@BernardoMeurer Calling other people's statements "bullshit", however, is clearly not nice. Don't do that.

@ACuriousMind Fair

@heather Yes, but discussion about food doesn't have the same potential to offend people as discussion about sex does.

@DavidZ There's no "discussion" about sex. I made a silly analogy that involved sex in a very light manner

@skullpetrol The charitable reading here is that that professor thought the student had used this site to get help with their graded homework, which, depending on your university's policies, may very well be academic misconduct.

@BernardoMeurer That counts. If you prefer to use a different word than "discussion", feel free to substitute it when you read my statement, but I'm saying, your statement was unnecessary and unwarranted and not in keeping with the standard of behavior we'd like to promote in this room.

@DavidZ Look, if you want to go on your weekly power trip and try to strong-arm people into not saying things just because you have the power to do that, go for it, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with what I said.

to continue to mediate here (perhaps unnecessarily) why is a random comment "unnecessary" especially when it wasn't really explicit in any way.

That wouldn't be anything against SE at all, they'd have reacted the same way with every other avenue by which one might solicit help

I think @BernardoMeurer's position could be rather neatly summed up in that one xkcd

@BernardoMeurer I'm saying there is something wrong with it.

@DavidZ That it mentions sex, where is it written that I cannot mention sex? Did you not read the meta post?

@BernardoMeurer The Be Nice policy explicitly says to try and avoid anything sexually suggestive.

@ACuriousMind It's not sexually suggestive!

this xkcd: xkcd.com/194

Chill out @BernardoMeurer

There's no "suggestiveness" in it

@skullpetrol, both sides need to take a deep breath, methinks =)

Let it go.

@skullpetrol I'm not princess elsa to let things go

@DavidZ, in the future, I might point out that instead of saying something like

> I'm saying there is something wrong with it.

I know that pal

is a bit rude and out of character for a mod, instead, I would suggest

> The Be Nice policy explicitly says to try and avoid anything sexually suggestive.

(like ACM said)

i.e., a meta post/policy link.

Just let the powers that be do their thing @BernardoMeurer

@skullpetrol I'm not going to let some mod give me crap because they're triggered by the mere word "sex" in a sentence

Step back, make some popcorn :-)

Relax pal.

@BernardoMeurer It is. I mean, messages like that one are what the meta post ACM linked is trying to discourage. If you don't think of that as "sexually suggestive", I guess you should keep in mind that SE uses a broader definition of "sexually suggestive" than you do.

@BernardoMeurer I'm inclined to agree it's not in the narrow sense of the word; however, one does have to wonder why from all possible analogies you had to choose the sexual one.

@ACuriousMind, also, seeing as I'm in middle school, I must say I was not offended whatsoever by that statement.

@heather it takes time to dig up those things

@DavidZ, that's no excuse for just saying "because I said so".

@ACuriousMind ah, yes, that's more like what I wanted to say

@heather which I didn't

@DavidZ well I must point out that's not at all how you came across.

You two take a moment to think about what you're getting worked up about

"like"

^key word here

@DavidZ may I repeat - "I'm saying there is something wrong with it." if that's not a "because I said so" I don't know what that is.

@DavidZ You literally said "I'm saying there's something wrong with it". You want me to stop doing something you should back it up with documentation. Your word alone means nothing to me

@heather I didn't say it was offensive to someone. It's more that sexual references create an atmosphere we don't really want here - and that's why DZ said it was unnecessary

What's happening?

@0celo7 These two are angry because I made the silliest analogy ever and they need they're daily dosage of feeling powerful

@heather explain

@BernardoMeurer what?

@ACuriousMind fair enough, but I must point out as well there have been comments in the chatroom using the word "sex" before and no one has said a thing

@0celo7 Start here chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/35995488#35995488

@heather yeah, I got caught up in justifying the problem with this specific message, when actually this specific message isn't so much the problem. As an isolated incident, it doesn't matter. What I really wanted to point out is that a mindset which leads one to make that analogy in that situation is likely to lead one to make inappropriate posts in a lot of situations, and that spoils the environment of the room.

@0celo7 bernardo used the word "sex" in an analogy.

@BernardoMeurer You are the only one who uses such words as "strongarm" and "angry" here. All that DZ said was that it was unnecessary, not that you'll be tarred and feathered for what you've done.

Oh wow, that's pretty serious

@DavidZ So you're giving me flak because I could possibly say something in the future?

Like sex

Ban me now!

It's not a terribly serious issue, and certainly not one that warrants discussion at this length, imo, so if we could all just go back to our regularly unscheduled nonsense I think that would be for the best.

@DavidZ there are two things I want to say here. (And please, I'm not taking sides, I just want to calm down and sort of mediate for Bernardo.) 1. There have been many comments and conversations using the word sex in this chatroom that have not been commented upon (and the mods were around, as I recall). 2. This is not the first time you have said something that has been misinterpreted drastically. Please consider slowing down your responses

and even considering that your views and definitions may be very different

@heather That's not what I meant. When I said "I'm saying there is something wrong with it" I meant to clarify that, when Bernardo says there's nothing wrong with the message, my argument is that that is false. I didn't mean to imply that you should just accept that because I say so, although looking back at it I see how it could have come across that way. Sorry about that.

@ACuriousMind Point is, it's not for you to vet my analogies to this degree. This is ridiculous moderation.

@DavidZ Please read point two of my last message.

@heather Yes, I did. I fail to see how slowing down would have helped.

@DavidZ Also - "my argument is that that is false" that is still "because I said so". sorry, but i have no idea how you can interpret that otherwise.

It always helps.

^

Time to think.

@ACuriousMind Where did BM say bullshit? I'm confused

your messages have been drastically misinterpreted multiple times. that's not something to gloss over and move on from. it's a problem that warrants consideration. as skullpetrol says, slowing down is always good, though perhaps the end solution for you will be different.

@0celo7 He deleted it, those words are too strong

@heather Let me clarify again: "my argument is that that is false" means that I am making an argument, the conclusion of which is that the statement is false. It's not supposed to mean that there will be no evidence offered in support of that conclusion.

@DavidZ And yet you didn't offer any evidence, it took ACM to come and do the job

^

@DavidZ when there is no evidence to support your argument, just that you are a mod, that is the definition of because I said so. Sorry, but like I said, there really isn't any worming your way out of this one.

@BernardoMeurer Note the timing. ACM posted right after I did. Would you rather I go find the same link and post it again?

@heather As I've been saying, I never claimed there was no evidence to support my argument.

That has nothing to do with it @DavidZ. The point is you provided no evidence. End of discussion.

Why are we still arguing

@DavidZ No, I'd rather you would have included it with your first message and doing it properly

@skullpetrol, no idea. i'm about to pull out.

@BernardoMeurer exactly.

@BernardoMeurer OK, I'll take that into account

Thank you.

This is ridiculous.

Case closed.

@DavidZ, I might also point out (again) that this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. Please don't just take it into account, but also consider ways to counteract it. </end rant>

And, back into the issue, why complained because my kind of analogy could possibly create a weird atmosphere?

so, quantum computing.

Wat?

@heather That's what I mean by "take it into account"

okay, just clarifying @DavidZ.

:-)

@BernardoMeurer what?

Back to happy hour.

@heather My wat was supposed to come right after my longer message there

ah, I see @BernardoMeurer

this is got to be the worst way to waste one's time

@BalarkaSen there are worse ways

^

I can think of one for sure

@BalarkaSen I microwave grapes on a daily basis

hey, is it true that if you cut a grape exactly in half and place it in the center of the microwave, you'll get a plasma?

I read that somewhere, and have always been tempted to try it.

@heather Kind of, not really

That's why i do it though

it's cool as fuck

:35996589 ::points a finger:: =P

@skullpetrol flagged

Self-banned.

@heather Well, just look e.g. at the controlled NOT - your gate is some sort of unitary operator on the qubit state, and you can apply such unitary operators to all possible combinations of $\lvert 0\rangle$ and $\lvert 1\rangle$. The operator is full defined by you saying what happens in the cases where the qubit are in either $\lvert 0\rangle$ or $\lvert 1\rangle$ and then extending this linearly.

Oh, no you said the forbidden word!

@ACuriousMind eh...so can I just apply the gate to the target qubit as long as the control qubit isn't zero?

@heather What do you mean by the control qubit being "zero"?

Zero is not a quantum state

sorry - |0>

I don't know what you mean by "apply the gate to the target qubit". The gate acts on the total system of control+target.

if it is a controlled NOT gate, apply the NOT gate to the target qubit.

@ACuriousMind that's my problem - my code has each of the qubit's states on their own.

I'm...not sure whether that is actually the correct approach.

@BernardoMeurer which one is that?

@0celo7 Sex

Oh no

stop saying that

that's gross

@ACuriousMind well, the vector representing the whole state is just the two vectors representing the individual qubits "stacked" on top of each other (i.e., [a, b] and [c, d] vs [a, b, c, d])

In the Wiki article you can see that the gate swaps the coefficients called $c$ and $d$. Unless they are the same, if the state you start with is separable then the resultant state will be entangled, and you cannot speak of the individual states of the qubits.

Okay, can I get Ryan back Rebecca?

so i figured it was okay

@heather My point is that quantum mechanics does not work that way

@ACuriousMind but that's what the individual X gate does

The combined state space of two systems is not the Cartesian product (which is what "stacking on top of each other" corresponds to mathematically), but the tensor product.

@ACuriousMind right, but my computer is not quantum mechanical, and it can simulate a quantum computer anyway

@heather Yes, but to simulate a quantum computer you need to represent its state properly.

@heather um, transistors?

Two qubit can be confusing because both the naive "stacking" and the tensor product are four dimensional

@0celo7 the overall computer

@ACuriousMind okay, so could you illustrate (with each vector) how the tensor product is different from the cartesian product?

But once you go to three qubits, you have that the actual quantum mechanical state space is eight-dimensional, while the space of individual states of three qubits is just six-dimensional

sorry i'm being rather dumb about this

ZFC is inconsistent

@heather I think you're just not used enough to think quantum mechanically, don't worry

I guess my question comes back to: how do I need to change my program?

What did you @ACuriousMind mean by a "generous" reading of that?

@skullpetrol Of what?

@skullpetrol a reading that isn't stingy =P

Can you try to give enough information in a single message for once? :P

Oh, I meant that I was generously assuming the professor is not an evil anti-SE fanatic.

Thank you.

But the institution is very strict.

@heather Well, I don't know your program so I can't answer that. I can say that representing the individual states of the qubits is almost certainly not the right thing to do - you need to conceive of the complete quantum computer as having a single state, that only occasionally can be split into definite states of the individual qubits

This phenomenon of entanglement - that a definite state of the total system does not split into definite state of its subsystems - is one of the most crucial differences between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics

how the hell do commas work

@0celo7 wat

what's unclear?

comma = pause.

wrong

absolutely wrong

@0celo7 Everything! I don't know what you're asking for

comma = separate phrases and items in a list

In speaking or what?

@heather also wrong

@ACuriousMind Me neither.

@0celo7 whatever way you want it to work man

That's why I'm so confused

go to that grammar stack exchange

@BalarkaSen Are there commas in Hindi?

@heather i mean, like, that's, like, not true

@0celo7 i think so? there are commas in my native language (not hindi)

actually, i think that is a correct use of commas - "i mean like that's like not true" certainly isn't right

I made a SWAG as to what your native lingo is

@heather What about "Heather, are you going to school tomorrow?"

Why not pause? @0celo7

What about semicolons?

And periods.

@heather Okay, lets have our qubit state space $Q := \mathbb{C}^2$, and mark the state of the i-th qubit as $|1\rangle_i$. Then the Cartesian product of three qubit spaces has a basis given by $|0\rangle_1,|1\rangle_1,|0\rangle_2,|1\rangle_2,|0\rangle_3,|1\rangle_3$ while the tensor product has a basis as $|000\rangle,|001\rangle,|010\rangle,|100\rangle,|011\rangle,|101\rangle,|110 \rangle,|111\rangle$.

@BernardoMeurer seems right - and no, I'm not - SPRING BREAK!!! =D

Don't bully me with commas @0celo7

@ACuriousMind okay - methinks I need to seriously change my program then - ::facepalms::

@heather play metal gear

surely there's a better way

@0celo7 i have no $

Now, if you take one of the basis states, like $|000\rangle$, it corresponds to the triple of states $|0\rangle_1,|0\rangle_2,|0\rangle_3$ of the individual qubits. But certain superpositions, like $|000\rangle + |111\rangle$, do not correspond to unique tripels of states of the subsystems at all - these states are entangled

okay...so they're the normal individual qubits such that you can't separate them?

@heather I will give you $

@0celo7 urban dictionary isn't helping me on that

@heather I don't understand what you want to say with the first half of that sentence, sorry

@heather ::looks at schedule tomorrow and grunts::

@BalarkaSen sophisticated wild ass guess

o

i would link UD's defn but it might be inappropriate

Does it say "sex"?

::prepares popcorn::

:-p

;-)

Does anyone here know VHDL and understand processor architecture?

I do not understand the instruction set opcodes for this CPU

@ACuriousMind the state is such that you cannot separate it into the state of individual qubits?

@heather Yes

Did your exploding gif work? @BernardoMeurer

Yes, lol

@ACuriousMind darn my idiocy!

That's the definition of an entangled state, no matter how often you'll hear silly statements about non-classical correlations or somesuch :P

thank you for your help @ACuriousMind, this now makes a ton more sense

@ACuriousMind "silly statements" - reminds me of smbc's "the talk" comic =)

Yes, it is in a similar vein

@BernardoMeurer You might have more luck in one of the cs or so chatrooms with that

@ACuriousMind Yeah, but I don't like the people there they are weird

@dmckee I hate VHDL

HATE

It's a mess

You ain't in Kansas no more Dorothy

@skullpetrol I'm between SH1 and O_i

I can rename DI_i to Kansas and make you wrong though