Saturday, August 07, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Random thoughts:
If the person who is paid by a "payer" is called a "payee", a person who is tutored by a "tutor" is called a "tutee", is the dough baked by a "baker" called a "bakee"? The cigarette smoked by a "smoker" called a "smokee"?
Though I guess there isn't much point to give them names like that, since the terms like "payee" and "tutee" is meant to indicate to people (who already have a lot of other roles) what roles they are currently assuming, whereas a cigarette is usually assuming the role of being smoked and a lump of dough is usually assuming the role of being baked. So "cigarette" and "dough" are probably sort-of equivalent to "smokee" and "bakee".
Some literature has said that quantum entanglement is a resource, but I think it's kinda iffy. Unlike energy, there isn't a one-size-fits-all method to quantify it. I remember Prof Kwek was looking for a lay-man's analogy to measures of quantum entanglement - how there are so many different definitions, how the usefulness of each definition depends on the application the quantum states are associated with, and how different definitions may not agree with with other about whether one state is more entangled than another. Yet, measures of quantum entanglement are also not completely arbitrary, because there are some quantum states that are generally agreed upon to be maximally entangled and some that are completely un-entangled, which most (I dare not say all since I don't know all of them) measures of entanglement would indicate.
His first analogy was happiness, but he felt that it was too un-physical and imprecise. His second analogy was entropy (for example, Renyi entropy isn't just one single definition, but a definition that depends on some parameters, and these parameters depend on the application). I don't understand Renyi entropy at all, so I can't really appreciate whether his analogy was particularly apt. But now that I think about it, all the above characteristics remind me of measures of intelligence. There are various measures of intelligence, each of them useful for different purposes and different scales may not agree on whether one guy is more intelligent than another. But intelligence isn't completely arbitrary either, since there are some abilities that are generally recognised to be crucial indicators of intelligence, so surely a hypothetical person who gets a perfect score on a particular test item that tests this ability (maybe a what-pattern-comes-next test? I don't know) would be given high intelligence scores on most measures of intelligence (except maybe the more differentiated measures like the sub-scales of multiple intelligences).
Yay! So, next time someone asks me "what have you been doing for the past six months" I would have a nice reply. "I've been studying measures of quantum entanglement, which is somewhat iffy like measures of intelligence, but not quite."
What if Bell's inequality is tested in a way that the measurements are made in different inertial frames moving at relativistic speeds? Since simultaneity is relative, from one frame it would appear as though the measurement in say, Alice frame causes the wavefunction collapse and determines the quantum state that can be measured by Bob, while in Bob's frame it could appear otherwise. A simple way to reconcile this could be to state that that Alice would measure and what Bob would measure are both predetermined from the start, but Aha! this would cause the Bell's inequality to be satisfied even at Bell's test angles with maximally entangled states! Maybe there really isn't a problem with this scenario, but I'm kinda lazy to think about it now.
If the person who is paid by a "payer" is called a "payee", a person who is tutored by a "tutor" is called a "tutee", is the dough baked by a "baker" called a "bakee"? The cigarette smoked by a "smoker" called a "smokee"?
Though I guess there isn't much point to give them names like that, since the terms like "payee" and "tutee" is meant to indicate to people (who already have a lot of other roles) what roles they are currently assuming, whereas a cigarette is usually assuming the role of being smoked and a lump of dough is usually assuming the role of being baked. So "cigarette" and "dough" are probably sort-of equivalent to "smokee" and "bakee".
Some literature has said that quantum entanglement is a resource, but I think it's kinda iffy. Unlike energy, there isn't a one-size-fits-all method to quantify it. I remember Prof Kwek was looking for a lay-man's analogy to measures of quantum entanglement - how there are so many different definitions, how the usefulness of each definition depends on the application the quantum states are associated with, and how different definitions may not agree with with other about whether one state is more entangled than another. Yet, measures of quantum entanglement are also not completely arbitrary, because there are some quantum states that are generally agreed upon to be maximally entangled and some that are completely un-entangled, which most (I dare not say all since I don't know all of them) measures of entanglement would indicate.
His first analogy was happiness, but he felt that it was too un-physical and imprecise. His second analogy was entropy (for example, Renyi entropy isn't just one single definition, but a definition that depends on some parameters, and these parameters depend on the application). I don't understand Renyi entropy at all, so I can't really appreciate whether his analogy was particularly apt. But now that I think about it, all the above characteristics remind me of measures of intelligence. There are various measures of intelligence, each of them useful for different purposes and different scales may not agree on whether one guy is more intelligent than another. But intelligence isn't completely arbitrary either, since there are some abilities that are generally recognised to be crucial indicators of intelligence, so surely a hypothetical person who gets a perfect score on a particular test item that tests this ability (maybe a what-pattern-comes-next test? I don't know) would be given high intelligence scores on most measures of intelligence (except maybe the more differentiated measures like the sub-scales of multiple intelligences).
Yay! So, next time someone asks me "what have you been doing for the past six months" I would have a nice reply. "I've been studying measures of quantum entanglement, which is somewhat iffy like measures of intelligence, but not quite."
What if Bell's inequality is tested in a way that the measurements are made in different inertial frames moving at relativistic speeds? Since simultaneity is relative, from one frame it would appear as though the measurement in say, Alice frame causes the wavefunction collapse and determines the quantum state that can be measured by Bob, while in Bob's frame it could appear otherwise. A simple way to reconcile this could be to state that that Alice would measure and what Bob would measure are both predetermined from the start, but Aha! this would cause the Bell's inequality to be satisfied even at Bell's test angles with maximally entangled states! Maybe there really isn't a problem with this scenario, but I'm kinda lazy to think about it now.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Just wondering about the first two lines of 林俊杰's 曹操...
First line:
不是英雄, 不论三国
Since a conditional statement is equivalent to the converse of its inverse, it can therefore be rewritten as such:
P1: 论三国的都是英雄.
Second line:
若是英雄怎么能不懂寂寞
This is clearly a rhethorical question, which means:
P2: 英雄都是寂寞的.
We are thus forced to conclude that:
C: 论三国的都是寂寞的.
Just sayin'.
First line:
不是英雄, 不论三国
Since a conditional statement is equivalent to the converse of its inverse, it can therefore be rewritten as such:
P1: 论三国的都是英雄.
Second line:
若是英雄怎么能不懂寂寞
This is clearly a rhethorical question, which means:
P2: 英雄都是寂寞的.
We are thus forced to conclude that:
C: 论三国的都是寂寞的.
Just sayin'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)