It turns out they intentionally drain a bit of the storage capacitor, and amplify that weak signal. Some of that amplified charge is then fed back to storage.
In my personal projects, I've used it to insert/delete transactions in a ledger. I wanted to be able to update/query the account balance fast. Like the article says, "fold operations".
Are we sure that the base reveals nothing about the factors if n is composite? I have never seen a proof of that.
Usually, zero knowledge proofs also require a prover who knows the answer (the factors in this case). This is just a primality test that can be performed locally.
This article is not about the API contract of the hash function, or the abstraction it provides. If you are just trying to hash things, you don't need any info here.
It's very much trying to go _under_ the abstraction layer to investigate its behavior. Because it's interesting.
This is very similar to how people investigate performance quirks or security issues.
The hash functions used for these purposes are usually not cryptographic hashes. They are "perceptual hashes" that allows for approximate matches (e.g. if the image has been scaled or brightness-adjusted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_hashing
Kind of? Keep aside quantum mechanics for a second. In any classical experiment that has random outcomes, would you say that the probability distribution is a property of a single system or a bunch?
You can only deduce a distribution from repeated measurements. But most physicists would have no problem talking about a single experiment having many possible outcomes, governed by a probability distribution. It's almost a philosophical question about whether probability means anything in single systems.
It's the same way in quantum mechanics. The effects of entanglement can only be discerned if you take repeated samples. But we still feel okay talking about single systems governed by such entanglement.
> How can entangled system be differentiated from a nonentangled system?
The canonical answer to your question is Bell's inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem. But TL;DR: the distinction only shows up in the statistics of repeated experiments. There is _no way_ to distinguish them in single-fire experiments. Entanglement is defined in terms of "odd" statistics.
In repeated measurements of related properties (e.g. spin along varying angle), entangled systems show more correlation than it should be possible classically.
This is like online reviews. If you selectively take positive or negative reviews and somehow censor the rest, the reviews are worthless. Yet, if you report on all the ones you find, it's still useful.
Yes, I'm more likely to leave reviews if I'm unsatisfied. Yes, people are more likely to leave CS if they were unhappy. Biased data, but still useful data.
I have been donating a few hundred dollars to Mozilla every year (or at least most years) for the last 7 years. It's not much, but I might stop that donation now.
I didn't get from the article: are they better than all traffic signals, or signals with unprotected left turns? And what's a good vs. bad turnabout like?
I have had to go through a few that feel extremely dangerous compared to having all cars stop for me. So I know I must be missing something.
Edit: Also, I see a lot of comments on yield. I'm probably confused too, but how do they work when traffic is non-stop? Is there a specific traffic rate beyond which roundabouts become less safe?
This reminds me of the difference between micro-benchmarks vs real programs. I would always include extracts from real texts of a few different types (novels, lists, technical writing, short paragraphs like in a playscript). But a test text like these are also helpful in exercising a few rare cases, like z, q, and certain ligatures.
> [...] other algorithms may require the sort of induction one gets with constructive proofs to sufficiently verify. There is an art to this which will lead to style changes in C and a slightly different way of building up functions from pieces that can be trivially model checked.
Is there a book or article that talks more about this? I.e. how to write code in a way that is more amenable to model-checking (bounded or otherwise)?
It turns out they intentionally drain a bit of the storage capacitor, and amplify that weak signal. Some of that amplified charge is then fed back to storage.