Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli 34

Notation used in quantum mechanics.

Ket is just a vector. Though generally in the context of quantum mechanics, this is an infinite dimensional vector in a Hilbert space like $L^2$.

Bra is just the dual vector corresponding to a ket, or in other words projection linear operator, i.e. a linear function which can act on a given vector and returns a single complex number. Also known as... dot product.

For example:is basically a fancy way of saying:that is: we are taking the projection of $y$ along the $x$ direction. Note that in the ordinary dot product notation however, we don't differentiate as clearly what is a vector and what is an operator, while the bra-ket notation makes it clear.

The projection operator is completely specified by the vector that we are projecting it on. This is why the bracket notation makes sense.

It also has the merit of clearly differentiating vectors from operators. E.g. it is not very clear in $x\cdot y$ that $x$ is an operator and $y$ is a vector, except due to the relative position to the dot. This is especially bad when we start manipulating operators by themselves without vectors.

This notation is widely used in quantum mechanics because calculating the probability of getting a certain outcome for an experiment is calculated by taking the projection of a state on one an eigenvalue basis vector as explained at: Section "Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics".

Making the projection operator "look like a thing" (the bra) is nice because we can add and multiply them much like we can for vectors (they also form a vector space), e.g.:just means taking the projection along the $x+y$ direction.

Ciro Santilli thinks that this notation is a bit over-engineered. Notably the bra's are just vectors, which we should just write as usual with $\overrightarrow{v}$... the bra thing makes it look scarier than it needs to be. And then we should just find a different notation for the projection part.

Maybe Dirac chose it because of the appeal of the women's piece of clothing: bra, in an irresistible call from British humour.

But in any case, alas, we are now stuck with it.

The key takeaway is that setting an explicit value function to an AGI entity is a good way to destroy the world due to poor AI alignment. We are more likely to not destroy by creating an AI whose goals is to "do want humans what it to do", but in a way that it does not know before hand what it is that humans want, and it has to learn from them. This approach appears to be known as reward modeling.

Some other cool ideas:

This is a quick tutorial on how a quantum computer programmer thinks about how a quantum computer works. If you know:a concrete and precise hello world operation can be understood in 30 minutes.

Although there are several types of quantum computer under development, there exists a single high level model that represents what most of those computers can do, and we are going to explain that model here. This model is the is the digital quantum computer model, which uses a quantum circuit, that is made up of many quantum gates.

Beyond that basic model, programmers only may have to consider the imperfections of their hardware, but the starting point will almost always be this basic model, and tooling that automates mapping the high level model to real hardware considering those imperfections (i.e. quantum compilers) is already getting better and better.

This model is very simple to understand, being only marginally more complex than that of a classical computer, see also: quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/6639/is-my-background-sufficient-to-start-quantum-computing/14317#14317

The situation of quantum computers today in the 2020's is somewhat analogous to that of the early days of classical circuits and computers in the 1950's and 1960's, before CPU came along and software ate the world. Even though the exact physics of a classical computer might be hard to understand and vary across different types of integrated circuits, those early hardware pioneers (and to this day modern CPU designers), can usefully view circuits from a higher level point of view, thinking only about concepts such as:as modelled at the register transfer level, and only in a separate compilation step translated into actual chips. This high level understanding of how a classical computer works is what we can call "the programmer's model of a classical computer". So we are now going to describe the quantum analogue of it.

The way quantum programmers think about a quantum computer in order to program can be described as follows:

To operate a quantum computer, you follow the step of operation of a quantum computer:

Each time you do this, you are literally conducting a physical experiment of the specific physical implementation of the computer:and each run as the above can is simply called "an experiment" or "a measurement".

The output comes out "instantly" in the sense that it is physically impossible to observe any intermediate state of the system, i.e. there are no clocks like in classical computers, further discussion at: quantum circuits vs classical circuits. Setting up, running the experiment and taking the does take some time however, and this is important because you have to run the same experiment multiple times because results are probabilistic as mentioned below.

Unlike in a classical computer, the output of a quantum computer is not deterministic however.

But the each output is not equally likely either, otherwise the computer would be useless except as random number generator!

This is because the probabilities of each output for a given input depends on the program (unitary matrix) it went through.

Therefore, what we have to do is to design the quantum circuit in a way that the right or better answers will come out more likely than the bad answers.

We then calculate the error bound for our circuit based on its design, and then determine how many times we have to run the experiment to reach the desired accuracy.

The probability of each output of a quantum computer is derived from the input and the circuit as follows.

First we take the classic input vector of dimension N of 0's and 1's and convert it to a "quantum state vector" $\overrightarrow{q_{in}}$ of dimension $2^n$:

We are after all going to multiply it by the program matrix, as you would expect, and that has dimension $2^n\times 2^n$!

Note that this initial transformation also transforms the discrete zeroes and ones into complex numbers.

For example, in a 3 qubit computer, the quantum state vector has dimension $2^3=8$ and the following shows all 8 possible conversions from the classic input to the quantum state vector:

This can be intuitively interpreted as:

Now that we finally have our quantum state vector, we just multiply it by the unitary matrix $Q$ of the quantum circuit, and obtain the $2^n$ dimensional output quantum state vector $\overrightarrow{q_{out}}$:

And at long last, the probability of each classical outcome of the measurement is proportional to the square of the length of each entry in the quantum vector, analogously to what is done in the Schrödinger equation.

For example, suppose that the 3 qubit output were:

Then, the probability of each possible outcomes would be the length of each component squared:i.e. 75% for the first, and 25% for the third outcomes, where just like for the input:

All other outcomes have probability 0 and cannot occur, e.g.: 001 is impossible.

Keep in mind that the quantum state vector can also contain complex numbers because we are doing quantum mechanics, but we just take their magnitude in that case, e.g. the following quantum state would lead to the same probabilities as the previous one:

This interpretation of the quantum state vector clarifies a few things:

Bibliography: