 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36203043
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/4/2016 2:35 PM, Stephen wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36203043
>
>
LOL ... I saw the story this morning and was going to post, but you beat
me to the punch.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36203043
>>
>>
> LOL ... I saw the story this morning and was going to post, but you beat
> me to the punch.
Has anyone actually got a sign-up to it? I filled in the form but
haven't got anything back. Not that I have any idea what is involved in
programming a quantum computer (apart from the "a bit can be 0,1 or
both" line in every article), but thought it would be fun to find out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/05/2016 08:15 AM, scott wrote:
> Has anyone actually got a sign-up to it? I filled in the form but
> haven't got anything back. Not that I have any idea what is involved in
> programming a quantum computer (apart from the "a bit can be 0,1 or
> both" line in every article), but thought it would be fun to find out.
You remember a few years back when some guy said "we need quantum
raytracing supercomputers NOW!"?
And somebody else replied "we already have those; it's called THE REAL
WORLD"?
Yeah, well, that hasn't gone away. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 May 2016 08:15:36 +0100, scott wrote:
> Has anyone actually got a sign-up to it?
I've got a friend who received his login information earlier today. He
said that using the system is like learning a foreign language - he's
having to relearn a lot in order to see how to use it.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Has anyone actually got a sign-up to it?
>
> I've got a friend who received his login information earlier today. He
> said that using the system is like learning a foreign language - he's
> having to relearn a lot in order to see how to use it.
Yes I got mine overnight, I've just been reading through the user guide.
It's written in much the same manner as a book would be on digital
circuits, start off with what a "zero" and "one" is, then simple logic
gates, more complex circuits, then latches and adders, then things like
RAM and a CPU.
However, it took me several re-reads and lots of thought just to get the
"zero and one" idea for this. I've read through the next few sections,
but most of it is just meaningless for the time being. Indeed, it all
seems quite odd, but at the same time I get the feeling for the
potential of such systems. It's not so much a foreign language (assuming
you are OK with matrices, complex numbers and probabilities), just that
it's being used in a completely different way.
One thing is absolutely certain though, I'm not about to write a
raytracer to run on this thing anytime soon :-)
It did remind me slightly of Andrew's writings on Haskell, how you code
up all these gates, and all the qubits are some super-position, and
nothing gets resolved until you actually make the measurement at the end.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/05/2016 11:48 AM, scott wrote:
> Yes I got mine overnight, I've just been reading through the user guide.
> It's written in much the same manner as a book would be on digital
> circuits, start off with what a "zero" and "one" is, then simple logic
> gates, more complex circuits, then latches and adders, then things like
> RAM and a CPU.
Question: Are there any books out there that actually *do* that?
I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
*explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant details.)
> It did remind me slightly of Andrew's writings on Haskell, how you code
> up all these gates, and all the qubits are some super-position, and
> nothing gets resolved until you actually make the measurement at the end.
Heh, damn... I didn't think anybody actually read that stuff...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2016 8:35 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Heh, damn... I didn't think anybody actually read that stuff...
I read as much as I can understand.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/05/16 21:04, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/6/2016 8:35 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Heh, damn... I didn't think anybody actually read that stuff...
>
> I read as much as I can understand.
>
... that is to say, all the words of one syllable or less :-D
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2016 10:35 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 06/05/16 21:04, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/6/2016 8:35 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Heh, damn... I didn't think anybody actually read that stuff...
>>
>> I read as much as I can understand.
>>
>
> .... that is to say, all the words of one syllable or less :-D
>
> John
>
Only the words of one syllable. Polysyllabics went out with the 90s.
BTW My brain is still away with the fairies.
--
Regards
Stephen
I’m pink therefore I’m spam.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/16 00:02, Stephen wrote:
> Only the words of one syllable. Polysyllabics went out with the 90s.
>
> BTW My brain is still away with the fairies.
>
"My brain is still away with the whisky"
FTFY
John (raises a glass)
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2016 3:48 AM, scott wrote:
>
> One thing is absolutely certain though, I'm not about to write a
> raytracer to run on this thing anytime soon :-)
>
Since the current computer has a whopping 5 qbits, you have plenty of
time to learn. IIRC the current state of the art in quantum computation
is the ability to write a program which proves with high probability
that 15=5*3, so 3D rendering is a ways off yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2016 20:35:19 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Question: Are there any books out there that actually *do* that?
>
> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
> details.)
Well, ~20 years ago when I went to college, I took a course on digital
logic, and I'm pretty sure there was a textbook for the course....
So yes, there are such books.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2016 00:02:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Only the words of one syllable. Polysyllabics went out with the 90s.
Words of one no more than one sound.
If you are to do this, do it right. ;)
(Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2016 23:38:22 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2016 00:02:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Only the words of one syllable. Polysyllabics went out with the 90s.
>
> Words of one no more than one sound.
>
> If you are to do this, do it right. ;)
>
> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>
> Jim
I had hoped that would make a good search, but it does not.
Try a search for:
"Tell you what: just read the card on the back of the seat in front."
:)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 07/05/2016 02:13, Kevin Wampler a écrit :
> On 5/6/2016 3:48 AM, scott wrote:
>>
>> One thing is absolutely certain though, I'm not about to write a
>> raytracer to run on this thing anytime soon :-)
>>
>
> Since the current computer has a whopping 5 qbits, you have plenty of time to learn.
IIRC the current state of the art in quantum computation is the ability to write a
program which proves with high probability that 15=5*3, so 3D rendering is a ways off
yet.
>
One day there might be the Zx81 of qbits: 1K of qbits, for hobbyists.
In the meantime, gigabytes of traditional RAM in our computers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/7/2016 4:40 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2016 23:38:22 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 May 2016 00:02:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Only the words of one syllable. Polysyllabics went out with the 90s.
>>
>> Words of one no more than one sound.
>>
>> If you are to do this, do it right. ;)
>>
>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>>
>> Jim
>
> I had hoped that would make a good search, but it does not.
>
> Try a search for:
>
> "Tell you what: just read the card on the back of the seat in front."
>
> :)
>
>
>
Woosh!
Sorry, I don't get the connection. :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/7/2016 1:04 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 07/05/16 00:02, Stephen wrote:
>> Only the words of one syllable. Polysyllabics went out with the 90s.
>>
>> BTW My brain is still away with the fairies.
>>
>
> "My brain is still away with the whisky"
>
> FTFY
>
> John (raises a glass)
>
I take the fifth. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/16 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>
> I take the fifth. :)
>
... as in a fifth of a gallon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_%28unit%29 ? Now the truth comes out ;-)
John (checking to see if the sun is over the yard-arm)
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/16 10:34, Stephen wrote:
>
> Woosh!
>
> Sorry, I don't get the connection. :(
>
Methinks the Henderson has been smoking again :-)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/7/2016 12:11 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 07/05/16 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I take the fifth. :)
>>
>
> .... as in a fifth of a gallon
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_%28unit%29 ? Now the truth comes out ;-)
>
> John (checking to see if the sun is over the yard-arm)
>
No, a 1/5 gill and certainly not that paint stripper and yes it is,
somewhere. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/16 12:23, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/7/2016 12:11 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> On 07/05/16 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> I take the fifth. :)
>>>
>>
>> .... as in a fifth of a gallon
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_%28unit%29 ? Now the truth comes
>> out ;-)
>>
>> John (checking to see if the sun is over the yard-arm)
>>
>
>
> No, a 1/5 gill and certainly not that paint stripper and yes it is,
> somewhere. :)
>
To quote Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider: "Here's the first of the day,
fellas!"
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/7/2016 12:30 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 07/05/16 12:23, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/7/2016 12:11 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>>> On 07/05/16 10:52, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I take the fifth. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> .... as in a fifth of a gallon
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_%28unit%29 ? Now the truth comes
>>> out ;-)
>>>
>>> John (checking to see if the sun is over the yard-arm)
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, a 1/5 gill and certainly not that paint stripper and yes it is,
>> somewhere. :)
>>
>
> To quote Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider: "Here's the first of the day,
> fellas!"
>
> John
>
To quote Fraternity of Man in Easy Rider:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N0IjBgyFoE
You guessed it. You also have too much time on your hands. :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 07 May 2016 12:19:35 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 07/05/16 10:34, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Woosh!
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get the connection. :(
>>
>>
> Methinks the Henderson has been smoking again :-)
>
> John
Nope, I have not - do the search (with the quotes) on the well known
search tool with a "G" at the start of its name and you will see what I
mean. :)
(it's a show with just sounds from the UK) :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/05/16 00:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2016 12:19:35 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
>
>> Methinks the Henderson has been smoking again :-)
>>
>> John
>
> Nope, I have not - do the search (with the quotes) on the well known
> search tool with a "G" at the start of its name and you will see what I
> mean. :)
>
Now where's the fun in that? I prefer the mental image of you 'stumbling
around in a beautiful haze' (to quote Tom Paxton) and talking gibberish.
> (it's a show with just sounds from the UK) :)
>
OK. Got it (I can't speak for Stephen tho')
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:21:29 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 08/05/16 00:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 May 2016 12:19:35 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>>> Methinks the Henderson has been smoking again :-)
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Nope, I have not - do the search (with the quotes) on the well known
>> search tool with a "G" at the start of its name and you will see what I
>> mean. :)
>>
>>
> Now where's the fun in that? I prefer the mental image of you 'stumbling
> around in a beautiful haze' (to quote Tom Paxton) and talking gibberish.
With the week I have had.... ;)
>> (it's a show with just sounds from the UK) :)
>>
>>
> OK. Got it (I can't speak for Stephen tho')
I knew *you* would. ;)
Now I can't stop. Agh!
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/05/16 00:21, Doctor John wrote:
>
> OK. Got it (I can't speak for Stephen tho')
>
... and to demonstrate I really did use G****e:
CAROLYN (interrupting): No, no, no, no, no. Let me spell this out for
you in words of one syllable.
John (a mono-syllabic name)
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2016 1:52, Doctor John wrote:
> On 08/05/16 00:21, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>> OK. Got it (I can't speak for Stephen tho')
>>
>
> ... and to demonstrate I really did use G****e:
> CAROLYN (interrupting): No, no, no, no, no. Let me spell this out for
> you in words of one syllable.
>
> John (a mono-syllabic name)
>
That reminds me of "Grog" from Heinlein's Strange in a Strange Land....
Should be appropriate in this discussion.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript. :-D
You were a bit too cryptic with your clues.
> Doug and Mart
I would never think of them as Doug and Mart. Only as Douglas and Martin.
Thanks for the clue about the double quotes. I needed it.
If either of us had gotten it, it would have been a brilliant link. (I
wonder how many more from that series I've missed.)
And what's with the "G" word?
Is it not allowed to say it in polite society?
Have we gone back to the days when mentioning IBM was verboten?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2016 8:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> That reminds me of "Grog" from Heinlein's Strange in a Strange Land....
> Should be appropriate in this discussion.
I've heard someone using that word on the radio, quite recently. It was
very popular in the 1970's and 80s. At the time. I even heard someone
say "Ye grog" instead of "Ye ken". (The phrase is ubiquitous on the east
coast and in Fife.)
Another one for your collection Thomas. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2016 9:49, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/8/2016 8:37 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> That reminds me of "Grog" from Heinlein's Strange in a Strange Land....
>> Should be appropriate in this discussion.
>
> I've heard someone using that word on the radio, quite recently. It was
> very popular in the 1970's and 80s. At the time. I even heard someone
> say "Ye grog" instead of "Ye ken". (The phrase is ubiquitous on the east
> coast and in Fife.)
>
> Another one for your collection Thomas. :)
>
Yes...
Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/05/16 12:19, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-5-2016 9:49, Stephen wrote:
>> Another one for your collection Thomas. :)
>>
>
> Yes...
> Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
Indeed it was. Re-read SiaSL and grok in fullness.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2016 12:55 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>> Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
> Indeed it was.
<Slaps own lazy wrist>
> Re-read SiaSL and grok in fullness.
I tried to last year. The authorial voice got in the way of the plot. :(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2016 8:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>
> Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript. :-D
I've just listened to it. It was a good one. :)
Thanks again.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:52:27 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 08/05/16 00:21, Doctor John wrote:
>>
>> OK. Got it (I can't speak for Stephen tho')
>>
>>
> ... and to demonstrate I really did use G****e:
> CAROLYN (interrupting): No, no, no, no, no. Let me spell this out for
> you in words of one syllable.
I knew you did. :)
> John (a mono-syllabic name)
LOL
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 08:40:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>
> Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript. :-D
>
> You were a bit too cryptic with your clues.
>
>> Doug and Mart
>
> I would never think of them as Doug and Mart. Only as Douglas and
> Martin.
> Thanks for the clue about the double quotes. I needed it.
> If either of us had gotten it, it would have been a brilliant link. (I
> wonder how many more from that series I've missed.)
I seemed to recall that in one episode, Douglas introduced them to the
passengers in that manner. :)
>
>
> And what's with the "G" word?
> Is it not allowed to say it in polite society?
I was playing the game - Goo-gle is two syllables, hence I had to work
around that problem. :)
> Have we gone back to the days when mentioning IBM was verboten?
Nah. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2016 17:47:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/8/2016 8:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/7/2016 4:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> (Too much time with a show with guys in the sky - Doug and Mart.)
>>
>> Thanks, I've not heard this episode. So I won't read the transcript.
>> :-D
>
>
> I've just listened to it. It was a good one. :)
> Thanks again.
You bet - all of them were good, but I particularly did like Wokingham. :)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/05/2016 20:35, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 06/05/2016 11:48 AM, scott wrote:
>> Yes I got mine overnight, I've just been reading through the user guide.
>> It's written in much the same manner as a book would be on digital
>> circuits, start off with what a "zero" and "one" is, then simple logic
>> gates, more complex circuits, then latches and adders, then things like
>> RAM and a CPU.
>
> Question: Are there any books out there that actually *do* that?
>
> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
> details.)
It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
anyway :-) The book I've seen thrown about in many places is this one:
http://artofelectronics.net/the-book/table-of-contents/
Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital". In
the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
way it does.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2016 14:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/8/2016 12:55 PM, Doctor John wrote:
>>> Now, was it not "grok"? Showing my age...
>> Indeed it was.
>
> <Slaps own lazy wrist>
>
>> Re-read SiaSL and grok in fullness.
>
> I tried to last year. The authorial voice got in the way of the plot. :(
>
Indeed. I tried too and didn't get very far.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One thing is absolutely certain though, I'm not about to write a
>> raytracer to run on this thing anytime soon :-)
>>
>
> Since the current computer has a whopping 5 qbits, you have plenty of
> time to learn. IIRC the current state of the art in quantum computation
> is the ability to write a program which proves with high probability
> that 15=5*3, so 3D rendering is a ways off yet.
Grover's algorithm looks interesting, if I ever get that far in the
tutorial. But yes, with just 5 qbits, things are a bit limited...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 7:45 AM, scott wrote:
> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
> anyway :-) The book I've seen thrown about in many places is this one:
>
> http://artofelectronics.net/the-book/table-of-contents/
>
If the content lives up to the TOC. That looks like an excellent book.
If Andrew has not already done it. It would be good to breadboard the
circuits as you do them.
> Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
> are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital". In
> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
> way it does.
A very good point. Most people think that a digital transistor is
different from a transistor for an amplifier.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2016 07:45 AM, scott wrote:
> On 06/05/2016 20:35, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Question: Are there any books out there that actually *do* that?
>>
>> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
>> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
>> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
>> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
>> details.)
>
> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
> anyway :-)
Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
> The book I've seen thrown about in many places is this one:
>
> http://artofelectronics.net/the-book/table-of-contents/
>
> Chapter 10 is "digital electronics", but many of the preceding chapters
> are worth understanding before you start to make anything "digital".
OK, I'll take a look.
> In
> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
> way it does.
Or, to put it more correctly, an arrangement of transistors is an
imperfect implementation of how a logic gate is supposed to behave.
Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2016 10:21 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 a dit:
> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/graphics/76-07-18.png
--
http://weblog.mixart-myrys.org/?post/2016/03/De-la-temporalisation
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I mean, what little I know about digital logic is gleaned from
>>> children's books and Wikipedia. I've never seen a *book* that actually
>>> *explains* this stuff. (Unless it's an electronics book, in which case
>>> it talks about impedance and capacitance and other such irrelevant
>>> details.)
>>
>> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
>> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
>> anyway :-)
>
> Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
> obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
My electronics course at university, and that book I linked to, both
take the approach of teaching the "real-world" stuff first. In fact, my
university electronics course started with explaining what
"conductivity" meant in terms of electrons. I guess you could ignore all
that and assume all logic gates are ideal, but typically that's not
going to be very useful for anything.
>> In
>> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
>> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
>> way it does.
>
> Or, to put it more correctly, an arrangement of transistors is an
> imperfect implementation of how a logic gate is supposed to behave.
>
> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
> bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
Of course, but for every gate designed and built using lego or water,
there are probably billions done in silicon, so it's a bit more useful
to learn about that first. Especially if you ever plan on building any
circuit (didn't you say you tried a simple circuit before and it failed?).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 9:21 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
> obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
>
Remember we are thinking Quantum here which is a real-world complexity.
>
>> In
>> the end, a digital "gate" is actually just transistors, so if you
>> understand how transistors work you'll understand why a gate behaves the
>> way it does.
>
> Or, to put it more correctly, an arrangement of transistors is an
> imperfect implementation of how a logic gate is supposed to behave.
>
> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
> bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
If you can get Quantum effects from Lego. The world is your mollusc. :-P
You need to get out of the mindset of:
"One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so."
Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>
> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>
Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2016 10:52 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 10:22, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Quantum is playing the cracks between the keys of the piano.
>>
>
> Now _that_ is a seriously good mental image.
>
> John
>
Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
the cracks of the piano
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2016 09:54 AM, scott wrote:
>>> It's not irrelevant if you actually plan to make anything work. All
>>> digital electronics (apart from in some basic simulator) is analog
>>> anyway :-)
>>
>> Yeah, but it helps to understand the theory before throwing all the
>> obfuscating real-world complexities into the mix.
>
> My electronics course at university, and that book I linked to, both
> take the approach of teaching the "real-world" stuff first. In fact, my
> university electronics course started with explaining what
> "conductivity" meant in terms of electrons. I guess you could ignore all
> that and assume all logic gates are ideal, but typically that's not
> going to be very useful for anything.
I guess it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is "design
circuitry that can be manufactured in the real world and sold to people
at a profit", there's an awful lot of real-world stuff that's quite
important. If your goal is "I wonder how my PC works", then... not so much.
>> Presumably if you were to build a gate out of water valves or lego
>> bricks, it would have a different set of imperfections.
>
> Of course, but for every gate designed and built using lego or water,
> there are probably billions done in silicon, so it's a bit more useful
> to learn about that first. Especially if you ever plan on building any
> circuit (didn't you say you tried a simple circuit before and it failed?).
Tangentially:
https://hackaday.com/2016/04/30/megaprocessor-is-a-macro-microprocessor/
Apparently the LEDs consume most of the power. And where I was thinking
that LEDs are extremely low-power...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>
> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
> the cracks of the piano
>
For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
'Anthem'.
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2016 13:12, Doctor John wrote:
> On 09/05/16 11:12, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, but I got it from James Blish's 1954 short story "Beep"
>> I'm sure there is a line that says physics is physics and you can't play
>> the cracks of the piano
>>
>
> For no apparent reason, I was immediately reminded of Leonard Cohen's
> 'Anthem'.
>
> There is a crack, a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in.
>
Somehow, I think this would be an interesting Challenge for the TC-RTC.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
