You talked about randomly behaving qubits that somehow give the right answers.
You are an idiot as always, not having an idea what you are talking about.
Well I think that's enough now, I have better things to do.
You talked about randomly behaving qubits that somehow give the right answers.
Yes. All qubits do that. They give the approximately right answer (with high degree of certainty).
"Fuzzy logic" was specifically designed as a multi-variable logic used to attempt to determine how to either design a quantum-logical system or for artificial intelligence. So it is related. But I agree that no quantum computers will exist literally as expected. They will always require more energy per unit bit because you require super-cooling the metal to reduce its 'induction' effects. These are natural magnetic waves that get induced when current accelerates and decelerates. To make a 3-valued, unit requires setting a loop of metal that allows a negative voltage, a zero-voltage, and a positive one and thus needs to alter frequencies too quick for very-very-small-scale electronics. So these parts have to be also larger than their binary components. Furthermore, they've designed the 'Q-bit' as an 2-dimensional array of these in multiples (8, I think?).Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:18 pmNo, quantum logic isn't fuzzy logic, and there are no real quantum computers yet, probably never will be.
Fuzzy logic is inherent to the right hemisphere, it has also always been part of human nature, like classical logic is inherent to the left one.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:50 pm"Fuzzy logic" was specifically designed as a multi-variable logic used to attempt to determine how to either design a quantum-logical system or for artificial intelligence. So it is related. But I agree that no quantum computers will exist literally as expected. They will always require more energy per unit bit because you require super-cooling the metal to reduce its 'induction' effects. These are natural magnetic waves that get induced when current accelerates and decelerates. To make a 3-valued, unit requires setting a loop of metal that allows a negative voltage, a zero-voltage, and a positive one and thus needs to alter frequencies too quick for very-very-small-scale electronics. So these parts have to be also larger than their binary components. Furthermore, they've designed the 'Q-bit' as an 2-dimensional array of these in multiples (8, I think?).
They would have an advantage to do unique KINDS of computing, such as encrypting and decrypting at powerful rates. So they'd work like 'master-keys' for both creating hard locks and undoing them. But the rate at which they get used to encrypt would cancel out the effective speed of decrypting canceling out their prior effectiveness. They'd still be good to prevent things like 'snooping' though and would make some things permanently unable to be tapped when devised with proprietary copyright systems, like HDMI electronics.
They do not give a random answer.... quantum computers we have today are capable of returning the ground state of a quantum system.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:04 pm Fuzzy logic is inherent to the right hemisphere, it has also always been part of human nature, like classical logic is inherent to the left one.
As for quantum computers, I mean that the common belief is that qubits exist in a superposition of all possible states, and then when checked, they give the desired answer. But that's impossible as when checked they give a random answer. I think quantum computers will only ever be able to influence this kind of randomness of qubits in certain directions, but that's a very different mechanism.
Ha HaLogik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:57 pmConstructive mathematics starts precisely with rejecting LEM.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm (3) A law that directly asserts no third option that permits
A and not-A......Exclusive Middle possibility such as {A, [color = red]A and not-A[/color], not-A} excluding the contraction [“con-” (with) “-tra-” (third) “diction” spoken-part]
This is the fundamental problem with LEM.
You could say that color = red (A)
But then the negation of "color" (not A) could mean either:
* The entire light spectrum that is NOT red
or
* Everything in the universe that doesn't have the color red.
The problem with FOL is precisely that which is not written. Context!
I'm not sure what you think is in error? These ARE defined through Boolean logic completely. These are just a summary of the minimal laws and their meanings for all consistent logic. To define in Boolean, you don't begin with exclusive-or nor the 'coincidence' operator but by using strictly the logical constant set {-, +, ∙} and the variable-constants {0, 1, (P)} and any number of variable names. That's it.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:57 pmYou are falling for the exact same error. because you can't define ⊙, ⊕ and + (but I can - in computer code).Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm (1) Law of Consistency
A ⊙ A = 1,
(2) Law of Exclusion, which is just the 'dual' of (1)
A ⊕ A = 0 and
The law of excluding the 'middle' term also relates to Aristotle's use of he middle term but is equivalent to the above and the law of non-contradiction implied by both of these but more clearly emphasized by the use of the normal OR operator as
(3) Law of Non-contradiction
A + A̅
I can construct ANY logic I want to produce the results you expect.
I will construct you a logic in which:
A ⊙ A = 0
A ⊕ A = 1
A + A̅ = 1
Maybe a misinterpretation? The last comment may expand upon this.The problem is still interpretationScott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm These are all proved within most Boolean systems by simply using the inclusive-or, and, and complement. Then it proves later defines the exclusive or and uses DeMorgan's Theorem to determine the duals which included defining the inverse of exclusive-or as the 'coincidence operator.
I can interpret any symbol differently to how you intended it to be interpreted.
You have no control over that.
You've ended up arguing for Type theory. Where operators are context AND operand sensitiveScott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:19 pm Anyways, I already just explained how this is done using the form of Complimentary style using universals. By limiting the larger class, U, to whatever smaller subset, you can control how the negation is interpreted but you need to use negation as a binary operator rather than the normal unary one.
Not-Red = Some non-Red,
Non-Red (or not-Red as a "complementary") == The universe minus Red
Non-Red color = The universe of colors minus Red [restricted universe]
And when you have done that you will have a consistent system of RULES for working with booleans.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:19 pm I'm not sure what you think is in error? These ARE defined through Boolean logic completely.
These are just a summary of the minimal laws and their meanings for all consistent logic. To define in Boolean, you don't begin with exclusive-or nor the 'coincidence' operator but by using strictly the logical constant set {-,[/code], ∙} [/b] and the variable-constants {0, 1, (P)} and any number of variable names. That's it.Code: Select all
[code]+
The only way to avoid mis-interpretation is to remove that which mis-interprets from the equation.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:29 pm Maybe a misinterpretation? The last comment may expand upon this.
Avoid the homework. I'll just tell you what I have done - probably much easier, since I have (kind of) tricked everybody.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:33 pm @Logik, I checked your Python but can't determine what it means without homework as I have opted out of learning object orientated languages other than their logical motivation and very basic set-ups. They are designed effective for group programming or compiling with projects based on programming in groups such as with open-source programming. I've not been interested in an employment writing programs other than for myself and so stuck to the functioning and assembly/machine language. Are you able to translate those samples in a pseudo-code or functioning language? Otherwise I'll have to postpone trying to make sense of it.
That seems to be a big problem for computers then? As in Logic if you evalute P and it is true then you don't have to evaluate ¬P as its false by definition and vice versa.Logik wrote:.What computers do is first they evaluate P THEN they evaluate not-P. ...
Okay, it still might be helpful to understand what you've done in the program because you could have simply wrote,Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:46 pmAvoid the homework. I'll just tell you what I have done - probably much easier, since I have (kind of) tricked everybody.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:33 pm @Logik, I checked your Python but can't determine what it means without homework as I have opted out of learning object orientated languages other than their logical motivation and very basic set-ups. They are designed effective for group programming or compiling with projects based on programming in groups such as with open-source programming. I've not been interested in an employment writing programs other than for myself and so stuck to the functioning and assembly/machine language. Are you able to translate those samples in a pseudo-code or functioning language? Otherwise I'll have to postpone trying to make sense of it.
I've changed the meaning of "=" and "!=" in the context of anything that is of type "Human".
e.g I have created a restricted universe.
If you were to create a different kind of object (e.g boolean) the universe will continue to function as you expect it and in accordance to the laws of boolean logic.
But that was simply the easiest way to navigate around LNC/Identity. Another way I can do it is by leveraging the flow of time and the fact that the computer has a digital "ticker".
The Law of identity demands that you don't use the SAME meaning at the SAME time, but it is exceptionally vague as to the sampling interval.
And so we cannot evaluate the truth-value of P and not-P at the EXACT SAME time.
What computers do is first they evaluate P THEN they evaluate not-P. I am using this gap in sampling to flip the truth-value of P.
And so what I have simply done is built a quantum computer which oscillates at the precisely at the frequency of the classical computer so P and not-P return 1 every time you sample them one after another.
Demonstration here: https://repl.it/repls/FoolishAverageTest
He admitted it as a type of 'trick' in the programming. Read my correspondence with him.
Pathetic. This has nothing to do with logic. You are insane.Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:46 pm I have (kind of) tricked everybody.
I've changed the meaning of "=" and "!=" in the context of anything that is of type "Human". e.g I have created a restricted universe.
If you were to create a different kind of object (e.g boolean) the universe will continue to function as you expect it and in accordance to the general laws of boolean logic. But that was simply the easiest way to navigate around LNC/Identity. Another way I can do it is by leveraging the flow of time and the fact that the computer has a digital "ticker". The Law of identity demands that you don't use the SAME meaning at the SAME time, but it is exceptionally vague as to the sampling interval.
And so we cannot evaluate the value of P and not-P at the EXACT SAME time. What computers do is first they evaluate P THEN they evaluate not-P. I am using this gap in sampling to flip the truth-value of P under everybody's nose. And so what I have simply done is built a quantum computer which oscillates at the precisely at the frequency of the classical computer so P and not-P return 1 every time you sample them one after another.An interesting property of this system is that ordering actually matters. ( A == A ) and (A != A ) is True BUT ( A != A ) and (A == A) is False. This is a deep rabbit hole into computer science and atomicity so I'll stop here.
Yes, I bet he doesn't even realise how insane his posts are.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:55 pm He admitted it as a type of 'trick' in the programming. Read my correspondence with him.