Jul. 10th, 2012

sniffnoy: (SMPTE)
And it's what Grant told me, it just took me a while for me to understand.

The answer seems to be, that you have some state/process, and it can be described as an infinite sum of of ones involving virtual particles. After all, particles aren't what's really fundamental, so you *can* describe it as such an infinite sum, but you don't have to. But they're not just an approximation scheme -- the infinite sum is a valid description of what's actually going on, but of course you can cut it off to get a decent approximation. (And that's the method of Feynman diagrams.)

Now apparently there's some new computational method in QFT known as the "unitarity method", which is supposed to be more powerful than Feynman diagrams, even yielding exact mathematical answers? Since unitarity is such a fundamental principle it's pretty surprising that there'd be a recent new method where unitarity of all things is the key working principle, but I assume in reality there's much more to it than this. I don't suppose anybody knows anything more about it? Is its scope more limited than Feynman diagrams or something? I would expect there would be some restriction like that.

I don't suppose there's any chance such a method can get around the problems that occur when you try to do QFT with gravitons in it (and no arbitrary energy cap)? I assume those are real problems that don't go away just by changing the computational method? (Even if you did get a sensible result out of it, there's no way the result could be compatible with GR, is there?)

-Harry
sniffnoy: (Kirby)
Good (if expected) news! (Though not expected this soon, at least not by me.)

Josh's and my paper, "Numbers with Integer Complexity Close to the Lower Bound", has been accepted for publication in INTEGERS (assuming we fix two typos). And then do a proofreading pass, which I guess one of us will have to actually do.

I guess it's now a bit different than whatever the last version I uploaded to my UMich website was, but, eh, not going to bother fixing that; when it's actually published I'll just change the link...

-Harry
sniffnoy: (Chu-Chu Zig)
I often get antsy when I see existential or universal quantifiers used in real life. The real world has a lot of uncertainty and continuity, and, for many purposes, is a big place. This results in a lot of existential statements being trivially true, and universal statements being trivially false. (Many aren't, of course, but, well, I'm not talking about those.)

So you see one of these and you're left thinking, "They can't really mean 'any' (or 'all'), right? They must mean 'some significant amount', or 'almost all', right?" Which is a problem when this is a question on a written piece of paper you have to answer, so you can't ask it for clarification.

(Admittedly, using fuzzy words like "often" or "usually" might not be any better; they just move the fuzziness around. But at least I could be certain they meant what they said, even if I couldn't quite be certain what that was.)

The example I have in mind here is when you go to the doctor's office and you have to fill out a questionnaire on your medical history. Check the box if you've ever experienced any of the following. And quite a few of the following boxes are for a number of mild symptoms that you have almost certainly experienced at some point in life. Which forces you to think, what do they really mean? They wouldn't actually ask a useless question like this, right? But apparently they have. So I just fill it out as stated and explain later when they go over it with me, but I still have no idea what the intended use is.

-Harry

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
2223 2425262728
2930     
Page generated Jul. 2nd, 2025 01:57 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios