The h Bar

heather

12:00 AM

not yet, i am working on a draft

i hope to finish it this weekend.

DanielSank

ok

I was getting impatient ;)

take your time

Anna says you should visit an observatory so you can see the true science you should be interested in.

Anna is jealous that you like quantum computing.

Mwa hahahaha

"I don't mean it. It's not true. I think what you do is really cool". <-- another quote from Anna.

heather

who is Anna?

@DanielSank lol

astronomy and astrophysics are both interesting subjects, but i must admit i believe quantum computing is much better.

DanielSank

12:20 AM

@heather My SO.

Secret

About whether we are living in a simulation, I recall I once talked to Howard about it and he suspects a nice support that our world is not a simulation is if we can find a physical phenomenon that is uncomputable. The existence of such phenomenon will then convince us that we are not in a simulation

However the more I think about it, the more it seems there is a catch: what if being in a simulation or not has nothing to do with computing power, then such thing will still not be a conclusive test

I need to check whether in QFT there are operations that can transform one type of quantum field into another

The 2014 sci-fi movie Predestination makes me wonder whether a time traveler is no better at the knowledge about the future compared to a none time traveler. For example, a time traveler will often think he or she is at their own present hence they

they had free will to decide their future. But what they don't know yet is that they might be still part of a predestination paradox in the next couple of minutes

I think I need to check again how exactly systems with memory operates in CTC (yes, what I said above will hold in type 1 time travel, but will fail for type 3 and 4)

0celo7

12:40 AM

@DanielSank superior officer?

dmckee

^ Close enough.

As the old saw would have it "when we disagree we talk it out, explain our differing points of view, then we both compromise and do it her way"

2

ZeroTheHero

3:08 AM

@dmckee basically what I told my grad student today.

with your SO sometimes you loose, and the rest of the time you loose also.

Secret

3:46 AM

Fun fact: Most of the time, people don't know what I am investigating when I started to post a stream of maths. Interestingly however, they almost always able to give relevant comments and answers

It's as if we all know what we are doing without having a clue on what we are doing

Slereah

8:15 AM

So it turns out the proof of the simple connectedness of $R^n$ is fairly simple

user129412

Hey! Anyone here (or could you perhaps recommend someone I could write at) who has experience with modeling semiconductor surfaces? Or well, how to accurately include them in a finite element model? I'm working on nanowires, where the surface to volume ratio is very large and one definitely needs to do something with that

\o @yuggib

O/

How's it going?

@Secret you can't find uncomputable phenomenon per Craig's theorem and also there's no such thing as uncomputable, things are only uncomputable wrt a computation model

Ie a Turing machine

An uncomputable problem will be computable in a morepowerful model

satyatech

8:26 AM

hey guys how u doing here!!

Transcript for