Matrix exponential question

As opposed to you who just randomly insults anyone who might pass your way?

Say what you want about me alphanumeric. It's never stopped you in the past. Just do what you do best. Acting like a moron. It's all you know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm fine to people who seem sane, rational and are able to converse without the compulsion to lie or ask questions without the compulsion to ignore answers. I've known you longer than I've known Prometheus, who posts here and on PhysOrg. When he started posting, he talked about pretty technical stuff and then I read him say that he worked in the area of researching how gauge fields work in curved space-time. Did I jump down his throat? Did I post "STFU you liar, you're pathetic!"? Nope, because I'd seen from his posts that he was rational and coherent and knew a fair amount about physics. Sure, I'd not seen him post much quantitative material but noone does on PhysOrg. When particular questions of a detailed and indepth nature did arise, he clearly knew his stuff and since coming to these forums he's posted plenty of quantitative stuff, proving he's of a level of knowledge he says he is. That and I've actually met him.

If someone is a liar and a fraud, I'll say so. People like yourself make it obvious you are and give plenty of evidence. Vkothii, until now, had given me the impression he was someone who was interested in theoretical physics but wasn't particularly knowledgeable in the specifics. Hence I was a bit surprised upon seeing him ask threads like this one. Now, due to threads like this one, he's made it clear he's closer to you than to someone vaguely interested in physics but not in the maths side. Why? Because he's tried to skip all the requirements, which any and all universities teach to students and jump right into postgraduate material. It's postgraduate for a reason. And surprisingly, his computer science knowledge isn't much help. So what if those of us who can do Lie algebra stuff don't work with silicon chips and algorithms, he's the one trying to do work we do, not vice versa. And yet despite him saying "You've never been near practical stuff!" he thinks he can jump into highly conceptual and mathematical stuff........ why? So we couldn't hack it in his world but he'll have no problems jumping into ours? That's the kind of hypocrisy and crappy logic you often try to employ.

So I don't 'randomly insult anyone who might pass my way' or else I'd insult people like Ben, QH, DH, Prom, Guest and plenty more, since at some point "the dice" would tell me to insult them. Instead I insult people who I deem should be insulted. Vkothii and you are people I so deem. You especially.

And no matter how many times I give you a chance for you to show I'm incorrect in my accusations of you being a liar, you have yet to manage it once. Even your 'tutorial' was yet another farce.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While this is in the cesspool, I would like to point out that the first three posts in the thread are conventional physics instruction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I feel compelled to point out that a Taylor expansion, essentially of "the number 1", has an \(O(\theta^3)\) approximation.

So what? To a mathematician this is as significant as saying something mathematical about numbers and limits, which completely misses the point (the one Seth Lloyd is making). It describes unitary evolution of fermionic spin precession too. So what?
Well, you now need to find out what, or why the prof thinks it's important to study the mathematical properties of 'numbers'.

Because it's tied irreversibly and reversibly to measurement and expectation, which is tied to information processing, which is communication and a thing called "computation".

Not that I haven't tried to point this out, but it's almost impossible to get close-minded math-wits to see past their self-assured righteous indignation when you use the wrong bloody symbol somewhere.

For the record, the expression in the OP, evolves as as approximation in linear time, you can find this approximation (it's not too hard), and so get some sort of insight (unless you are a dedicated math-plonker), into what "information" means.

 

You clearly don't understand the big-O notation, or much else. Stop digging your hole!!

 

You clearly don't understand what an electron is??

See? it's far too late now, you've been a plonker so long, you haven't a bloody hope.

 

Clearly.