Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bartekltg Newsgroups: comp.programming Subject: Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 04:13:23 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <20150901111251.317@kylheku.com> <20150902054403.661@kylheku.com> <34teuahtcltdi1mrq4gj95bu8gacjv112i@4ax.com> <0a1fua58g3o3sbe715rv0ugvvkkdd06lvr@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 8yDXz2POMePMu60eIS0/Vw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:5778 On 03.09.2015 03:36, Mok-Kong Shen wrote: > Am 03.09.2015 um 03:30 schrieb bartekltg: >> On 03.09.2015 03:17, Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >>> Am 03.09.2015 um 03:14 schrieb bartekltg: >>>> On 03.09.2015 03:03, Mok-Kong Shen wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> What do you mean? If you consider that the input bits have an >>>>> entropy value of t with t < 1.0, then the output bits will >>>>> have entropy value of 128*t/n and the same paradoxical >>>>> effect would follow. >>>> >>>> No. This is wrong. I explained it a couple of times, >>>> but you need to _read_ it. Carefully and slowly. >>>> This isn't a hard part of mathematics, but it can >>>> be confusing at first try. First try to understand >>>> the definition of entropy. Read wiki or book, then >>>> look at my post with "4 bit toy AES". >>> >>> I do think that I know what entropy is. >> >> No, sadly you have no idea:( Not if you still claim "128/n". >> >> I don't talk about intuition, but a real definition. >> The half-true intimation is that what has mislead you. >> >>> Anyway, also >>> Wessel ágreed on my calculation of 128/n. (Would you >>> like to refute him?) >> >> WTF? Mathematics is not a democracy, there is no voting. >> I give you a simple proof. >> It even ton't deserve to be called a proof. >> "Substitute to the definition", this is all. > > Why don't you similarly tell Wessel that he is wrong? Are you serious? Wessel! I summon you because you have written: >>> I wouldn't use the word average, but there would be about 128/n bits >>> of entropy per output bit. and this is so wrong that I have to tell you that so you kung-fu... I mean your math->probabilistic->information theory is weak. ;-) Hmm. But Wessel post one message where he agreed with you, and a couple of messages where he claim he do not understand what you are doing. He go to sleep/work/away form usenet and didn't read a dozen of our post about the problem, including post with proof or post with nice illustration how it works. In other hand, you have many chances to take a bit of paper and work it out. ;-) bartekltg