quantum neural computer announcement

[Paul_Gleichauf@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU]

Again I am going to presume that a couple of "quantum-mechanical
corrections" to previous posts is warranted in this forum. This is
not an effort on my part to limit discussion, but rather a
precaution to try to make sure that contributions remain scientific
and germane.

I first want to re-pick Alexis' nit.

	There IS a distinction between chaotic simulation of
PARTICLES and the numerical simulation of Schroedinger's equation,
a linear partial differential equation for the WAVEFUNCTION. 
The quantum system is not being simulated by a chaotic system, 
the selection of a measurement result is what being randomly 
selected, a sampling of a probabilty distribution.  When one chooses
to measure some of the wave properties of a quantum phenomenon the
notion of particles as the basis of a chaotic simulation breaks down.

	Dr. Kak has added in his follow-on post that EPR experiments
are generally agreed to be of the action-at-a-distance type.  This
is a loaded phrase that should not be used lightly. In EPR
experiments one measures the properties of a correlated system,
for example a pair of photons produced by a positron-electron
annihilation, and asserts that the measurement of the polarization
of one uniquely identifies the polarization of the second without
the need for any further measurement. The paradoxical character
becomes apparent when the potential measurements are not in the
forward lightcone (causally connectable by a light signal). The
problem with regarding this as action-at-a-distance is that no
information (in the information theory sense) can be transmitted
using this technique.  Therefore calling this action-at-a-distance, 
where the speed of light is quite artfully used to convey
information, can lead to gross misunderstandings.  

							Paul