Post #4150444

@chemoelectric@masto.ai > Grover's original paper ... has no quantum theory in it Besides that the keyword "quantum" appears 52 times, and it makes liberal reference to the prior body of work on quantum computation, it expressed the algorithm in UNITARY operations, i.e. QUANTUM operations. Your algorithm does not manipulate the state via unitary operations. No-one is surprised that your algorithm can complete in 2 iterations. An algorithm that doesn't use quantum operations could complete in 1 iteration using the same assumptions. > Parallel GPU Parallelisation is a red herring here. > All the quantum computer researchers have to do is actually TRY sampling the register early Of course they have tried that, but you believe in a conspiracy that prevents anything except consensus results being published. As such I see no point in discussing this, because your belief is not falsifiable, even in principle. I note that *you* haven't tried any of the physical experiments that you say give different results than the present consensus. Since your belief about physical experiments is not falsifiable, I am sticking to your claims that stem from theoretical considerations only. > I shall not try to refute them because you have not bothered even trying to make them correct. Everything I write I make every attempt to get as correct as practical. I can only imagine you say this because I am persistent in disagreeing with you. I am quite clear about what would lead me to change my mind and am happy to remind you of what that is, if it would help. > is it that you are asking me for a proof of it within my iris number system No, I'm not asking you for anything. I just found that topic more interesting, and you didn't reply to anything I said about it, which was disappointing. I wondered if my intro to recursion theory was useful, given you said you found oracles hard to understand. On your number system, in the other thread, I asked you several questions, including two precise ones to hopefully turn the iris waffle into something usable. > I need help understanding what is supposed to be so interesting about the Halting Problem in this context. It's where the idea of an oracle comes from. The Halting Problem is not otherwise directly relevant. > is that a tautologically complete system such as mine is guaranteed to be totally free of contradictions and paradox. "Tautologically complete" is not a standard mathematical or logical term. What do you mean? It's certainly not complete in the usual sense in mathematical logic. And how are you going to justify your assertion that it is free of contradictions? First, you haven't yet defined a full suite of assertions, because the iris analogy remains merely an analogy, and this beyond the reach of serious analysis. This is a grave disadvantage of your system. Second, any rigorous argument for consistency of a precisely defined system of mathematics must be performed in a strictly stronger system due to Gödel, so that avenue is ultimately of no help. Third, an appeal to the obviousness of axioms can also be made in Z_2, in KP, in ZF, or in Type Theory, or any other system - you have no advantage there whatsoever. As a mathematical pluralist, I encourage you to use whichever axioms you find appealing. But there are no known inconsistencies in set theory, so you must be talking about some philosophical or aesthetic distaste. Fine - but then, why is that an "advantage" or make set theory "idiotic"? It's just your personal preference. And once again, most importantly: your system is not yet a mathematical system. It can't be "absolutely trustworthy" if you can't write down all its axioms. You don't know there's no untrustworthy detail lurking in the iris analogy.