Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:16:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
> inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
> run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
> reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
> original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
> rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
> given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG
>



We basically know that general relativity (GR) is wrong at the small scale, 
and that quantum mechanics (QM) is "gravity challenged".

The "information" paradox is likely just a confusion caused by not having a 
good theory yet to replace GR or update QM, or both.


Here are two items worth considering to possibly be used to resolve this

*Spacetime could be simultaneously continuous and discrete, in the same way 
that information can be*
New Journal of Physics 12 (2010)
Achim Kempf
Departments of Applied Mathematics and Physics, University of Waterloo
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/115001/meta


*Beyond Einstein*
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists have been questioning if singularities really exist 
through complex mathematical equations over the past several decades with 
little success until now. LSU Department of Physics & Astronomy Associate 
Professor Parampreet Singh and collaborators LSU Postdoctoral Researcher 
Javier Olmedo and Abhay Ashtekar, the Eberly Professor of Physics at Penn 
State developed new mathematical equations that go beyond Einstein's theory 
of general relativity overcoming its key limitation--the central 
singularity of black holes. 

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.

"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small 
as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the 
gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric 
of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided beyond the 
smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case inside 
black holes and therefore *there is no singularity*," Singh said.

Instead of singularity, loop quantum gravity predicts a funnel to another 
branch of the space-time.

"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can 
detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations 
that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding 
fathers of loop quantum gravity.

"At LSU, we have been developing state-of-the-art computational techniques 
to extract physical consequences of these physical equations using 
supercomputers, bringing us closer to reliably test quantum gravity," Singh 
said.

Einstein's theory fails not only at the center of the black holes but also 
to explain how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity. 
Therefore, a decade ago, Ashtekar, Singh and collaborators began to extend 
physics beyond the Big Bang and make new predictions using loop quantum 
gravity. Using the mathematical equations and computational techniques of 
loop quantum gravity, they showed that the Big Bang is replaced by the "Big 
Bounce." But, the problem of overcoming black hole singularity is 
exceptionally complex.

"The fate of black holes in a quantum theory of gravity is, in my view, the 
most important problem in theoretical physics," said Jorge Pullin, the 
Horace Hearne professor of theoretical physics at LSU, who was not part of 
this study.


- pt 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would
>> then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound.
>
>
>
> Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply
> wrong and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales
> even smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no
> experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends
> when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.
>

Points that I have made many times, here and elsewhere. No one is
listening, it would appear. Actually, though, Penrose has worked this out
for himself. See "Roads to Reality".

Bruce

John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would
> then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound.



Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply wrong
and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales even
smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no
experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends
when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:14 PM  wrote:


*> How is information preserved in usual QM? If a particle bends in one
> direction, and you play the wf back in time, how do you recover a particle
> which will bend in the same direction, exactly? AG *
>

You can't replay the motion of a particle because that is not
deterministic, but the wave function* is* deterministic so you can replay
that, you can go back to a point where the particle had the same quantum
state and had the same probability to go left or right; or at least you can
if information is not erased. But if it is then all the probabilities don't
add up to 1 and the very concept of probability turns into gibberish.
Something is very wrong when the 2  theories try to link up but we don't
know if the problem is with General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or both.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 8:16:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
> inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
> run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
> reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
> original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
> rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
> given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG
>

The initial problem really amounts to the fact Hawking radiation is emitted 
by black holes as a semi-classical system. The black hole emits fields and 
particles that evolve according to unitary quantum mechanics, but the black 
hole adjusts in this calculation by a classical metric back reaction. This 
means the unitary evolution of this process is incomplete because some 
unitary evolution of quantum gravity states are not accounted for. There is 
then a whole set of vacua that can exist, such as Boulware vacua, and this 
statistical ensemble enters into the calculation. As a result a black hole 
that is built up from pure quantum states emits radiation out, think of 
this as a scattering process, in a statistical ensemble. This is equivalent 
to saying the information of a pure state has been lost.

This was overcome, at least in principle, with the holographic principle. 
The time dilation and transverse spreading of a string or quantum wave over 
the horizon of a black hole as observed by a distant observer means this 
information is not really lost, but this statistical ensemble results from 
a sort of coarse graining. The asymptotic observer witnesses quantum states 
red shift by the quanta of radiation they may emit, slow down and the 
process of observation is more difficult. Eventually all the observer 
detects are gravitational states, or the increase in gravity of the black 
hole. These are then the Planck mass or frequency modes of quantum 
gravitation. this was thought to overcome the problem of information loss, 
but then another problem arose.

The black hole information problem as it currently stands is a problem with 
entanglement. This is the firewall. The problem here is that when a black 
hole emits a quanta of radiation that quanta is entangled with the black 
hole. We can use the old heuristic of the particle and antiparticle pair, 
where one falls in and the other escapes or a negative energy photon enters 
and a positive energy escapes. This means Hawking radiation is entangled 
with the black hole. This entanglement is a bipartite entanglement with two 
sets of states. A thermal cavity does much the same in that a photon 
emitted is entangled with an atom that emitted it. Entanglement entropy 
then grows. However, with the thermal cavity after about half the energy is 
released more of the photons emitted are entangled with photons previously 
emitted. With the black hole since Hawking radiation is a vacuum process 
all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would 
then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound. 
It would be as if a cooling thermal cavity had entanglement entropy 
increase to a maximum when it is finally cooled off. 

So how to manage keeping the entanglement entropy of the black hole from 
growing? We need some way of sending that entanglement entropy out into the 
universe. So we then have Hawking radiation emitted later entangled with 
previously emitted Hawking radiation. That sounds fine, but since Hawking 
radiation is a vacuum process with the black hole we still must have 
entanglement with the black hole. The only difference is most of the 
entropy is removed to the outside universe. However, this means the old 
Hawking radiation emitted in a bipartite entanglement is now in tripartite 
entanglement. This means entanglement phase has been created ex nihilio, 
which is a quantum version of violating the classical law of conservation 
of phase space volume. This is called a violation of quantum monogamy.

Now to toot my own horn. I think I have a solution, or more like a recipe 
for a partial solution, to this problem. I just finished writing a rough 
draft of a paper on this. I will not go into this for it involves 
entanglement of quantum states with BMS symmetries in a nonlocal 
entanglement swap. It is a bit dense to go into here.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[smitra]

On 12-03-2019 01:14, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:41:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM  wrote:


We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function

does not determine exactly how matter will behave.

_THATS PRECISELY MY POINT. IF WE CANT DETERMINE EXACTLY
HOW MATTER WILL BEHAVE, HOW CAN WE GO BACK IN TIME TO RECONSTRUCT
THE ORIGINAL STATE FOR SINGLE TRIALS. IF WE CANT DO THAT, THEN
QM INHERENTLY CONTRADICTS DETERMINISM, SO WHY MAKE AN ISSUE ABOUT BH
INFORMATION LOSS? AG_


Schrodinger says If you know what the wave function of a particle is
now then you can predict what the wave function will be tomorrow and
determine what it was yesterday. Even more important Schrodinger says
his function is unitary, that means probabilities are conserved, but
that can only happen if information is conserved.

For the very idea of probability to make sense everything must add up
to exactly 1; if you calculate there is a 70% chance an electron will
curve to the left and a 40% chance it will curve to the right then
you'll know you've calculated nonsense. Black Holes seem to destroy
information but if so then the Schrodinger Wave Function can't be
unitary and thus is total nonsense, but it has been tested many many
times and it always works so it can't be total nonsense. That is the
paradox.

HOW IS INFORMATION PRESERVED IN USUAL QM? IF A PARTICLE BENDS IN ONE
DIRECTION, AND YOU PLAY THE WF BACK IN TIME, HOW DO YOU RECOVER A
PARTICLE WHICH WILL BEND IN THE SAME DIRECTION, EXACTLY? AG

In conventional QM we consider the predictions of QM to be valid in a 
statistical sense. Information is then conserved in the sense that the 
time evolution of a large ensemble of identically prepared systems on 
which  measurements on each individual system is performed, doesn't 
change the information content.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:41:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM > 
> wrote:
>
> >>We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does 
>>> not determine exactly how matter will behave. 
>>>
>>
>> *That's precisely my point. If we can't determine exactly how matter will 
>> behave, how can we go back in time to reconstruct the original state for 
>> single trials. If we can't do that, then QM inherently contradicts 
>> determinism, so why make an issue about BH information loss? AG*
>>
>
>
> Schrodinger says If you know what the wave function of a particle is now 
> then you can predict what the wave function will be tomorrow and determine 
> what it was yesterday. Even more important Schrodinger says his function is 
> unitary, that means probabilities are conserved, but that can only happen 
> if information is conserved. 
>
> For the very idea of probability to make sense everything must add up to 
> exactly 1; if you calculate there is a 70% chance an electron will curve to 
> the left and a 40% chance it will curve to the right then you'll know 
> you've calculated nonsense. Black Holes seem to destroy information but if 
> so then the Schrodinger Wave Function can't be unitary and thus is total 
> nonsense, but it has been tested many many times and it always works so 
> it can't be total nonsense. That is the paradox.
>

*How is information preserved in usual QM? If a particle bends in one 
direction, and you play the wf back in time, how do you recover a particle 
which will bend in the same direction, exactly? AG *

>
> If all this confused you welcome to the club, nobody knows how to resolve 
> this paradox but when they do they'll probably resolve the conflict between 
> General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too.  
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My son the mathematician

[Lawrence Crowell]

I have published a fair number of papers, and it is always nice to get them 
accepted. So this is his first and at a pretty young age too. 
Congratulations

LC

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:46:50 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
>
> Here is his first co-authored paper (at the age of 20).
>
> Topology and its Applications 
> 
> Volume 254 
> , 1 
> March 2019, Pages 85-100
>
> Extending bonding functions in generalized inverse sequences
> Iztok Banič, 
>  
> SimonGoodwin and 
> 
> MichaelLockyer 
> 
>  
> 
>
> (he's the one in the middle)
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166864118304449
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My son the mathematician

[smitra]

On 11-03-2019 09:51, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:46:50 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:


Here is his first co-authored paper (at the age of 20).

TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS [1]

Volume 254 [2], 1 March 2019, Pages 85-100

EXTENDING BONDING FUNCTIONS IN GENERALIZED INVERSE SEQUENCES

Iztok Banič, [3] SimonGoodwin and [3]MichaelLockyer [3]
[3] [3]

(he's the one in the middle)



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166864118304449

[4]


Cool.

He should a cut of the proceeds ($39.95)  the publisher wants for this
paper. :)

- pt



It's $0 here:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.topol.2018.12.004

Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My son the mathematician

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Very good.

Brent

On 3/11/2019 12:46 AM, Liz R wrote:

Here is his first co-authored paper (at the age of 20).


Topology and its Applications


Volume 254 
, 1 
March 2019, Pages 85-100



  Extending bonding functions in generalized inverse sequences

IztokBanič,SimonGoodwin 
andMichaelLockyer 




(he's the one in the middle)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166864118304449


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM  wrote:

>>We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does not
>> determine exactly how matter will behave.
>>
>
> *That's precisely my point. If we can't determine exactly how matter will
> behave, how can we go back in time to reconstruct the original state for
> single trials. If we can't do that, then QM inherently contradicts
> determinism, so why make an issue about BH information loss? AG*
>


Schrodinger says If you know what the wave function of a particle is now
then you can predict what the wave function will be tomorrow and determine
what it was yesterday. Even more important Schrodinger says his function is
unitary, that means probabilities are conserved, but that can only happen
if information is conserved.

For the very idea of probability to make sense everything must add up to
exactly 1; if you calculate there is a 70% chance an electron will curve to
the left and a 40% chance it will curve to the right then you'll know
you've calculated nonsense. Black Holes seem to destroy information but if
so then the Schrodinger Wave Function can't be unitary and thus is total
nonsense, but it has been tested many many times and it always works so it
can't be total nonsense. That is the paradox.

If all this confused you welcome to the club, nobody knows how to resolve
this paradox but when they do they'll probably resolve the conflict between
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too.

John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 7:40:59 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:54 AM > wrote:
>
> *> QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's*
>>
>
> We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does not 
> determine exactly how matter will behave. 
>

*That's precisely my point. If we can't determine exactly how matter will 
behave, how can we go back in time to reconstruct the original state for 
single trials. If we can't do that, then QM inherently contradicts 
determinism, so why make an issue about BH information loss? AG*
 

> As far as the Black Hole information paradox goes solving that is one of 
> the deepest problems in cutting edge physics. It all boils down to the fact 
> that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, although both work great on 
> their own, don't work well together. 
>
>  John K Clark
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:54 AM  wrote:

*> QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's*
>

We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does not
determine exactly how matter will behave. As far as the Black Hole
information paradox goes solving that is one of the deepest problems in
cutting edge physics. It all boils down to the fact that General Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics, although both work great on their own, don't work
well together.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:41 AM Liz R  wrote:

*> I have a simpler answer!*
> *"the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds"*
> *...can be written in 5 seconds.*
>

I can beat that and it would take even less time to write:

"the largest integer you can write in 5 YEARS"

 John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:39 AM Liz R  wrote:

*> Graham's number tetrated Graham's number times? That took about 5
> seconds, does it come close?*


Tetration is computable and the Busy Beaver Function grows faster than ANY
computable function. We don't know what BB(7) is but we do know its
larger, probably a LOT larger, than 10^((10^10)^(10^10)^7) ; and we're
talking about BB(8000).

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:43:05 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
>
> I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in 
> the MWI?
>

*QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's as time is 
reversed, but it can't reconstruct individual events which are without 
ostensible cause. As for the MWI, I don't think it's deterministic since 
the different branches are never in causal contact. AG *

>
> I mean everyone can't have forgotten quantum indeterminacy when discussing 
> the BHIP, surely?
>

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My son the mathematician

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:46:50 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Here is his first co-authored paper (at the age of 20).
>
> Topology and its Applications 
> 
> Volume 254 
> , 1 
> March 2019, Pages 85-100
>
> Extending bonding functions in generalized inverse sequences
> Iztok Banič, 
>  
> SimonGoodwin and 
> 
> MichaelLockyer 
> 
>  
> 
>
> (he's the one in the middle)
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166864118304449
>


Cool.

He should a cut of the proceeds ($39.95)  the publisher wants for this 
paper. :)

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Google groups shutting down?

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:33:58 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

> If so is the EL going somewhere else?
>


Google Groups as a whole

https://groups.google.com/

e.g. this one

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/everything-list

apparently will remain as is with nothing changing.

- pt
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

My son the mathematician

[Liz R]

Here is his first co-authored paper (at the age of 20).

Topology and its Applications 

Volume 254 
, 1 
March 2019, Pages 85-100

Extending bonding functions in generalized inverse sequences
Iztok Banič, 
 
SimonGoodwin and 

MichaelLockyer 

 


(he's the one in the middle)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166864118304449


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Liz R]

I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in 
the MWI?

I mean everyone can't have forgotten quantum indeterminacy when discussing 
the BHIP, surely?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

[Liz R]

I have a simpler answer!

"the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds"

...can be written in 5 seconds.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

[Liz R]

Graham's number tetrated Graham's number times? That took about 5 seconds, 
does it come close?

On Wednesday, 6 March 2019 07:06:24 UTC+13, John Clark wrote:
>
> It's easy to prove that the Busy Beaver Function grows faster than *ANY* 
> computable function because if there were such a faster growing function 
> you could use it to solve the Halting Problem. So if you're ever in a 
> contest to see who can name the largest integer in less than 5 seconds just 
> write BB(9000) and you'll probably win.
>
> John K Clark
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Is Google groups shutting down?

[Liz R]

If so is the EL going somewhere else?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.