So do you want the board? I didn't get any emails. I've been talking to one of the other anons about this via email who said they'd been talking to you and they said that you wanted the board.
If you're genuinely curious about Shamanism, here's a book. I've done a lot of what's known as Shamanic journeying (it's a type of visual meditation to a drum beat). It's pretty interesting stuff. Of course, much like this VQC stuff, there are better sources of foundational information for anyone who wants useful, applicable and practical knowledge of that side of life. I could dump introductory occult books if anyone would like. I'll do it in a different thread obviously.
>JesusFag
>All this spiritual shit is real
I hope you don't think this is patronizing, but how much have you actually read into this kind of thing? Every time I've seen someone say the kinds of things you're saying, they mean they reject materialistic atheism but they don't know much else. Are you a questioning Christian?
If you aren't already aware of this, I think you would like it. I have a great deal of books on applications of these kinds of ideas. Rather than just being aware that there's
more to the world than the physical plane, there are practical applications that can change the world around you. It all tends to fall under the label of occultism, and I was trying to avoid saying that word since the Bible equates it to Satanic evil (which is incorrect) but it's the easiest way to describe it. This might deserve its own thread if anyone else is actually interested. I agree with you in that we were all brought here for a reason.
>a wall great and high (the grid)
>twelve gates (setSize = 12 by default)
>a golden reed to measure the city etc (something to do with the golden ratio maybe)
>an hundred and forty and four cubits
>cubits
You know, I thought it was dumb, but there are a lot of parallels.
Well yeah, I said I was talking about books. It's a very good starting place for practical occultism. It's not for everyone but it sounds like it'll be right up your alley.
>I have trouble talking to any family or friends now bc they all think I'm crazy when I start talking about Q's shit
I just don't tend to talk to anyone about this kind of thing unless I know they're already into it. I'm lucky enough to have two friends in real life who believe in similar things to me. I certainly hope your family isn't the kind to want to be away from you for being into this stuff, because I've certainly heard of other people who lost a lot of important relationships by saying too much for others to handle.
I'm trying to completely understand the links between the grid and quantum computing, since I haven't seen any other explanations. Knowing that the grid is meant to be a quantum computer, obviously there are going to be qubits somewhere. So is it that each block of (e, n) cells is a set of qubits (so if setSize = 12 there are 12 qubits for every possible set of (e, n) values) and that we use the mathematical relationships between c, e, n and setSize to find the right block containing the c we want, or is it that every block of (e, n) cells could be considered one qubit, we use Shor's algorithm to find the right block of cells, and then we use mathematical relationships to find the right cell (considering there could be an infinite number of cells with the same (e, n) values)? Or are the qubits something else?
It's been that way for a very long time. If you know anything about Gamergate (from the perspective of the people involved, not the media they were fighting against), Wikipedia actively ignored evidence and deleted it in the talk sections, and they all brigaded together to push the agenda the media were pushing. It's documented somewhere but I wouldn't remember. It'll go into far more detail. They're fucking scumbags.
"Creating reality through prayer" is almost exactly what comes up in a lot of the books I mentioned. When it comes to occultism vs Christianity, a lot of the practical information is more literal and based on the scientific method (do this and this and you'll make this and this happen) instead of being interpretive and metaphorical like it is in the Bible. I would suggest that you look into creative visualization, but you'd mostly get new agers, and they tend to ironically take occultism and take away the reason and explanation.
Bumping >>250 since it quietened down a bit
In that case, you might not see my post since you might have filtered me (I'm posting useful shit too, and asking questions), but we obviously haven't quite separated everything we're doing into different threads yet. We could always have a general thread for that stuff and redirect everyone there so this thread isn't so cluttered.
Bump
Please see >>356 too if you're one of the people who is used to only coming to one thread. Apologies for the triple post.
I know that. Did you even read my post? I know how the grid works. I know that wherever there's a cell with {e, n, d, x, a, b} in it there are infinite possible sets with the same (e, n) value. I said that. I want to know what the qubits are if this is meant to be a quantum computer. Is it the cells? Is it specific groups of cells? Is it cells within specific infinite sets of (e, n)? Every single time I ask to try to figure this out, I get completely misunderstood. It's extremely frustrating.
If nobody knows what the qubits are in this situation, how are we meant to use this as a VQC? If the entire point of this grid is to use it as a quantum computer, why are we not figuring that out? It's great if we can find the mathematical relationships between each variable used, and it's obviously important, but that's only half of what we're doing.
This isn't making it any clearer for me but thanks for trying.
I know what a qubit is. I haven't heard the word coupled in reference to qubits but I know about coefficients, amplitude, superposition, etc. Have you read the whole reply chain? People keep trying to help me assuming I don't know anything.
>qubits are programmed by pairing (or coupling) states of a qubit to another
I've spent all of the last week researching quantum computing and I haven't heard this anywhere. I have no idea what you're talking about.
>Take a look at digital logic circuits. With this qubit configuration, you can practically code an entire digital logic gate to test all paths simultaneously.
I have no idea what you just said.
>DWave achieved this with quantum annealing, factoring 21 into 7 and 3
What is DWave?
>in terms of time, t
When did time come into this?
>Does that make more sense?
Hahahahaha
I'm the one working on that simple guide, so if you can explain it to me, I'll do everything I can to explain it to everyone else. No offense, but I really don't think anyone without a strong background in this stuff would understand what you're saying. I have a background in it but clearly not as much as everyone else. This is my understanding:
>quantum computers are like regular computers with 1s and 0s, except, until a qubit is observed (so while computation is happening), they're a superposition of 1 and 0
>when a qubit is observed, instead of being a superposition in the form of an amplitude and a coefficient, it's either going to be a 1 or a 0
>one example of using qubits in quantum computing is factorizing numbers
>an example of how you would do that from several different videos and articles I've looked at is to have a qubit associated with each number from 1 to the number you're factorizing, doing some kind of operation that I can find absolutely no explanation of to raise the amplitude of the qubits associated with the results you want, and then getting the output you're looking for some probably high percentage of the time based on the amplitudes of all of the qubits
>another example is Shor's algorithm, which looks for the period of x mod n and which would work in a similar way to the above factorization problem
Now here's the logic I'm following if this grid is meant to be a quantum computer:
>quantum computers use qubits to find something in a big list of other things (at least as the main/only application of quantum computing that I've seen)
>this grid is meant to be like a quantum computer
>the difference between quantum computers and regular computers is the existence of qubits
>if this grid is specifically a virtual quantum computer, one of the elements of the grid is probably a qubit
>we're looking for a specific cell in this grid based on any specific c from a public key so that we can find its associated prime factors a and b and crack the private key
>that cell we're looking for each time is in a big set of other cells, much like the factors of a number would fit in a big list of all other possible factors
>based on this comparison, and based on this grid being called a quantum computer, either each group of infinite/empty (e, n) cell groups is a qubit, or each of the possible infinite cells within each group of (e, n) cells is a qubit that we then apply a quantum algorithm on to find out of the infinite set
>obviously this is all wrong for some god awfully complex reason that nobody has any ability to communicate
Here's the Java port fixed. It turned out the anon who wrote most of it made a mistake on a vital line of it so I fixed it. This is the version with the image generator (it also has the graph but I commented that out since you need custom libraries). https://pastebin.com/vXj84tYk
If you're talking about the image then I guess I understand why everyone is so hell bent on using trips because that was me you were talking to about it in that thread.
I've watched the first two videos so far. Here's almost exactly what the guy said in the first half of the first video:
>there are multiple approaches to quantum computing
>D-Wave is a company that is making quantum computers
>quantum annealing is their approach
>quantum annealing is a way of using the intrinsic effects of quantum physics to solve optimisation problems and probabilistic sampling
>optimisation problems are finding the best configuration out of many combinations of things
>you can frame them as energy minimisation problems, meaning you can use physics to find the answer since hot things cool down and things roll down hills (everything's finding its minimum energy state)
>quantum annealing uses quantum physics to find the minimum energy state of something
>sampling is slightly different: we're sampling many low energy states and characterising the shape of the energy landscape
>it's useful for machine learning to represent the word probabilistically
>these are NP problems
>"So that's a description of quantum annealing and the kind of things it's used for"
No it bloody isn't. "Using quantum physics to find the minimum energy state of something" is such a worthlessly vague explanation. I'm aware that the second video gets into this at least a little bit but that's a flat out lie, and it's the exact problem I've found with almost 100% of the videos and articles I've looked at when it comes to quantum computing: they're as broad and non-specific as they can possibly be, as if they're intentionally trying to avoid explaining how it actually works.
(cont)
Here's what he said in the second video:
>in their methods, they create qubits by creating magnetic fields with circulating electric currents
>qubits can be in superposition, and at the end of the anneal (that process that was allegedly explained in the last video) the qubit is observed as a 1 or a 0
>you can show the physics of this in a diagram with some valleys
>if you apply an external magnetic field to the qubits, the probability of observing one of the states will increase (the external magnetic field is called a coupler)
>when you link two qubits together, they influence each other
>coupling qubits makes them want to end up in the same state or the opposite state (relying on each other)
>this is called quantum entanglement - they need to be considered a single object with four states
>couplers apply biases to qubits
>each of these processes work to find the minimum energy state
>each extra qubit doubles the number of possible states
That still avoids or creates several important points (aside from the main idea that this doesn't explain how to use a quantum computer). Firstly, if you know where to apply biases, you don't need to search, just like if you're increasing the amplitude of a qubit represented as a wave you have to know which qubit to work on before you find the answer it's used to find. Why is this point glossed over everywhere? It seems like the most important step. Secondly, as much as it did explain that coupling thing you mentioned, is this only used in regards to quantum annealing, or is it used in all forms of quantum computing? The video made it seem like it was just in quantum annealing, which would explain why I haven't seen this anywhere else, and that it's irrelevant to the grid. That brings me to the third point: what does any of this have to do with the grid? That's been my question this entire time. If anything, this video seemed to lead away from the grid, since it explained the entanglement of qubits when everyone's telling me the grid doesn't have any qubits.
Look, you're trying to explain this, and I'm very grateful for that. I really hope I don't come across as rude, but you haven't answered any of my questions, and you've only confused me further.
VQC never specifically referred to any part of the grid as a qubit, did he? He called it a quantum computer and never linked it to the practical concepts of quantum computing (by that I mean in ways we can use, such as something being a qubit), yet people like you just intuitively understand while not being able to communicate it. I'm not the only one who has no idea what the connection is, but I've made it my intention to not only figure it out but to explain it for everyone else. Thanks for trying. From the sounds of it, you're doing a lot of useful things with the math work, so don't let me distract you.
Just quickly mentioning this >>491 simple code-running guide for those of you who only check this thread. I know some of you have only been lurking since you might not know how to use the code to make the grid etc.
Hey Chris, if you've got a little spare time to answer a question that isn't directly related to the hints you've been posting, I've been wondering this whole time how this all relates to quantum computing and I haven't understood any other anon's answers. Quantum computing involves qubits. That's what makes it different to normal computers. So where are the qubits in this situation? If nothing in the grid is meant to be analogous to a qubit, then how does this relate to quantum computing?