Reversible computations aren’t just carrying around an error term, they carry a recipe for reconstructing what was lost. In simple cases like a Hadamard gate, an observed behavior could go from true to random and then with another application goes back to true, no extra memory is needed. In the Trump/Biden negation example, the operator has to reserve memory (qubits) to reconstruct unique properties of each. Bouncing between Trump and Biden is a dumb operation, but get some slippage from Biden (say Harris becomes president), then the same operator could go somewhere very different than Trump.
On May 13, 2022, at 8:34 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: glen sed: Exactly! That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo, not karate. And yet you are this list's ultimate contrarian which makes the paradox/contradiction of it all the self-negating perfection one could hope for! The best phrase (IMO) of the post yet: But it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics without currying. On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote: An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of equations. I'm a bit worried about all the meaning packed into "property", "entailed", and "system of equations". But as long as we read "equations" *very* generously, then I'm down. On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote: Unitary operators are needed. Apply a Trumping operator you get a Biden and apply another one to get a Trump back. To make this work a bunch of ancillary bits are needed to record all the wisdom that Trump destroys. I am afraid we are dealing with a dissipative system, though. IDK. The allowance of unitary operators seems to be a restatement of orthogonality. In a world where no 2 variates/objects can be perfectly separated, there can be no unitary operators. (Or, perhaps every operator has an error term. f(x) → y ∪ ε) I haven't done the work. But it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics without currying. Can we define logics with neither? What's the expressive power of such a persnickety thing? Is it that such a thing can't exist? Or merely that our language is incapable of talking about that thing with complete faith? Biden is clearly not not(Trump), at least if the object of interest is "too damned {old, white, male}". If that's the object, clearly Biden ≡ Trump and ∀x|x(Trump) = x(Biden) ∪ ε, where |ε| >> |x(Trump)-x(Biden)|. -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
OpenPGP_0xFD82820D1AAECDAE.asc
Description: OpenPGP_0xFD82820D1AAECDAE.asc
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP_signature
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
