« first day (1505 days earlier)      last day (2124 days later) » 

vzn
vzn
4:39 AM
 
 
10 hours later…
vzn
vzn
2:13 PM
3
Q: Bell theorem - the simplest proof and understanding of the violation?

Jarek DudaBell theorem seems something extremely sophisticated, requiring pages of formulas to prove ... so I wanted to ask for the simplest known proofs and explanations for the violation? Basing on Bell-type inequality from this note, I have recently prepared mine (paper) with example of violation using...

quantum-mechanics bells-inequality
 
 
6 hours later…
Thomas Klimpel
Thomas Klimpel
8:20 PM
0
A: Is ALogTime != PH hard to prove (and unknown)?

Thomas KlimpelA naive idea for proving ALogTime != PH: The Boolean formula value problem is complete for ALogTime under deterministic log time reductions. Hence if ALogTime = PH, then PH = coNP = ALogTime, and hence the Boolean formula value problem would be complete under deterministic log time reductions for...

 
 
2 hours later…
Thomas Klimpel
Thomas Klimpel
9:57 PM
@vzn I read/browsed the paper now, both the 2017 version and the 2009 version. Would not claim that I understood everything or even tried to understand details. I just checked whether the paper is easy to read, and whether the ideas are compatible with current interpretations of QM. The MERW (maximum entropy random walk) is nice, could be a useful principle both for better understanding and for approximate simulation. And the application to quantum computing?
The MERW was already there in the 2009 version, the application to quantum computing is new in the 2017 version. I did not try to understand it, but it could make sense. Will it lead to powerful quantum algorithms able to solve NP complete problems? Probably not, the problem is that quantum algorithms are simply not that powerful.
The paper is easy to read, especially compared to the two related questions on physics.se. I am normally not a fan of the excessive downvoting and closing of questions on physics.se, but I can understand them in this case. I was basically forced to read the paper for being able to make sense of the questions. That is not how a stackexchange site is supposed to be used. But reading the paper was a nice experience, no regrets from my side...
I will now leave for a week, but will happily participate in related discussions after I return. If those discussions should make it necessary that I try to understand the paper in more detail, then this would be fine for me.
 
vzn
vzn
10:18 PM
@ThomasKlimpel thx for your mini review, secret found the paper & mentioned it in Physics chat, dont really follow much of it yet, liked the multiple refs to "4d jello" in it, @#%& mod(s) (probably ACM) deleted my on-topic comment on the post already, sigh...
 

« first day (1505 days earlier)      last day (2124 days later) »