The step at 11:58 where (-1)^(a.y) is factored out seems confusing as ``(a XOR s). y" is not equal to ``(a.y XOR s.y)" also ``s.y = s1*y1 + s2*y2 + s3*y3 ..... sn*yn", therefore its not guarenteed to be either 0 or 1 it can be 2 or 3 also, e.g., if s = (011) and y = (111) then, s.y = 2.
1. Constant factors is just a phase and is not important for calculating probability amplitudes. 2. The inner product is modulo 2, so the result is 0 or 1.
What if "Wave Function Collapse" involves an annihilation + creation interaction with the Quantum Vacuum? The portion of the original "foreground" wave-function which collapses away is annihilated with "background" virtual (partial, off-mass-shell) anti-particles. The new portion of the "foreground" wave-function which regenerates into existence similarly arises from "background" virtual (partial, off-mass-shell) particles. If so, and if you could affect the background population of virtual particles & anti-particles -- as with, say, some Casimir plates or something along those lines -- then you could affect wave-function collapse and (perhaps) skew probabilities in your favor. Quantum Casinos can stack quantum decks in their favor?
love this series! very helpful and clearly explained
Absolutely fantastic lecture series. Pure masterclass!
very clear about the steps of Simon's algorithm, thanks!
Very useful and clear, thanks!
thanks!!!
The step at 11:58 where (-1)^(a.y) is factored out seems confusing as ``(a XOR s). y" is not equal to ``(a.y XOR s.y)" also ``s.y = s1*y1 + s2*y2 + s3*y3 ..... sn*yn", therefore its not guarenteed to be either 0 or 1 it can be 2 or 3 also, e.g., if s = (011) and y = (111) then, s.y = 2.
1. Constant factors is just a phase and is not important for calculating probability amplitudes.
2. The inner product is modulo 2, so the result is 0 or 1.
What if "Wave Function Collapse" involves an annihilation + creation interaction with the Quantum Vacuum? The portion of the original "foreground" wave-function which collapses away is annihilated with "background" virtual (partial, off-mass-shell) anti-particles. The new portion of the "foreground" wave-function which regenerates into existence similarly arises from "background" virtual (partial, off-mass-shell) particles.
If so, and if you could affect the background population of virtual particles & anti-particles -- as with, say, some Casimir plates or something along those lines -- then you could affect wave-function collapse and (perhaps) skew probabilities in your favor.
Quantum Casinos can stack quantum decks in their favor?
why do we can't just put 0 in black box ? 0 + s = s
i was going to ask the same
@@gubunki We can, it's just a trivial case that we do not care about.
You mean in classical solution? How do you want to find s from f(0)=f(s)? It is impossible.