Luke Palmer asked:
When junctions collapse,
Sigh, not another one of those dreadful reality TV shows:
When animals attack
When drivers collide
When junctions collapse
Next we'll get:
When mailing lists explode
When threads perpetuate
When Piers summarize
When Larrys make puns
;-)
is that reflected back in the original junction,
No.
as it should be (QM-wise)?
Except, of course, junctions aren't QM (hence the name change).
They're inspired by, but not slavishly constrained by, the laws of Physics. ;-)
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
Nope. $foo is still a conjunction.
BTW, it's likely that printing $foo *won't* just randomly select one state;
that it will call $foo.serialize and print whatever string that (standard)
method returns. To get the select one at random behaviour, you need'll:
print $foo.pick;
If so, what is perl going to do about the computationally expensive
entanglement thingy?
Nothing. Unless Alex ports his Quantum::Entanglement module.
$x = 0 | 1;
$y = 0 | 1;
$z = $x * $y;
print $z; # 0 with 0.75 probability and 1 with 0.25
No. This probably just prints "0 1".
# If 0 was printed, then $x | $y == 0
# If 1 was printed, then $x & $y == 1
BTW, isn't that a seductive notation. ;-)
Here, are $x and $y collapsed yet, or are they still in an entangled
superposition?
Neither. They're still two completely independent junctions.
Damian
