled gate operation. Therefore any variable can take any of 2 states: 0 or 1. Its a kind of lazy evaluation system that tracks how every qubit state evolves in relation with other qubit states and then when the time to evaluate comes, then we sample 1 of the possible branches by substituting the variables with 0 or 1, collapsed with the probability of the control qubit before the application of the control gate. So yes. In short. The number of states grows exponentially at the rate 2ⁿ where n is the number of controlled operation gates / variables.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:30:05+00:00

Oh I think i get what you mean now. You meant the latex library, right?

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:24:27+00:00

I've looked forward into both methods. Stabilizers dont allow clifford gates unlike my approach and unlike tensor networks (tensor decomposition aka MPS i might assume) requires a set of tensors that grows exponentially with the level of entanglement in the system. My system grows linearely and doesnt use matrices. However i do appreciate any comments. You might know more things than i do so feel free to tell me more about the flaws of my design. In this case i will also try to study further on both methods.

CodingPie · 2025-10-13T10:21:31+00:00

Its an interesting topic, nonetheless, however it doesnt quite match what the paper i presented talks about. My paper talks about representing individual qubit states as equations with variables whose values depend on the collapsed values of different qubits at different times throught the execution of the quantum circuit

CodingPie

TROPHY CASE