Talk:Quantum pseudo-telepathy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:50, 15 July 2013

Physics C‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Quantum pseudo-telepathy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 14,746 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that due to the subtly non-local nature of quantum reality, apparent telepathy can be achieved in games between separated players (example pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

Wikipedia

Archives

Archive 1

This is Alain Tapp course in Quantum Computing:

https://sites.google.com/site/alaintapp/cours/ift6155

There is a pdf on pseudo-telepathy, the only problem is that it is french. Otherwise, it explains quite well the phenomenon. Should we put a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.134.156 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there been experimental validation of quantum pseudo-telepathy? please note that quantum pseudo-telepathy isn't the same thing as bell inegalities.... It requires more quantum ressources, among other things. It should be important to write about that, I think. Also is quantum pseudo-telepathy the same thing as spooky communication? Still reading about it... Hopefully I can help with this article in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.176.87 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also luck

If the participants choose to pick answers randomly they would be the possibility they get it right. Quantum entanglement is not the only way. --TiagoTiago (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sure, if they just guess, then they can win 50% of the time. But with QE they can win 100% of the time, and that's the point here. Does it need to be explicit?~~ Joule36e5 (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it looks as though they can win 8/9 of the time, by pre-arranging a table such as the one shown in the article, with the two players disagreeing on the value for the one square that's in conflict. It now seems to me that if any of the other 8 cells is chosen, then they'd succeed without any quantum effects. Have I got it right, that entanglement increases their success rate (under optimal play) from 8/9 to 1? I think the article should be explicit about the probabilities for the sample game, in any case. Joule36e5 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough info

The article is tantalizing, but doesn't give enough information for those who haven't read the original paper to see what's going on. What is the game exactly? Give payoff matrix.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 :{{strikethrough|Sure, if they just guess, then they can win 50% of the time.  But with QE they can win 100% of the time, and that's the point here.  Does it need to be explicit?}}  [[User:Joule36e5|Joule36e5]] ([[User talk:Joule36e5|talk]]) 08:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 :On second thought, it looks as though they can win 8/9 of the time, by pre-arranging a table such as the one shown in the article, with the two players disagreeing on the value for the one square that's in conflict.  It now seems to me that if any of the other 8 cells is chosen, then they'd succeed without any quantum effects.  Have I got it right, that entanglement increases their success rate (under optimal play) from 8/9 to 1?  I think the article should be explicit about the probabilities for the sample game, in any case.  [[User:Joule36e5|Joule36e5]] ([[User talk:Joule36e5|talk]]) 08:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
+== Not enough info ==
+The article is tantalizing, but doesn't give enough information for those who haven't read the original paper to see what's going on. What is the game exactly? Give payoff matrix.