Talk:Life Hacks/Xandergod(Rosemance)/E-C/Have all female children and write the new cheat

That look about right for you on the programming end El? I used a little bit of what I knew about the quantum computing we have in its infancy to fill out the details, but did supplement a little bit of it with BS as well. I remember hearing it involved 4 paired units that react with one another, I wrote down that it would mean 8 states that things could be in, but on second thought it could just as easily be 4 or 16. Actually, 16 in probably more likely. There are 8 units, but they are all quantum paired, so that means there are really just 4 since the paired units are bound to one another and have to be identical at all times. That being the case, you get a quantum bit that is 4 paired units large thus having 16 possible states it can be in.... Maybe I should change that in the text. Jemini (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (CET)

Well, at the root of things it still uses binary actually. That is because binary is the simplest form of mathematics that one can perform. Quantum bits, or qubits, at their base can be either one or zero just like a normal bit, but only when tested for. Any other time they can be considered 0, 1, and all possible values in between. Once tested, the whole thing collapses into 1's and 0's. What you are referring to, I believe, is the fact that qubits can't be copied or deleted, which is the way that we normally manipulate data in a standard computer model. Instead, quantum computers rely on quantum entanglement to perform quantum teleportation to manipulate data. The difficulty with moving from a standard computer model of programming to quantum programming would likely come from the extra functionality of working at the quantum level. Examples would include: working in more than three spacial and one temporal dimension, breakdown of the cause-effect relationship, efficient use of uncertainty to produce effects more efficiently, etc. You've shown yourself to have a decent understanding of the extra dimensions of string/membrane theory, so I would extrapolate on that aspect of quantum computing. Retraining oneself to, say change the past calculation instead of recalculating would be difficult to learn; and by affecting the past calculation, it is already changed by the time you need to do so which means you don't need to do so (breakdown of the cause-effect relationship due to a second temporal dimension of what we call imaginary time). It is likely that binary will still be there, but anything higher would have significantly more functions whose purpose it would be difficult to fathom without training. You can't actually program in binary, you can program in another language using binary, but that is a different story. --Elerneron (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (CET)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Glad I waited for the explanation to fill my knowledge gaps. All I remember hearing is that you need at least 4 qubit pairs (8 bits total) in order to do anything at all with quantum computing, and I guess the BS just started filling in the gaps from there. Well, now I know how to re-write it then. (I will probably do the re-write tomorrow after I have gotten some sleep.) Jemini (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2017 (CET)

Ok, done, and also, it is not impossible to program in binary, just humanly infeasible. It requires knowing exactly witch bit sequence is referring to an actual number, and witch sequence is referring to a number that will be translated into a letter, and also witch sequences referring to numbers or letters correspond to witch EXACT part of the program. It is almost impossible for a human to do. However, back in the early days of programming, there were programmers who went all the way down to the binary in order to fix some issues that just weren't coding right in the clumsy languages of the time. (Both my parents, who met in computer programming school in the 80s, being among them.) Jemini (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2017 (CET)

I'm a child of 80's programming myself (though I was a child at the time). I may have said it wrong. I was just trying to say that you can't code in binary without a language. That would be like using letters to write a story with no language to tell you what order to place the letters in. You certainly can edit individual bits to create a program, but it still needs a language to turn those numbers into commands (sounds like a huge pain in the ass, I would have hated to be those first programmers writing programs on punch tape and punch cards). I guess I just said it wrong. Sorry about that. --Elerneron (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2017 (CET)