undefined | Better HN

0 pointssnowwrestler5y ago0 comments

Thanks for the links. It doesn't seem like your experiment captures the interesting part, which is that you don't need more qubits to measure a more subtle bias.

As I understand the experiment now, it seems like the more subtle the bias in the coin, the more times you would need to rotate the polarizer to detect the bias.

If there is something about using the polarizing filters to keep track of tries that is more efficient than using something like a stick, then I would emphasize that in your write-up.

0 comments

htfu5y ago

Yup. As greek to me as the paper is at least it makes very clear what it sets out to achieve and why (and when) it differs. I suppose it's implicit but I feel article really ought to explain that in the demonstrated case of heavy bias, few attempts and fixed, coarse steps there is of course no advantage - apart from the stick in ground one could also best its resolution off 0b1000000 and ++/--.

It's a nice explainer on polarization but tries to be more than that and doesn't achieve it - but with further work (not in form of added caveats but rather a new approach to tying the two concepts together) I'm sure it could.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssnowwrestler5y ago0 comments

Thanks for the links. It doesn't seem like your experiment captures the interesting part, which is that you don't need more qubits to measure a more subtle bias.

As I understand the experiment now, it seems like the more subtle the bias in the coin, the more times you would need to rotate the polarizer to detect the bias.

If there is something about using the polarizing filters to keep track of tries that is more efficient than using something like a stick, then I would emphasize that in your write-up.

0 comments

htfu5y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse