Note its not strictly-speaking necessary to learn any linear algebra to "understand" quantum computing, there is a very simple but universal set of string-rewriting rules.
I realise for this audience most people wouldn't get much from it, but I find these rules useful for explaining quantum theory without annoying and fluffy analogies to high school students. You can find the rules in my book _Q is for Quantum_ - Part I which covers quantum computing is a free download on the book website (and the rest will be if I ever get around to producing a corrected pdf, bleh, but if you read part I and don't want to pay for the rest let me know and I'll get it to you...)
One of the creators of this, Andy Matuschak, is the only person I support on Patreon.
I really believe that we are just now starting to scratch the surface of the learning opportunities that computers present to us and Quantum Country was an interesting step forward in that direction. It is worth looking at some of his previous work with Khan Academy as well, cool stuff.
>At least in popular media accounts, a very common description is that a state like 0.6∣0⟩ + 0.8∣1⟩ is “simultaneously” in the ∣0⟩ state and the ∣1⟩ state.
>I must confess, I don’t understand what people mean by this.
I think they're just trying to tie it to Schrödinger's cat somehow since that's the only other topic that seems to be covered in pop science.
To me (but then I already know a lot about both of these topics) the format is actually much more interesting. Although it looks like the material is well presented.
It does make sense that if we're going to have learning interfaces they have spaced repetition built in rather than requiring users to do that themselves.
This is a great study resource. A downside is there are no solutions to check your work, or look up if you get stuck. I’d imagine a lot of people reading this wouldn’t necessarily be university students with a professor to ask questions to, so such a resource would be useful.
Beware, there is a sign-in wall on this "free" introduction that comes up after a couple of topics.
Edit: this seems to be the case only on the mobile version
The intent behind the sign-in seems to be to allow you to participate in the built-in SRS system for learning the material. Obviously there's no guarantee that behind the scenes your email is not being sold off to NefariousMarketers Inc., but given the past projects and work of both authors, that seems perhaps unlikely.
This is a really great resource that introduces some fairly sophisticated ideas. I'm about to be negative but I genuinely mean that; I'm planning to go back to it. I was finding it took time to take in the ideas about C^2.
However
> Presented in a new mnemonic medium which makes it almost effortless to remember what you read
This is just nonsense and quite distracting, even irritating. Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts. The spaced repetition questions are utterly superficial and represent unhelpful dumbing down.
Apologies for the rant and slightly silly comparison between quantum physics and a programming language but the same goes for the Rust book. Rust is a hard language with sophisticated ideas. Despite the best intentions of the nice people at Mozilla, no amount of dumbing down changes that. And patronizing readers does not make the resource more approachable to women and under-represented minorities, unless you believe that those groups need to be patronized.
> The set of curly brackets, {}, is a placeholder: think of {} as little crab pincers that hold a value in place.
> This is just nonsense and quite distracting, even irritating. Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts. The spaced repetition questions are utterly superficial and represent unhelpful dumbing down.
I can see why you would think that. However, consider the following points:
1. One of the authors is/was[1] one of the most well known experts on quantum computing, and he literally wrote the book on quantum computing.
2. He has written elsewhere on how spaced repetition really helped him understand new disciplines and read journal papers.
So while you may not like spaced repetition, think twice before saying "unhelpful dumbing down", given that it really helped him, and he's very clearly not a dumb person.
There's no harm in simply saying it doesn't work for you. I suggest you examine the need to justify that by making broad statements.
Perhaps there's more to the Rust/Mozilla story that I don't know of, but going from the example you gave and connecting it to making things approachable to minorities is a giant leap I'm having trouble fathoming.
And while the statement is annoying, I did not find it in the least patronizing. I don't doubt that it helps some people, and I think you need to realize that not all books are written for you, and that there likely won't be any book that is good for everyone. If you don't like it, find another book - don't expect the world to cater to you.
When it comes to technical books, particularly math/physics text books, everyone has his/her own opinion and that's OK. There's no shortage of people who hate math books that give too many examples ("Just give me the theorems, proofs, and maybe one example!"), and there's no shortage of people who want examples and hate books that are "theorems/proofs". The same goes for pretty plots, color coding important theorems, etc. Yet not once in my time in academia and beyond did I hear someone say "These distracting elements and examples are dumbing things down and are patronizing, and it's because they're trying to appeal to women and minorities!"
I really think you need to introspect about your world view that led you to these conclusions. You're being triggered, and you need to own your reactions.
> Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts.
Although I didn't study quantum computing, I have done plenty of non-relativistic quantum mechanics at the grad level. It's hard for only two reasons:
1. Lots of introductory books start off with calculus-heavy problems (infinite square wells, harmonic oscillators, hydrogen atom, etc).
2. It differs from real world experience.
Plenty of people have advocated that item 1 above is the problem, and it is not a good way to teach QM. You get lost in the calculus and don't focus on the QM. There are plenty of advocates (e.g. David Mermin) who think QM should first be taught using spin, because it involves no calculus, and the linear algebra is necessary (and not sophisticated). Almost all, if not all, the fundamentals of QM can be taught that way, and it's not that hard. Certainly a lot easier than much of your introductory physics material (mechanics, EM, etc).
[1] I say "was" because he has left the quantum computing research world.
I don't think the central focus of this resource is to teach Quantum Mechanics, but rather to test a new teaching method - the relative importance of yet another Intro to Quantum Mechanics course is tiny compared to developing methods potentially applicable across the entire space of online learning. As you say, the SRS questions could be better, but the idea of embedding them into an online essay / course is, to my mind, novel, potentially enormously valuable, and worth highlighting.
Is it the notion of embedding SRS questions into the medium per se. that you find superficial and unhelpful, or just the specific questions that Andy and Michael chose? If the latter, would you suggest any alternative questions that might be less patronizing / more effective?
> Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts.
It's comments like these that in high school made me avoid calculus. Just wanted to let you know that you are discouraging. The youngsters reading this that are still developing their critical thinking skills are being scared away because of your projections. Frame it different, take responsibility for your inadequacies.
> And patronizing readers does not make the resource more approachable to women and under-represented minorities, unless you believe that those groups need to be patronized.
That came out of the blue. Am I missing something? Did mozilla make such an attempt to patronize minorities?
[+] [-] Q_is_4_Quantum|5 years ago|reply
I realise for this audience most people wouldn't get much from it, but I find these rules useful for explaining quantum theory without annoying and fluffy analogies to high school students. You can find the rules in my book _Q is for Quantum_ - Part I which covers quantum computing is a free download on the book website (and the rest will be if I ever get around to producing a corrected pdf, bleh, but if you read part I and don't want to pay for the rest let me know and I'll get it to you...)
[+] [-] jimhefferon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gus_massa|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eightysixfour|5 years ago|reply
I really believe that we are just now starting to scratch the surface of the learning opportunities that computers present to us and Quantum Country was an interesting step forward in that direction. It is worth looking at some of his previous work with Khan Academy as well, cool stuff.
[+] [-] sfg|5 years ago|reply
What were the powerful ideas?
[+] [-] sgdpk|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition
[+] [-] swebs|5 years ago|reply
>I must confess, I don’t understand what people mean by this.
I think they're just trying to tie it to Schrödinger's cat somehow since that's the only other topic that seems to be covered in pop science.
[+] [-] Mvandenbergh|5 years ago|reply
It does make sense that if we're going to have learning interfaces they have spaced repetition built in rather than requiring users to do that themselves.
Looking forward to reading through.
[+] [-] boromi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 342637|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kensavage|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zeepzeep|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiebenHeaven|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] montyevans|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Koshkin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] da39a3ee|5 years ago|reply
However
> Presented in a new mnemonic medium which makes it almost effortless to remember what you read
This is just nonsense and quite distracting, even irritating. Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts. The spaced repetition questions are utterly superficial and represent unhelpful dumbing down.
Apologies for the rant and slightly silly comparison between quantum physics and a programming language but the same goes for the Rust book. Rust is a hard language with sophisticated ideas. Despite the best intentions of the nice people at Mozilla, no amount of dumbing down changes that. And patronizing readers does not make the resource more approachable to women and under-represented minorities, unless you believe that those groups need to be patronized.
> The set of curly brackets, {}, is a placeholder: think of {} as little crab pincers that hold a value in place.
[+] [-] BeetleB|5 years ago|reply
I can see why you would think that. However, consider the following points:
1. One of the authors is/was[1] one of the most well known experts on quantum computing, and he literally wrote the book on quantum computing.
2. He has written elsewhere on how spaced repetition really helped him understand new disciplines and read journal papers.
So while you may not like spaced repetition, think twice before saying "unhelpful dumbing down", given that it really helped him, and he's very clearly not a dumb person.
There's no harm in simply saying it doesn't work for you. I suggest you examine the need to justify that by making broad statements.
Perhaps there's more to the Rust/Mozilla story that I don't know of, but going from the example you gave and connecting it to making things approachable to minorities is a giant leap I'm having trouble fathoming.
And while the statement is annoying, I did not find it in the least patronizing. I don't doubt that it helps some people, and I think you need to realize that not all books are written for you, and that there likely won't be any book that is good for everyone. If you don't like it, find another book - don't expect the world to cater to you.
When it comes to technical books, particularly math/physics text books, everyone has his/her own opinion and that's OK. There's no shortage of people who hate math books that give too many examples ("Just give me the theorems, proofs, and maybe one example!"), and there's no shortage of people who want examples and hate books that are "theorems/proofs". The same goes for pretty plots, color coding important theorems, etc. Yet not once in my time in academia and beyond did I hear someone say "These distracting elements and examples are dumbing things down and are patronizing, and it's because they're trying to appeal to women and minorities!"
I really think you need to introspect about your world view that led you to these conclusions. You're being triggered, and you need to own your reactions.
> Quantum computing and quantum mechanics is hard and involves sophisticated concepts.
Although I didn't study quantum computing, I have done plenty of non-relativistic quantum mechanics at the grad level. It's hard for only two reasons:
1. Lots of introductory books start off with calculus-heavy problems (infinite square wells, harmonic oscillators, hydrogen atom, etc).
2. It differs from real world experience.
Plenty of people have advocated that item 1 above is the problem, and it is not a good way to teach QM. You get lost in the calculus and don't focus on the QM. There are plenty of advocates (e.g. David Mermin) who think QM should first be taught using spin, because it involves no calculus, and the linear algebra is necessary (and not sophisticated). Almost all, if not all, the fundamentals of QM can be taught that way, and it's not that hard. Certainly a lot easier than much of your introductory physics material (mechanics, EM, etc).
[1] I say "was" because he has left the quantum computing research world.
[+] [-] montyevans|5 years ago|reply
Is it the notion of embedding SRS questions into the medium per se. that you find superficial and unhelpful, or just the specific questions that Andy and Michael chose? If the latter, would you suggest any alternative questions that might be less patronizing / more effective?
[+] [-] waynesonfire|5 years ago|reply
It's comments like these that in high school made me avoid calculus. Just wanted to let you know that you are discouraging. The youngsters reading this that are still developing their critical thinking skills are being scared away because of your projections. Frame it different, take responsibility for your inadequacies.
[+] [-] newswasboring|5 years ago|reply
That came out of the blue. Am I missing something? Did mozilla make such an attempt to patronize minorities?
[+] [-] detaro|5 years ago|reply