[HN Gopher] Quantum Picturalism
___________________________________________________________________
Quantum Picturalism
Author : mathgenius
Score : 51 points
Date : 2025-05-20 20:32 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (quantuminpictures.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (quantuminpictures.org)
| baxtr wrote:
| _> The term, "Quantum Picturalism" was coined to describe this
| unique approach of teaching quantum concepts visually, reducing
| intimidation and opening the field to broader audiences._
| tmvphil wrote:
| ZX calculus is very interesting framework for doing cutting edge
| research in error correction and gate compilation, but it seems
| wildly off base as a means of making quantum computing accessible
| to a broader audience. Anything beyond the simple "teleportation
| is like pulling a string" picture is extremely difficult abstract
| manipulations.
|
| (PhD in experimental QC)
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| For those of us who have decent computer science and math
| education and are curious about QC but have jobs in classical
| computing, are there any resources you recommend that are a
| better introduction? I understand something about being able to
| test large numbers of permutations of something at once, or
| square rooting the number of necessary operations for some
| functions...
|
| edit: found this below, but it is all ZX calculus
|
| https://zxcalc.github.io/book/html/main_html.html
| Xmd5a wrote:
| https://x.com/coecke/status/1907809898852667702
|
| >High-schoolers excelling at Oxford Uni post-grad quantum exam,
| thanks to Quantum Picturalism!
|
| thoughts?
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| I somewhat agree. I think the goal would be to create a UI that
| allows you to do the ZX calculus by just
| creating/moving/joining the spiders etc.
| pentaphobe wrote:
| IANAP so got curious about how ZX Calculus related to Feynman
| Diagrams (if at all)
|
| Search landed on this neat summary [^1] (2024) from the lab(?)
| which also has a link to the original paper [^2]
|
| [1]: https://www.quantinuum.com/blog/quantinuum-scientists-
| have-p...
|
| [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10896
| neom wrote:
| Just to add, buried away there is this gh repo also:
| https://github.com/zxcalc/book
| pentaphobe wrote:
| Ooh thanks, totally missed this!
| tlogan wrote:
| Sadly, the only way to truly "understand" quantum physics is
| through math. A "shut up and calculate" approach.
|
| Now, my rant.
|
| The main reason math often seems more complicated than it really
| is has to do with the use of strange symbols and naming
| conventions. It also feels like academia in the US intentionally
| uses non-plain language and terminology to sound smarter and
| exclusive.
|
| Back in socialist countries, there was a strong effort to name
| these concepts using "normal" language, and that really helped.
| When I came to US, I'd see something like Fourier transformation
| and think, "Why do use this strange name?" Why not call it
| "conversion of a signal into frequencies" (lose translation).
|
| Of course, maybe the reason is that it is easier to create a new
| word/term in Slavic languages.
| constantcrying wrote:
| As if that is the problem with mathematics. 99.9% of
| mathematics isn't about how things are named. There are zero
| persons in the world who failed to understand the Fourier
| transform because of its name.
| tlogan wrote:
| I think you are maybe right here.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > it is easier to create a new word/term in Slavic languages.
|
| Why is this the case?
| yvdriess wrote:
| Their pictoral representation is a "shut up and calculate"
| notation, you can always map it 1:1 with the linear algebra
| formulation. It was developed as a better tool of thought for
| working out proofs in QC.
|
| I had the pleasure of interacting with Duncan and Bob when XZ
| calculus was being developed. While I did not use their
| calculus for my own research, it did inspire the graphical
| notation I doodled with.
|
| While I agree that naming a thing after a person makes it less
| clear at first glance, it is definitely not to intentionally
| sound smarter and exclusive; it's simply a handy short label
| for often subtle and complex things in an environment where you
| are constantly referring to it. New fields or domains will
| typically develop their own notation, as they often require new
| tools of thought. I'm sure you are not suggesting that Feynman
| diagrams or Einstein summations making things more complicated
| than they really are.
|
| To your point: the annoying part is when the conventions clash.
| In early QC works an X could be the X-gate or something else
| completely. A good chunk of the effort in writing or
| understanding a QC publication was establishing the notation.
| After a while notation gets a bit more consolidated as
| conventions get naturally established. Of course, if you move
| from a world that has established its own conventions, e.g.
| behind the iron curtain, it can be frustrating to be confronted
| with the many eponyms in a field where you already have deep
| expertise. I had similar experiences just from working in teams
| that were using different programming languages: "Why call it a
| SAX parser? That's just tree-recursive descent!"
| akomtu wrote:
| Math needs to be this way for precision. There are dozens of
| "conversions of signal into frequencies" besides Fourier
| transform: Z-transform, Laplace tansform, Wigner transform and
| so on. Normal language deals with few concepts, math deals with
| thousands.
|
| Soviet countries wanted to isolate their peoples from western
| ideas. If you start teaching about Fourier transform in
| schools, students are going to ask who that Fourier is.
| rustcleaner wrote:
| >Why not call it "conversion of a signal into frequencies"
|
| I agree, there has to be a combination of Greek & Latin parts
| to compile into a Germanic-style adjective sandwich of a word
| which describes the Fourier.
|
| Interpolation is one such word:
|
| Inter - between/among,
|
| pol - fill/smooth/polish,
|
| ation - action or process of the foregoing.
|
| May I propose 'Signalidominotransform' or
| 'Signalidominomorphosis' as candidates to replace "Fourier
| Transformation?"
| mr_mitm wrote:
| Can you give a less trivial example? How would different
| wording help with understanding the proof of Greene's theorem,
| for example? When it comes down to it, it's just complicated
| stuff.
|
| Maybe seeing strange symbols appears like gatekeeping to you,
| but surely we agree that there is also a more amicable
| explanation: symbols are quick to write, which makes it easier
| to manipulate equations with pen and paper or on a blackboard,
| and eventually you run out of symbols and have to resort to
| more exotic ones. Obviously it's up to you which explanation
| you prefer, but in my view you should have stronger evidence if
| you imply malicious intent or properties like arrogance.
| rustcleaner wrote:
| The jumble of letters Fourier says nothing about what a
| Fourier Transform is or does. Signalidominomorphosis, or just
| dominomorphosis, tells a lot more at face value than Fourier
| Transformation which just basically says "a transformation
| associated with a Fourier."
|
| With the loss of the old liberal education, we are forgetting
| our words are like pictograms, compiled from meaningful
| components from the shoulders of classical languages and
| ideas. Etymology books should be as common as dictionaries!
|
| (don't mind me, just trying to anonymously add to the
| dictionary)
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| One thing that mathematicians do quite commonly is look at
| the same object in several different ways. The "Fourier
| Transform" is "Signalidominomorphosis" but it is also a
| linear operator on the vector space of functions, and
| something more complicated from the perspective of measure
| theory. For theoretical physicists, it plays yet a
| different role when applied to wave functions.
|
| The disadvantage of naming a thing using one of the things
| it does, is that it focuses you too much on that one use
| case. Giving arbitrary names actually frees you to think of
| the object in whatever way is useful for the problem at
| hand.
| mr_mitm wrote:
| I don't see how your reply is related to my post, but
| anyway.
|
| > The jumble of letters Fourier says nothing about what a
| Fourier Transform is or does. Signalidominomorphosis, or
| just dominomorphosis, tells a lot more at face value than
| Fourier Transformation which just basically says "a
| transformation associated with a Fourier."
|
| On the contrary. The jumble of letters tells you precisely
| what a Fourier transform is or does after you learn what
| the letters mean.
|
| Telling someone "Signalidominomorphosis" does not enable
| them to find the Fourier transform of the double-sided
| exponential.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-23 23:01 UTC)