Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #5776
| From | bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly |
| Date | 2015-09-03 03:45 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <ms88ok$6hc$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <ms83rh$2tp$3@news.albasani.net> <ms85il$ur$1@speranza.aioe.org> <ms85tu$68u$1@news.albasani.net> <ms86hp$2jl$1@speranza.aioe.org> <ms87su$ab0$1@news.albasani.net> |
On 03.09.2015 03:31, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Am 03.09.2015 um 03:08 schrieb bartekltg:
>> On 03.09.2015 02:57, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 02:51 schrieb bartekltg:
>>>> On 03.09.2015 02:22, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 02:01 schrieb bartekltg:
>>>>>> On 03.09.2015 01:28, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 03.09.2015 um 01:21 schrieb bartekltg:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is exactly the answer to you question about 'mean entropy'.
>>>>>>>> You did not understand the direct answer because you do not
>>>>>>>> know math about entropy. This is why I also wrote the second
>>>>>>>> post about simplified problem, but with the same question
>>>>>>>> and answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I have a candy in one hand I do not have a half of bits
>>>>>>>> of enthropy in each hand. I have one bit in left and one
>>>>>>>> bit in right. But both bits are corelated, so if you
>>>>>>>> known one, you also known the second - second hand
>>>>>>>> have zero entropy, because ("under the assuption the
>>>>>>>> first hand in known") you known where the candy is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mean entropy" as you proposed ("128/n") have no sense,
>>>>>>>> because probability doesn't work that way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, then simply entropy. Lets say that the 128 input bits
>>>>>>> are all of full entropy, each bit has entropy of 1.0. We
>>>>>>> assume that AES is very well designed such that the output
>>>>>>> n bits are equally good. How much entropy has under this
>>>>>>> assumption one output bit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One bit.
>>>>>> If AES is good, both 0 and 1 is equally probable,
>>>>>> so entropy is
>>>>>> -1/2*log(1/2) -1/2*log(1/2) = 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Entropy of two bits is almost two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Entropy of the whole n bits is not greater than 128bits
>>>>>> //forth dot
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)#Further_properties
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, assuming that the n bits are equally good, the entropy
>>>>> of each output bit is not greater than 128/n. A trivial
>>>>> calculation, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> No. You still don't get this hands and a candy story ;]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have two bit random sequence.
>>>> 00, 01, 10, 11, all with probability 1/4.
>>>>
>>>> AES_2_4 generate:
>>>>
>>>> AES(00) = 1011
>>>> AES(01) = 1000
>>>> AES(10) = 0111
>>>> AES(11) = 0110
>>>> [you can write better "AES" bunction and recalculate entropies]
>>>>
>>>> Do you know definition of entropy?
>>>> x_i are possible sequewnces. P(x_i) propability od that seqence.
>>>> entropy H = \sum_i P(x_i)*log2(1/P(x_i))
>>>>
>>>> Entropy of first bit is 1
>>>> Entropy of second bit is 1
>>>> entropy of third bit is 1/4log2(4) + 3/4log2(4/3) = 0.81128
>>>> entropy of fourth bit is 1
>>>>
>>>> Entropy of first two bits?
>>>> We have only two possible sequences. 01 and 10.
>>>> Both have probability 1/2. So H = 1
>>>> First two bits have only one bit of entropy.
>>>> -How, first bit have one bit, and second bit have one bit,
>>>> this is total two bits!
>>>>
>>>> look at the sequences. If I look at first bit and it is 1,
>>>> i know random sequieince was eithier 00 or 01.
>>>> But if I look at the second bit, I will not get any new information,
>>>> i knew before tjat second bit is NOT first bit.
>>>>
>>>> First bit carry information, second bit carry information,
>>>> but this is the same information.
>>>>
>>>> Second and third bit can be: 00, 01, 11. The last
>>>> with propability 1/2, first two - 1/4. H = 1.3466
>>>>
>>>> The first and the last bit:
>>>> sequences:
>>>> 11 10 01 00. propability od any =1/4. H=2.
>>>>
>>>> If I look at these two bits, I can decipher whole sequence.
>>>> They carry whole information. If I know that, the rest of
>>>> the sequence have no more information for me.
>>>>
>>>> Entropy of whole sequence is... of course 2 bits,
>>>> beceuse i have 4 possible sequences, echch with 1/4 chance.
>>>
>>> Sorry, please find possible logical faults in what I have
>>> stated in my paradox, e.g. why my calculation is wrong.
>>
>>
>> "128/n bits of entropy in one bit" is wrong.
>> You do not give us mathematical proof of your claim,
>> so I cant point at a specific logical fault other than this.
>
> But that's exactly simple math calculation, on the assumption
> that AES output bits are equally good, i.e.
Yes.
> having equal entropy,
Be carefully. Can you prove that?
Yes, this is also true (for 1 bit sequnces, for k-sequences,
where 128<k<n is obviously not true).
Not only all bits have equal entropy, but all bits have
entropy equal to one bit.
From 'entropy of every bit is equal' you can't conclude
that entropy is divided.
About that was the "candy"post.
I have one candy, keep it in one of two places.
Every place hold 1 bit of information, not half.
******too much messages ago***
I have one candy. I hide it in one of my hands and present
both hand to you. Information, where is the candy is one bit.
It is either in the left or in the right hand.
Do you think that if I open one of my hands, you get
a 1/2 bit of information? And when I open the second
one - net 1/2 bit of information?
No, the whole bit is in my left hand in the same way it is in
my right hand. When I open the first hand you will get whole bit
of information, and when I open the second hand, you gen no new
information, 0 bits.
****************
> isn't it? If you still don't want to accept this, then you should
> at least, to be fair, also respond to the post of Wessel where he
> agreed with my calculation and similarly tell him that he is wrong
> and see what he will react to that!!
I have posted an answer to his message, this post included a brief
description between a small volume of milk and random variables.
Also, think for yourself;>
bartekltg
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-01 13:09 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-01 14:23 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-01 20:00 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-01 18:43 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 10:48 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-02 13:00 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 22:50 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-02 21:31 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:46 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-02 21:58 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 00:13 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-03 00:32 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 02:47 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 16:52 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 00:03 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 17:18 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 00:28 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 17:52 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 01:04 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 18:29 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:04 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 18:25 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:33 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 18:53 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 02:16 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 02:18 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 02:33 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 02:42 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 02:55 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 03:03 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:14 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 03:17 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:30 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 03:36 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:13 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 04:19 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:32 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 22:51 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 16:51 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 10:49 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-04 19:47 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 13:42 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-04 21:50 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-04 20:33 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-04 23:45 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 01:24 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 00:50 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-07 14:14 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 15:57 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 12:19 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-08 23:47 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 02:28 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-04 20:23 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 00:55 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-04 17:11 -0700
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 02:31 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-04 20:15 -0700
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 00:35 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 00:42 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 00:46 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 00:54 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:11 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 01:21 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 01:28 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 02:01 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 02:22 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 02:51 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 02:57 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:08 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 03:31 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:45 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 03:54 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:18 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 04:24 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-09-03 07:23 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 16:14 -0500
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:23 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-02 21:33 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:54 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:22 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 23:32 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly bartekltg <bartek@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 00:22 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-01 13:23 -0700
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 11:04 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 02:22 -0500
csiph-web