Wow! Is the rest of the book that good? I’ve read some of Aaronson’s lecture notes and blog (and largely approve of his interpretation of QM as probability with a 2-norm), but I didn’t know he could write like this.
I think he might be simplifying it a little bit. As I understand QM, it’s more like probability with complex numbers, rather than with negative numbers.
The book is cleaned up and updated. There’s a section at the beginning explaining all the new results that have come out since 2006, requiring updates to the lecture notes when he was turning them into a book.
I think he might be simplifying it a little bit. As I understand QM, it’s more like probability with complex numbers, rather than with negative numbers.
Yes, he is. Must be for rhetorical purposes, because elsewhere he says exactly that.
Wow! Is the rest of the book that good? I’ve read some of Aaronson’s lecture notes and blog (and largely approve of his interpretation of QM as probability with a 2-norm), but I didn’t know he could write like this.
I think it’s been up for a long time on his website as a lecture series. http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/
I think he might be simplifying it a little bit. As I understand QM, it’s more like probability with complex numbers, rather than with negative numbers.
The book is cleaned up and updated. There’s a section at the beginning explaining all the new results that have come out since 2006, requiring updates to the lecture notes when he was turning them into a book.
Yes, he is. Must be for rhetorical purposes, because elsewhere he says exactly that.
Ah, okay. It’s been a while since I read it. I remember it being excellent though.
Yeah, I think the book will be a pretty great read for the most mathematically capable LWers. (Most of it is, alas, over my head.)