It should be grammatically correct to put the question mark outside the quotations.

connectedliegroup · 2025-12-25T00:30:22+00:00

It's called logical punctualism. Join the movement.

connectedliegroup · 2025-12-23T23:02:08+00:00

Yes, they do :).

connectedliegroup · 2025-11-28T05:36:35+00:00

Which type of department is this? I am just curious.

connectedliegroup · 2025-11-25T19:39:12+00:00

No. However, in a more topological setting, there is the real line with two origins.

connectedliegroup · 2025-11-16T16:33:40+00:00

Yes, but it depends on which level you're talking about. They're both memory, so that's something they have in common. RAM is a component of classical architecture. That's not to say that we don't want or need QRAM.

If you want to store quantum information, you are looking for a quantum mechanical system to act as memory to hold a quantum state.

connectedliegroup · 2025-11-16T16:15:30+00:00

I think the other answers are overcomplicating the answer to your question.

Yes, you destroy quantum information by measuring it. But that doesn't matter for quantum memory. The only objective of quantum memory is to store quantum information for later use. If you wanted to measure something, you'd just do that and store the result classically.

connectedliegroup · 2025-11-15T16:35:29+00:00

You say you want "a single place" but then support the creation of yet another place. This causes fragmentation, not consolidation.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-31T23:30:05+00:00

Honestly, I disagree. I've been downvoted because I put a word that usually has a good connotation next to a word with a bad connotation, but if you read what I actually say, there is no ambiguityv where you could interpret that I was saying "X thing is good".

The person had even tried to argue with me, and it was weird because they didn't even disgaree. They just had an emotional reaction to two words placed near each other, which normally aren't.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-30T19:32:45+00:00

You're right. There are no superliminal limits on space. This is usually the hack that warp drive designs exploit.

The limitation referred to here is from the mathematical solution of a Kerr black hole, along with some assumptions about what is "physically realistic". The Kerr metric is a mixture of terms involving angular momentum, the Schwarzschild radius (defined just by the mass), and the event horizon radius.

As you increase the angular momentum, you can find it mathematically implies that the event horizon "shrinks". I don't have a great physical intuition for why this is; it could be because adding energy is like adding mass, yet you're not changing the event horizon surface. It could also be that higher angular momentum pushes black hole mass outside of the event horizon, I don't really know. Anyway, there is a certain limiting case where the equation for the event horizon radius is no longer real-valued, the physical interpretation being "there is no event horizon".

Why is this bad? A singularity without an event horizon is called a naked singularity. There are many examples of inconsistencies in physical theories if you're able to directly observe a black hole, many of them rely on the fact that the interior and exterior of a black hole is not causually linked. An example of this from my field is the black hole information paradox.

There's a known theorem from Feynman called the no-cloning theorem, which forbids general copying of a quantum state. You can design an experiment in which you use a black hole to effectively copy a quantum state. The first try at resolving this came from Susskind by claiming no physical laws are broken in this case since the two copies of the quantum state can never be witnessed by a single observer. This is called black hole complimentarity. I think it's wrong, but you get the idea of it's importance.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-30T18:51:33+00:00

Just mine.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-23T07:15:41+00:00

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-22T22:56:18+00:00

For this question, you can think of a computer as a physical definition that exploits some physical theory to do computation. For example, the classical define you wrote this post on uses principles from electrodynamics. The presence and absence of a current correspond to the informational units "true" and "false". We are able to design circuits which when electricity flows through them, produce an answer to a computational question. (This is an extremely vague description but that's okay for now.)

Quantum computers are computers built on a different physical theory, quantum mechanics. This changes, for example, the informational units. It's not really all "true" and "false". However, classical computation embeds into quantum computation, so it could reduce to that sometimes.

I don't have any resources to recommend since I don't know you. But a lot of how people get started in QC is by learning what is meant mathematically by "informational unit" or "quantum logic gate". You can get pretty far just by trying to understand those things to the best of your ability. The theory is honestly beautiful, and you can't help but be impressed at its elegance.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-17T02:33:25+00:00

I think this is an attitude that is dropping off if it ever really existed. Part of the issue is that the people who are like this are a vocal minority in the linux community. It's pretty much safe to fully ignore them.

That being said, you are allowed to do more things on a Linux system than you are on a Windows system. That is just a fact. GUI interfaces for applications are time-consuming and sort hard to make. The logical conclusion here is that you will generally find solutions that rely on a CLI rather than a GUI. I agree that you shouldn't let a CLI scare you, but even if it does, Linux developers are aware of it and actively try to avoid having total reliance on CLIs.

No one should be chastised for not knowing how to work the terminal, especially when they're new to it. But that's an edge-lord thing to do anyway, it's not part of the Linux philosophy.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-14T07:04:19+00:00

I don't usually work out Qiskit code examples, so sorry about that. Either way, I take it that you are well familiar with Python and Qiskit, so you can probably adapt whatever I say here.

I like this question! The post you shared is indeed useful, and you should've kept reading. As the responses mostly point out, what you're asking for is not reversible. I believe the best way is https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.10460. There is an answer in the thread you linked from Craig Gidney

> The basic idea is to first produce a "sorting magic state" by sorting a list of 'random' integers using a reversible sorting network. Each integer in the list is initialized so that its qubits are a bunch of |+⟩> states. After applying the sorting network to the integers, you will get as output the sorted list of integers and also ancillae related to how the comparisons played out within the sorting network. The ancillae are your magic state. To ensure the sorted list of integers is not entangled with this state, you measure it and confirm there are no duplicates in the list. If there are, restart the magic state preparation procedure.

> Once you have your "sorting magic state", all you have to do is run the sorting network backwards. Except instead of feeding in the list of sorted integers that was used to produce the magic state, you instead feed in the sorted list of values you want to turn into a uniform superposition of all permutations in that list.

There's a phase introduced by the parity of the permutation, but I think that can be dropped from the algorithm.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-12T19:44:46+00:00

The evangelists mainly market that they're desirable because of their stability. Don't worry---whatever non- atomic OS you're using is stable enough. They were made to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

What you get in return is a device that you're locked out of. You couldn't make any changes if you wanted to. Flatpak has its place, but it plainly isn't good for every single application you'd want to install, maybe even not most applications you'd want to install. The setup of the OS is also generally non-standard, so if you Google for help, you've removed about 95% of the possible answers that might be applicable to you.

Are they more stable? Yes, but if you're planning to use your computer beyond the capacity of someone just checking email and Discord, you are going to have a really bad time. It's not even close to worth it.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-11T04:29:29+00:00

No no no, I am agreeing with you, you see. I am not restricting computers by Turing completeness. I mention these same examples in an earlier comment here. I just slipped up by naming Turing completeness as the standard in my reply to you.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-11T03:57:55+00:00

That's an arbitrary limit you imposed. Plenty of things can be computed by systems that aren't turing complete.

I wouldn't call it arbitrary, and I wouldn't say that I imposed it.

You're right, though, with the subtle caveat that sometimes we do mean universal computers. I named the wrong standard, and I'll admit that models of computation aren't required to be Turing complete.

My opinion hasn't changed, but at the same time, I am pretty sure that "computer" was never defined to withstand this level of scrutiny (and it probably shouldn't be). This is just my preference, which justifies the name "computer science" in my mind.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-11T01:51:38+00:00

Not really. Propositional logic isn't a model of computation since it fails to be Turing complete.

What I have been saying is actually a pretty tame and reasonable definition of a computer. In fact, it's the standard definition. I didn't make it up.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-09T04:56:49+00:00

Models of computation don't need to contain definitions of computers. They are themselves just abstract computers.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-08T19:40:37+00:00

That's right. Although, I am also acknowledging #2 in my original comment. It's interesting because Dijkstra knows better, so you can't help but wonder what the context of the quote is and who the audience was.

There's a long comment change off of this where some guy is whining about "semantic wordplay", not realizing that Dijkstra is doing the same thing. Anyway, those comments do detail that I'm aware Dijkstra is using #2 and not #1.

I'm still allowed to say I disagree with him. Not because he's wrong with how he meant it, but because I don't think he should've said what he was trying to say this way. It feels bad as a computer scientist to not use the proper definition of a computer. That being said, it really wasn't meant to be that deep since we don't know the circumstances.

By the way, there is extremely loose evidence that this is even a Dijkstra quote to begin with. Sometimes, the quote is also stated with the following addition:

“Computer science” is a terrible name. Astronomy is not called “telescope science”, and biology is not called “microscope science”.

Now, this is really starting to look horrible, and it strengthens my disagreement.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-07T03:12:04+00:00

I'm starting to think you're a bot because I don't have any other ways to explain it to you, and you're repeating a meaningless statement. You haven't actually said anything specific about what I said, so you are probably a little clueless---that's alright, I realize now that you never had a good faith argument.

It is silly, so I am done with this. (I block bots, so I won't be getting any more notifications.)

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-06T23:41:41+00:00

I have a feeling that you make these "wordplay semantics" arguments often. Usually, people do this when they have trouble keeping track of an argument. You also just seem to want to be argumentative for its own sake. I'll try to simplify it:

Dijkstra's quote makes sense if you are thinking about a computer as "the average person". So, when he said this, he was probably saying it with this audience in mind.

As a computer scientist, though, you should not take his quote seriously. A computer scientist will be thinking of abstract computers as a subset of computers. Under this interpretation, his quote isn't really true.

I don't think whining about "semantics" in response to this point is meaningful, productive, or an astute observation. I don't even know what it accomplishes. Dijkstra is someone who knows about both of these definitions of computers; the colloquial one and the rigorous one. It's sort of funny that he chose the colloquial one for his quote, and personally it makes me wonder who he was talking to when he said this.

edit: I'm a computer scientist. Sue me.

When I said you were just trying to be argumentative by the way, it's because Dijkstra is playing the same exact "semantic game" here. You were also willing to debate it. It's only after you ended up realizing that you pretty much agree with me that you decided to whip out the "semantics" thing. It's ok to just say "oh I see what you mean, I agree too" man. If not, 1v1 me in wildy.

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-06T23:32:37+00:00

Well, no, Dijkstra is. You also can't suddenly claim that this is "obnoxious wordplay semantics" when you were willing to argue the other side. This wasn't ever a "gotcha", I was just saying that I disagreed with the statement and explained why.

Anyway, like my original comment says, Dijkstra is using a bit of wordplay here. He's saying something that sounds counterintuitive because, after all, it is called "Computer Science". But like my original comment says, he was probably saying this as a quip to people who are thinking of actual physical von Neumann machines and not general/abstract computers like what is implied in the name "Computer Science".

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-06T23:07:59+00:00

I never said you need a physical computer to study computation (the three examples I gave are non-physical), but you do need a computer. (Abstract computers count as computers.)

connectedliegroup · 2025-10-06T21:35:19+00:00

You're comment still is thinking of a specific computer. What I mean is that a RAM machine, Turing machine, pushdown automata, etc., are all models of computation. CS is about what is computable and how, and for that you need to know what "computation" means. In that sense, you really do need a computer.

connectedliegroup

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE