User talk:ʘx

In response to your feedback
So, the "Editing Wikipedia..." functionality is just for "new editors"? Why is it then presented to me? And why is this fact not mentioned in the popup?

ʘx (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, great idea, the response goes directly to my talk page. Yes, there it will help me and others most. ʘx (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Haswell article
Hello there! Regarding your and mine edits on Haswell (microarchitecture), I went again through all available resources, and seems you're right. There are no definite conclusions that Haswell CPUs run significantly hotter, and many of the associated online resources are pretty much just speculations. Thank you for pointing that out. -- Dsimic (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 1921
Please see flag used for Germany at the 1928 Summer Olympics. NickSt (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quantum bogosort
What specific policy justifies this removal, given that the material had a citation and seemed to be at least as noteworthy (in an intuitive sense, not necessarily WP:Notability) as the other "related algorithms"?

Could the material be incorporated into Quantum sort instead?

If this stands, it is probably best to nominate the redirects and  for RFD to prevent them from pointing to an article that doesn't mention the terms. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also consider an attempt at pseudocode (note that this uses the syntax of JavaScript and returns the result instead of modifying a parameter): Does this help address your objection about whether quantum bogosort is an "algorithm"?
 * It cannot be incorporated into the article. The reason is simple: Quantum bogosort is no algorithm. However, the article is about algorithms. The mere existence of a citation is not a criterion, its nature bears more weight. ʘx (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the lede of Algorithm: "In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm (/ˈælɡərɪðəm/ AL-gə-ri-dhəm) is a self-contained step-by-step set of operations to be performed." Does the problem here concern more "self-contained" or "step-by-step"? Wouldn't any type of quantum sort fail the same test? Or would rigorously defining the procedure for turning an ordinary sorting algorithm into a quantum sort address your objection? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit that I glossed over an important technicality, which is that a "procedure for turning an ordinary sorting algorithm into a quantum sort" would need to be defined case-by-case and may not always be possible. However, I would still like to elaborate on my other responses:
 * An algorithm does not cease to be an "algorithm" simply because some part of it is unimplementable. Were this the case, it would not be meaningful to write and study algorithms for a general Turing machine, which requires infinite memory.
 * The incorrectness of the popularly-stated complexity analysis for quantum bogosort is itself a sourceable fact. It does not by itself make quantum bogosort any less of an "algorithm" nor necessarily disqualify quantum bogosort from being mentioned on Wikipedia. Speaking about "sourceable"...
 * A better source needs to be found. Admittedly I am remiss in not already having done this myself, but computer science is not my field of study.
 * I hope this makes things clear. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Does this help address your objection about whether quantum bogosort is an "algorithm"? Unfortunately, not. Since you seem to be honestly interested in the topic but you stated that computer science is not your field of study, I will explain in more detail.
 * The problem with your JavaScript example is that it is a merely linguistic translation of BogoSort from natural English into a "JavaScript-like" form. This transformation does not make it an algorithm. In fact, your code does not constitute an algorithm.
 * I formerly linked to the algorithm article for a reason. I wished you to notice a very important property of algorithms, namely effectiveness. Since it is not possible for any Turing machine to compute BogoSort, it is no algorithm.
 * Please note that "implementability" is not the problem here. The problem is computability. Colloquially, the term "algorithm" may be used in a variety of ways, but in the narrower sense of computer science, it is defined in a specific way, and I am just applying that definition. ʘx (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read the second paragraph of the Algorithm article but felt it pointless to quote. So exactly what makes quantum bogosort noncomputable or ineffective? If we discard the question of implementability, we are left to consider the hypothetical situation in which destroying the universe in the required manner is possible; a quantum bogosort would then terminate in O(n*log(n)) time and use O(n!*n) space (that is, number of permutations times length of input list). Am I failing to understand some fundamental difference between classical and quantum complexity analysis, or have I perhaps missed some circumstance in which a quantum bogosort would fail to halt?
 * I am willing to acknowledge that quantum bogosort is uncomputable and thus not an algorithm, but I don't see how that distinction is germane to the question of whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow the material to be included anywhere on Wikipedia. Consider that the Busy beaver article mentions busy beaver functions, which are generally agreed to be uncomputable. If the problem is merely the word "algorithm" being in the proposed parent articles, then they should be reworded. Scratch that - obviously the term "sorting algorithm" contains "algorithm" for a reason, and it would need to be avoided. I can understand why you don't want the information in either the Bogosort or Quantum sort article on this basis; the possibility remains to revert the merge, making again a separate article, being careful not to use the word "algorithm" in it without a suitable negation.
 * The remaining issue is that of sourcing, which I/we still need to address. As I understand, any content removal of this scale should have been discussed on the article's talk page first, unless there is a blatant factual error or gross violation of a policy such as BLP (neither of which applies here). That is the main reason I am pursuing this discussion, not just my interest in the topic. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) (+proofread by self 03:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC))


 * Maybe I myself missed a point; if so, please correct me. I am no physicist and don't know whether "destroying the universe" is a formally well-defined phrase in quantum informatics. In the following, I assume that this is not the case. My whole argument depends on this assumption.
 * Applying this assumption, I have the impression that you do not know how to formally interpret the language of CS or mathematics. This is because I answered your questions already and you did read the respective articles which also answer your questions, but still you keep asking what the problem with Quantum BogoSort is. I will again try to explain. I am not sure what your current understanding is, so I will answer in a rather general manner. Please excuse me if I explain something you already know.
 * The terms we are dealing with in this context -- algorithm, computability, etc. -- stem from theoretical computer science, thus mathematics. That is, we are dealing with formal languages and formal systems. It is up to you which formal system you want to use, but once you have made your choice, you must adhere to its language and rules. If you want to use Turing machines -- fine. If you want to use JavaScript -- fine. But: your choice must be formal and only formal, otherwise, what you are saying does not make any sense, at least from a CS point of view.
 * I will go through your statements step by step.
 * So exactly what makes quantum bogosort noncomputable or ineffective?
 * Answer: The fact that there is no algorithm that computes it. Actually, it is even worse: Quantum BogoSort is not even a function, so, it makes no sense to ask whether it is computable or not.
 * If we discard the question of implementability, we are left to consider the hypothetical situation in which destroying the universe in the required manner is possible
 * Remember what I said about computer science and mathematics. The phrase "destroying the universe" just does not make any sense, neither for Turing machines, nor for JavaScript. You have to choose a formal system and adhere to its rules. Only statements that are translateable into the formal language of your choice make sense and are discussable for us.
 * Am I failing to understand some fundamental difference between classical and quantum complexity analysis, or have I perhaps missed some circumstance in which a quantum bogosort would fail to halt?
 * This is not a question of complexity, but of formal languages and formal systems. It makes no sense to analyze the complexity of an algorithm that does not exist, at least not for me.
 * I am willing to acknowledge that quantum bogosort is uncomputable and thus not an algorithm
 * I myself was imprecise by stating the problem was computability. As I already said, we basically cannot even ask for computability, because Quantum BogoSort is no function.
 * I don't see how that distinction is germane to the question of whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow the material to be included anywhere on Wikipedia
 * I never claimed that. It may be completely possible to include Quantum BogoSort in some other article. It just does not fit into an article that discusses algorithms. I have no problem with a "Quantum BogoSort" article, as long as Quantum BogoSort is not described as a "function" or "algorithm".
 * Consider that the Busy beaver article mentions busy beaver functions, which are generally agreed to be uncomputable.
 * There is no problem with uncomputable functions. The busy beaver is formally well-defined, whereas Quantum BogoSort is not.
 * I apologize if I removed the content from the article too quickly, but there are no sources necessary whether Quantum BogoSort is a function or an algorithm or nothing. The definitions are sufficiently clear.
 * I repeat that I don't have any problem with BogoSort itself. I just have a problem with it being called an algorithm in the narrow CS sense. You may of course call it an algorithm in the colloquial sense. This works in the same way as you may call a cooking recipe an algorithm in the colloquial sense, but not in the CS sense. ʘχ (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Replying to selected points:


 * I am no physicist and don't know whether "destroying the universe" is a formally well-defined phrase in quantum informatics.

I am not the right kind of physicist either, but I admit that it is not, at least according to the material formerly in the article: "quantum computers do not actually offer a way to 'destroy a universe'." (More specifically, the fact that the many-worlds interpretation is not the only interpretation of quantum mechanics complicates the definition of destroying the universe.)


 * I have the impression that you do not know how to formally interpret the language of CS or mathematics.

I had no trouble understanding anything you just said. If anything, I had problems with taking you too literally, as with the mention of computability.


 * I never claimed that.

My mistake. I had misunderstood at the start of the discussion that you wanted to exclude the material from Wikipedia entirely. It now seems that you would have no objection to splitting into a standalone article, or perhaps including it in a "List of joke sorting methods," provided that the resulting article is extremely careful not to describe quantum bogosort as a function or an algorithm. Do I understand correctly?


 * I don't have any problem with BogoSort itself.

I had not intended to express any objection to classical bogosort. "Had," because classical bogosort only almost surely halts, but our definition of an effective method says "always." But I digress; I won't argue this further, as it enlightens nothing about quantum bogosort.

I am not denying that classical bogosort is definable as a function, which I acknowledge is quite possibly a fundamental difference from quantum bogosort.

As for quantum sorting in general, I currently have no personal objections, despite what an earlier post of mine may have implied.

I have made my best effort not to use the word "algorithm" too colloquially. I acknowledge that this may not have been a perfect effort. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) (+ 18:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break
I inquired about classical bogosort elsewhere; incorporating that information, my response is as follows:

In models of computing based on classical physics, we treat the internals of the computer as deterministic and require any randomness to be supplied as an input from outside. (This is without loss of generality, since a deterministic Turing machine can compute anything a non-deterministic Turing machine can compute.) In this sense, the input to classical bogosort is not just the list to be sorted but rather the list and an arbitrary amount of random numbers. Classical bogosort can be made to behave as a full function, or specifically to satisfy the alternative definition of a Las Vegas algorithm, by having it return an error code if the provided randomness does not trigger a correctly-sorted list to appear.

There is no analogous definition for quantum bogosort, as destruction of the universe (however it is hypothetically implemented) means (by its own, admittedly informal, definition) that no value is returned to any observer from that universe. Hence quantum bogosort fails to be a function.

This is the best I can do for now; I won't bother debating further what is/is not a function/algorithm. I also received a reply from at Talk:Bogosort, containing two important points. First, I am correct in classifying this as a sourcing issue, as the above analysis is so far original research. (I again apologize that I am too busy to help with this.) Second, Graeme Bartlett believes that the scope of the article is governed more by the word "bogosort" than "algorithm." You may not agree with this; I suggest continuing the discussion there. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am recalling the answer to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" which is "As many as want to." More seriously, consider the hardline Copenhagen interpretation: if it isn't measured, it doesn't exist. An electron whose position is unobserved does not have a position, and indeed should not be talked about as if it did or has aspects of position such as identity. Thus, the non-return of a result from the supposed algorithm (algorithms always return a result if they are to be called an algorithm) doesn't matter, because this putative failure took place in universes that do not exist. And this on top of the inability of one universe to communicate with another.
 * With regard to the quantum randomness issue, remember that quantum effect underlie all (in the theory), there is no absolute binary quantum/classical boundary. There does not have to a randomness source of QM nature. Even if the (pseudo-random) generator were seeded with the explicit initial value of 1234567 (instead of the time-of-day in nanoseconds, say) so that all its subsequent values were pre-determined, the many-worlds interpretation would still apply in reality, because the supposed perfectly deterministic digital behaviour is in fact (in the real world) mediated by actual hardware hiccoughs, as was demonstrated by the Seti@home project. Only if we were to talk about the behaviour of a perfectly-functioning digital device would we need to introduce outside randomness as has been mentioned above. And if we are reasoning about a perfectly-functioning device, such as a Turing machine, we definitely can talk about arbitrarily large numbers of steps, just so long as no infinity has to be attained, rather than merely approached. And this leads to notions such as in the limit that the probability of non-success is zero even though, for any specified step limit there will always be a non-zero chance of non-completion (that is, some test data would achieve it for the given "random" sequence), and so, at all times, no matter how long you wait the supposed Bogosort algorithm could have failed, and so is not certain of success and so does not deserve the term "algorithm". Yet we reason about the "busy beaver" notion and call that an algorithm even though non-completion for any run time limit can be achieved. Other than infinity attained, in the limit.
 * I recall the "destroy universe" notion to facilitate computation being chortled over in the 1970s, but always informally. No august journal article, possibly because all concerned thought the notion to trivial to be worth one.
 * Now consider Doomsday Device by John Gribben (Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, February 1985), and Games, Puzzles and Computation by R.A. Heam and E.D. Demaine (2009), page 103-4, which I think are adequately reputable published sources. There are surely many others. NickyMcLean (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It now seems that you would have no objection to splitting Quantum bogosort into a standalone article, [...] Do I understand correctly?
 * Yes, you do.
 * I had not intended to express any objection to classical bogosort. [...]
 * I forgot to type "Quantum" before "BogoSort", so this a misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about classical BogoSort.
 * @NickyMcLean: Please note that this is not about physics. The discussion is about the formal notions of "algorithm" and "function".
 * @Soledad, while we agree on the question whether Quantum BogoSort can be called an algorithm or not, the following still sounds incorrect:
 * There is no analogous definition for quantum bogosort, as destruction of the universe (however it is hypothetically implemented) means (by its own, admittedly informal, definition) that no value is returned to any observer from that universe. Hence quantum bogosort fails to be a function.
 * We cannot decide whether something is a function or not by arguing with formally undefined phrases like "universe" or "observer", so this is NOT the point. The point is (I repeat) that you have to choose your formal system and adhere to its language and rules. Quantum BogoSort does not fail to be a function because "destruction of the universe" hinders "returning a value to an observer", but because you are not able to define "destruction of the universe" in any of the well-accepted formal systems that are usually used for defining mathematical functions. Furthermore, in general, a function is not required to "return a value". It could be partial or uncomputable.
 * I don't see any original research in my arguments. If you want to call something a "function" or an "algorithm" in a mathematical or CS context, you have to follow the mathematical definitions of these terms, it is as easy as that -- no OR, but simply the very foundations of math or CS. So, I don't understand why there should be any sourcing problems for this matter. ʘχ (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I continued to be a bit sloppy. I understand how that hurts my credibility, but I was merely doing the best I could, within constraints of real life, to concur with your position that quantum bogosort fails to be a function. My last post was a restatement of this post on the article's talk page, which I acknowledge is no more technically sound.
 * I believe we are in agreement on the following:
 * The concept of "destroying the universe" as informally invoked in the description of quantum bogosort is physically impossible and (more importantly) mathematically ill-defin ed . I make no claim as to whether it fails to be defin able, that is, whether there is any choice of a formal system in which it could be given a meaning.
 * Strictly, a sorting algorithm must be a (non-probabilistic) algorithm, which must be an effective method, which must be a function.
 * Quantum bogosort probably fails to be a function. I make no further claim as to the specific way in which it does so.
 * I admit that bringing up classical bogosort without choosing a specific formal system in which to relate it to quantum bogosort was an unnecessary digression. ʘx, it would help greatly if you named the specific formal system(s) you have in mind. (this is just as much my responsibility; see below) It seems that a QM interpretation and a computational formalism would need to be specified together, due to the potential interrelations.
 * I believe such a choice may not be easy, in the sense that we must watch out for original synthesis. Although the definitions of terms like "algorithm" and "function" are already well-supported, any manner in which we combine those terms and definitions must be adequately referenced. (Graeme Bartlett seems to be pointing that out here.)
 * All in all, it is time to refocus on the central question of where, if anywhere, material about quantum bogosort belongs on Wikipedia. Since you "have no objection to splitting Quantum bogosort into a standalone article," it may be that we could choose that option without discussing the decision further.
 * However, to reconcile your statements with Graeme Bartlett's ("It can be included in this article because of its name") would seem to imply that some relevant Wikipedia article currently uses the word "algorithm" in a less-than-formal way. If so, that ought to be fixed, somehow. I make no claim as to which article, and I'm not sure that this concern has a genuine basis in Wikipedia policy. Again, referencing appears to be important in resolving this issue. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2
I apologize for not giving you a fair chance to respond yet, but I realize I have probably oversimplified Graeme Bartlett's position on original research; I believe I need to clarify that and some other things.

As I understand it: Suppose we have sources for the statements "A function is defined as A" and "An algorithm is defined as B." To synthesize that "The sequence of steps C, which is referred to as quantum bogosort, (is|is not) (a function|an algorithm) by the definitions A and B" would require a reference supporting that particular statement, or it would be original synthesis. Similarly for "X is a formal system of mathematics defined by ..." / "Y is a formal system defined by..." → "X is preferred to Y for the analysis of the procedure Z" – that is the sense in which I say that choosing a formal system is nontrivial.

As for "interrelations" between physics and mathematics, that was meant to acknowledge your comments about the Copenhagen interpretation. More generally, which physical formalism we choose in which to interpret quantum mechanics will affect the mathematical formalism in which we interpret quantum sorting; the right answer is not necessarily the same for each QM interpretation. However, the concept of a sorting algorithm in general is less ambiguous: According to our existing articles, it depends on that of a lexicographical order, which depends on that of a partially ordered set (from order theory) and a Cartesian product (this is just a start).

As for the claim of informal use of the word "algorithm," I discovered this in the second and third lead paragraphs of the Randomized algorithm article:"One has to distinguish between algorithms that use the random input ... but always terminate with a correct result (Las Vegas algorithms) in a bounded amount of time, and probabilistic algorithms, which, depending on the random input, have a chance of producing an incorrect result (Monte Carlo algorithms) or fail to produce a result either by signalling a failure or failing to terminate.

In the second case, random performance and random output, the term 'algorithm' for a procedure is somewhat questionable. In the case of random output, it is no longer formally effective."In other words, "Monte Carlo algorithm" is a term of art in which the word "algorithm" is used for historical reasons, and that usage disagrees with some other usages. However, this is irrelevant to quantum bogosort, or indeed any sorting procedure that is designed never to return a mis-sorted list and therefore is not a Monte Carlo algorithm. I mentioned it only because I was thinking out loud about the nature of Wikipedia's word usage, internal consistency, and organization. Nor are the above points relevant to the questions of whether quantum bogosort may be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (we already agree the answer is yes) or where specifically such a mention would belong (we already agree a standalone article is worth a try).

Finally, if my own use of the terms "formal system" and "formalism" is in question, I have at least tried not to use "formalism" merely to mean "notation" (an issue mentioned in the lede of the Formal system article).

I feel I need to take a break from this discussion for a few days. I hope I've addressed all the important points; it is now my responsibility to continue refining my technical knowledge as well as my communication skills, so as not to be too sloppy in a highly technical subject such as this. Thanks for your time and help. (NickyMcLean, sorry for dragging you into a discussion that is probably not in your area of expertise either.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

i486 naming
Hello, I think you may want to share your opinion on Talk:Intel 80486 --Crash48 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)