Simon Burton

And just for fun going to p=5... looks like we get some kind of order (p-1) Sierpinsky triangle.

Here is the p=3 version, counting prime factors equal to 3

What does the Sierpiński triangle have to do with Pascal's triangle? Here's a pictorial answer; i'm just learning about this from Bowman's "Diagrammatic Algebra" book

wow, the braided symmetric string diagram does have the Coxeter braid relation ABAB=BABA ! what is this magic

A string diagram for an element of the hyperoctahedral group has a symmetry property, from Bowmans book "Diagrammatic Algebra". This immediately suggests a braided version ... hmm..

nice! how do i undo?

I think you are interfacing to a hyperbolic surface code

Wherein philosophy is dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century.

The word "nothing" is doing a lot of work here and I'm not sure it is up to the task.

I see, good point, thankyou.

People do make superpositions of some very large systems, (i think even a tardigrade?) so what are you saying ? Are you the ket-police now?

I think I am just about ready to make my own search engine.

Ruth Kastner has some things to say about field theories..

It must be so frustrating to have billions of dollars and still be a miserable a**hole.

The principle of "two big ideas": one contains the other, or else they are not big ideas.

If people are going to continue to put the introduction to their paper in the abstract, then i'm going to put my paper's abstract in the title.

Any sufficiently complicated physics paper contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of an idea from algebraic geometry.

Today's OEIS fishing expedition. The only question is how much RAM am i going to need to find the next number... Love these OEIS cliff-hangers! ARGGH

It's *a* graphic framework. I've been using 3d string diagrams for this stuff... Here is a laxator for a monoidal functor, which is the blue string. The monoidal product is the sheet layers... etc etc

it's mostly excel spreadsheets..

Still trying to figure that out, will get back to you.

If by "the completely standard way" you mean, as taught in undergraduate quantum mechanics, then yes. I can't remember the last time i saw the Born rule actually used in the wild. It tends to be only in discussions like this about the foundations of quantum.

Behold! A one-qubit quantum computer:

i don't know if it's really a "need", but here is one way to get probabilities: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_rule

I think it's just as valid saying you get zero-worlds when you don't add anything to the Schrödinger equation. I happen to prefer this interpretation (the zero-worlds one) on my more transcendent days.

from: canyon23.net/math/tc.pdf

no don't kill it. Yes we need it.

Directors cut!

This is a total shame that it comes down to who you believe in. Fundamental physics should be much more participatory than this.

Wowee, this new collection threads the needle nicely between philosophy and physics. Authors actually explaining their ideas instead of just academicsplaining. link.springer.com/collections/...