It’s inscrutable to me too, but mainly because I never learned Haskell.
It does, however, contain a link to this interesting paper, which shows that straightforward application of Cox’s axioms allow you to have complex-valued probabilities in Bayesian inference, which makes the jump to quantum physics much easier.
I had a bit of a hard time following that too, but mainly because I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of mathematical fields and their notation.
Well, I suppose you have two questions to ponder. One, is it worth it to be more useful if this entails seeming less useful? Two, is this what will actually happen if you make that list?
At any time, the universe consists of a number of entities whose formal states inhabit Hilbert spaces of various dimension (thus |01>+|10> comes from a four-dimensional Hilbert space, while |1> comes from a two-dimensional Hilbert space), and the true dynamics consists of repeatedly jumping from one such set of entity-states to another set of entity-states.
But really, I was replying to whpearson’s question about bogus’s comment. (The FP monad at least makes more sense to me than Leibniz’s monads.)
I think it must be the FP monad; here’s a sigfpe post which is, as usual, above me but which seems to treat vectors as Haskell monads: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2007/03/monads-vector-spaces-and-quantum.html
It’s inscrutable to me too, but mainly because I never learned Haskell.
It does, however, contain a link to this interesting paper, which shows that straightforward application of Cox’s axioms allow you to have complex-valued probabilities in Bayesian inference, which makes the jump to quantum physics much easier.
I had a bit of a hard time following that too, but mainly because I’m not familiar with the ins and outs of mathematical fields and their notation.
You should learn Haskell. Assuming you’ve already learned Erlang, of course.
I’ve got all kinds of advice on geeky things that are for most people complete wastes of time.
Do you have a list anywhere?
I’m thinking I should totally do that, but it might make me seem less useful. Like when Sherlock Holmes explains his deductions so they seem obvious.
Well, I suppose you have two questions to ponder. One, is it worth it to be more useful if this entails seeming less useful? Two, is this what will actually happen if you make that list?
But where does Mitchell Porter use anything from the functional programming side of things?
It might be this bit:
But really, I was replying to whpearson’s question about bogus’s comment. (The FP monad at least makes more sense to me than Leibniz’s monads.)