A solution would be exactly as the problem states, one officer, with one rank, on one square, so I don't think the 'Quantum Solution' is actually a solution
> A solution would be exactly as the problem states, one officer, with one rank, on one square, so I don't think the 'Quantum Solution' is actually a solution
That's equivalent to saying that the square root of -1 is not actually number i, because negative numbers don't have square roots. Although it is proven that a solution to the original problem as stated is impossible, putting concepts in a new light expands the possibilities of the original formulation into new interesting areas.
I was going to give the same example. Even simpler example would be dividing 5/2 = x. If all you know is whole numbers there is no solution, but if you introduce fractions you get a solution and a new tool which has many practical applications.
The original problem statement might not mention something, but that might be due to not knowing the solution and insight about fundamental relationship between the numbers that it represents. Unless you are filling a school test where you are expected a specific answer (even when it's wrong in more general case) the "children story" part of a math problem shouldn't be mistaken for what it actually represents. The more general solution might not be applicable in all cases due to real world limitations, but in some it may. You can't (don't want to) split one of 5 officers in half, but having half an apple or sack of grain is not a problem. If Euler knew the solution maybe he would have chosen something else than officers and ranks to describe the problem.
I think it is not unimportant ti be padantic here, a lot of classical problems and games generalize naturally to a quantum version of that problem which then admits for different solutions. I think that is great. But also (sometimes I think intentionally) misleading the non expert.
TuringTest|4 years ago
That's equivalent to saying that the square root of -1 is not actually number i, because negative numbers don't have square roots. Although it is proven that a solution to the original problem as stated is impossible, putting concepts in a new light expands the possibilities of the original formulation into new interesting areas.
Karliss|4 years ago
The original problem statement might not mention something, but that might be due to not knowing the solution and insight about fundamental relationship between the numbers that it represents. Unless you are filling a school test where you are expected a specific answer (even when it's wrong in more general case) the "children story" part of a math problem shouldn't be mistaken for what it actually represents. The more general solution might not be applicable in all cases due to real world limitations, but in some it may. You can't (don't want to) split one of 5 officers in half, but having half an apple or sack of grain is not a problem. If Euler knew the solution maybe he would have chosen something else than officers and ranks to describe the problem.
eru|4 years ago
andi999|4 years ago