8 Sep
2009
8 Sep
'09
2:36 p.m.
Dear group,
There is a time in every theory group's life when a little bit of experiment
is in order. So, starting right now, we are embarking on the Great Coffee
Experiment of 2009.
There are four kinds of Lavazza coffee, and we will decide which one is the
best (or at least we will confirm or disconfirm the widely held belief that
one of the kinds tastes awful). I have saved a little bit of all four kinds,
and they will be cycled through the coffee machine in the coming days.
The experiment will be single-blind, in that I know what's going on and you
don't. This is because I am too lazy to do a double-blind trial. After each
new coffee is introduced, you can send me your evaluation on a scale of 1 to
10. The current sample is sample A.
If the coffee runs out in the next few days, there will not be any to
replace it, which means that you should find me to load the next sample.
Ivan
8 Sep
8 Sep
4:51 p.m.
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get *you* to tabulate the coffee scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So, there's now a piece of paper by the
coffee machine where you can register your ratings. We're still on sample A.
Ivan
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Ivan Kassal <kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
Dear group,
There is a time in every theory group's life when a little bit of
experiment is in order. So, starting right now, we are embarking on the
Great Coffee Experiment of 2009.
There are four kinds of Lavazza coffee, and we will decide which one is the
best (or at least we will confirm or disconfirm the widely held belief that
one of the kinds tastes awful). I have saved a little bit of all four kinds,
and they will be cycled through the coffee machine in the coming days.
The experiment will be single-blind, in that I know what's going on and you
don't. This is because I am too lazy to do a double-blind trial. After each
new coffee is introduced, you can send me your evaluation on a scale of 1 to
10. The current sample is sample A.
If the coffee runs out in the next few days, there will not be any to
replace it, which means that you should find me to load the next sample.
Ivan
8:52 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to tabulate the coffee scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So, there's now a piece of paper by the
coffee machine where you can register your ratings. We're still on sample A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
Ville
--
Ville Bergholm
ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi
http://iki.fi/ville.bergholm/
US mobile +1-617-3869378
EU mobile +358-44-5722802
10:11 p.m.
Hmm, Ville has identified a design flaw in the experimental protocol. Not to
mention that the current system lends itself to ballot stuffing by partisan
supporters of sample A.
To remedy these shortcomings, there are now two new rules:
1. You must vote with invisible ink. That way your vote will not influence
subsequent voters, and all I'll have to do is develop the tally with iodine
vapor.
2. After voting, you must dip your right index finger in indelible ink. Or,
in the absence of indelible ink, you may rub yourself with the ink things
from the printer. One person, one vote.
Ivan
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ville Bergholm <ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan
Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to tabulate the coffee
scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So,
there's now a piece of paper by
the
coffee machine where you can register your
ratings. We're still on sample
A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
Ville
--
Ville Bergholm
ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi
http://iki.fi/ville.bergholm/
US mobile +1-617-3869378
EU mobile +358-44-5722802
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing list
Aspuru-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
11:01 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ville Bergholm <ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi>wrote;wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan
Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
(citation needed)
Roberto
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to tabulate the coffee
scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So,
there's now a piece of paper by
the
coffee machine where you can register your
ratings. We're still on sample
A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
Ville
--
Ville Bergholm
ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi
http://iki.fi/ville.bergholm/
US mobile +1-617-3869378
EU mobile +358-44-5722802
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing list
Aspuru-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
--
Roberto Olivares-Amaya
Aspuru-Guzik Group
Dept. of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
Harvard University
http://aspuru.chem.harvard.edu
11:14 p.m.
Actually, I think the proper procedure is to put the straw and ballot
mixture in the kitchen toaster oven with the spent printer ink residue.[1,2]
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ville Bergholm
<ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi>wrote;wrote:
[1] L. Vogt, personal experience, "Flaming toast", 1996.
[2] A. Perdomo, "Toasted cheese on sandwich", 2007 ;)
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan
Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:
(citation needed)
Roberto
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to tabulate the coffee
scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So,
there's now a piece of paper by
the
coffee machine where you can register your
ratings. We're still on
sample A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
11:53 p.m.
Hi,
these are great ideas, I propose we attempt a scientific publication. I
started drafting an abstract:
The intellectual cost of exact methods for tabulating coffee scores
using classical voting systems grows exponentially with population group
size. As a consequence, these techniques can be applied only to small
populations. By contrast, we demonstrate that quantum ballots could
exactly reflect volatile moods in polynomial time. Our algorithm uses
the split-smoke approach and explicitly incorporates all
peasant-supervisor and peasant-peasant interactions in quadratic time.
Surprisingly, this treatment is not only more accurate than the Bismarck
approximation but faster and more efficient as well, for all votes with
more than about four fingers. This is the case even though the entire
population ensemble is inebriated on a grid with appropriately short
time steps. Although the preparation and measurement of arbitrary states
on a in this ballot is inefficient, here we demonstrate how to prepare
states of peripheral interest efficiently. We also show how to
efficiently obtain scientifically relevant observables, such as
printer-to-toaster transition probabilities and thermal toaster
activation rates. Quantum ballots using these techniques could
outperform current classical ballots with 10^16 qubits.
Request for comment!
Best,
Patrick
On 9/8/2009 11:14 PM, Leslie Vogt wrote:
Actually, I think the proper procedure is to put the
straw and ballot
mixture in the kitchen toaster oven with the spent printer ink
residue.[1,2]
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ville Bergholm
<ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi <mailto:ville.bergholm@iki.fi>> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan
Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu <mailto:kassal@fas.harvard.edu>>
wrote:
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that
instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to
tabulate the
coffee scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So,
there's now a piece
of paper by the
coffee machine where you can register your
ratings. We're
still on sample A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the
results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion
of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the
ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen
microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
(citation needed)
Roberto
[1] L. Vogt, personal experience, "Flaming toast", 1996.
[2] A. Perdomo, "Toasted cheese on sandwich", 2007 ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing list
Aspuru-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
9 Sep
9 Sep
9:17 a.m.
Dear Group,
Although I admire your scientific prowess and see your progress since you
were tiny-little G1's. I have enjoyed looking different approaches taken to
tackle the problem, from experimental to quantum computational. I am
surprised that coming from the Aspuru-Guzik group, you have not thought or
carried out of the following:
a) Create an svn repository and mendeley.com space for the project
b) Devise a list of many, many authors (as many as those that have
contributed to this thread) and create a group of co-workers that meets once
a week for this discussion.
c) Employ a distributed computing approach in which cellphones from Europe
or screensavers from IBM can calculate the votes for us.
Now, believing in electronic democracy, I created a Google voting system
that I suggest could be flawless and better than Florida in 2000, Mexico in
1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006 and Afganistan '09.
The suggested link to participate is below:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tFK6fg7tZX4a2ZL0TdQlTCw
Alán Aspuru-Guzik | Assistant Professor
Harvard University | Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
12 Oxford Street, Room M113 | Cambridge, MA 02138
(617)-384-8188 | http://aspuru.chem.harvard.edu
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Patrick Rebentrost <pr(a)patrickre.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi,
these are great ideas, I propose we attempt a scientific publication. I
started drafting an abstract:
The intellectual cost of exact methods for tabulating coffee scores using
classical voting systems grows exponentially with population group size. As
a consequence, these techniques can be applied only to small populations. By
contrast, we demonstrate that quantum ballots could exactly reflect volatile
moods in polynomial time. Our algorithm uses the split-smoke approach and
explicitly incorporates all peasant-supervisor and peasant-peasant
interactions in quadratic time. Surprisingly, this treatment is not only
more accurate than the Bismarck approximation but faster and more efficient
as well, for all votes with more than about four fingers. This is the case
even though the entire population ensemble is inebriated on a grid with
appropriately short time steps. Although the preparation and measurement of
arbitrary states on a in this ballot is inefficient, here we demonstrate how
to prepare states of peripheral interest efficiently. We also show how to
efficiently obtain scientifically relevant observables, such as
printer-to-toaster transition probabilities and thermal toaster activation
rates. Quantum ballots using these techniques could outperform current
classical ballots with 10^16 qubits.
Request for comment!
Best,
Patrick
On 9/8/2009 11:14 PM, Leslie Vogt wrote:
Actually, I think the proper procedure is to put the straw and ballot
mixture in the kitchen toaster oven with the spent printer ink residue.[1,2]
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ville Bergholm
<ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi>wrote;wrote:
[1] L. Vogt, personal experience, "Flaming toast", 1996.
[2] A. Perdomo, "Toasted cheese on sandwich", 2007 ;)
------------------------------
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing
listAspuru-list@lists.fas.harvard.eduhttp://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing list
Aspuru-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan
Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:
(citation needed)
Roberto
Dear group,
In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to tabulate the coffee
scores,
thus reducing my workload by 100%. So,
there's now a piece of paper by
the
coffee machine where you can register your
ratings. We're still on
sample A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
9:19 a.m.
Dear all,
As usual, I screwed up pasting!
Please ignore the link below! (I will forbid access to the spreadsheet)
Here is the *right* link:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEZLNmZnN3RaWDRhMlpMMFRkUWx…
..
Alán Aspuru-Guzik | Assistant Professor
Harvard University | Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
12 Oxford Street, Room M113 | Cambridge, MA 02138
(617)-384-8188 | http://aspuru.chem.harvard.edu
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Alan Aspuru-Guzik <alan(a)aspuru.com> wrote:
Dear Group,
Although I admire your scientific prowess and see your progress since you
were tiny-little G1's. I have enjoyed looking different approaches taken to
tackle the problem, from experimental to quantum computational. I am
surprised that coming from the Aspuru-Guzik group, you have not thought or
carried out of the following:
a) Create an svn repository and mendeley.com space for the project
b) Devise a list of many, many authors (as many as those that have
contributed to this thread) and create a group of co-workers that meets once
a week for this discussion.
c) Employ a distributed computing approach in which cellphones from Europe
or screensavers from IBM can calculate the votes for us.
Now, believing in electronic democracy, I created a Google voting system
that I suggest could be flawless and better than Florida in 2000, Mexico in
1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006 and Afganistan '09.
The suggested link to participate is below:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tFK6fg7tZX4a2ZL0TdQlTCw
Alán Aspuru-Guzik | Assistant Professor
Harvard University | Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
12 Oxford Street, Room M113 | Cambridge, MA 02138
(617)-384-8188 | http://aspuru.chem.harvard.edu
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Patrick Rebentrost <pr(a)patrickre.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi,
these are great ideas, I propose we attempt a scientific publication. I
started drafting an abstract:
The intellectual cost of exact methods for tabulating coffee scores using
classical voting systems grows exponentially with population group size. As
a consequence, these techniques can be applied only to small populations. By
contrast, we demonstrate that quantum ballots could exactly reflect volatile
moods in polynomial time. Our algorithm uses the split-smoke approach and
explicitly incorporates all peasant-supervisor and peasant-peasant
interactions in quadratic time. Surprisingly, this treatment is not only
more accurate than the Bismarck approximation but faster and more efficient
as well, for all votes with more than about four fingers. This is the case
even though the entire population ensemble is inebriated on a grid with
appropriately short time steps. Although the preparation and measurement of
arbitrary states on a in this ballot is inefficient, here we demonstrate how
to prepare states of peripheral interest efficiently. We also show how to
efficiently obtain scientifically relevant observables, such as
printer-to-toaster transition probabilities and thermal toaster activation
rates. Quantum ballots using these techniques could outperform current
classical ballots with 10^16 qubits.
Request for comment!
Best,
Patrick
On 9/8/2009 11:14 PM, Leslie Vogt wrote:
Actually, I think the proper procedure is to put the straw and ballot
mixture in the kitchen toaster oven with the spent printer ink residue.[1,2]
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Ville Bergholm
<ville.bergholm(a)iki.fi>wrote;wrote:
[1] L. Vogt, personal experience, "Flaming toast", 1996.
[2] A. Perdomo, "Toasted cheese on sandwich", 2007 ;)
------------------------------
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing
listAspuru-list@lists.fas.harvard.eduhttp://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
_____________________________________________
Aspuru-list mailing list
Aspuru-list(a)lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/aspuru-list
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Ivan
Kassal<kassal(a)fas.harvard.edu>
wrote:
>
> Dear group,
>
> In a stroke of genius, Alejandro pointed out to me that instead of
> tabulating the coffee scores, I can get you to tabulate the coffee
scores,
> thus reducing my workload by 100%. So, there's now a piece of paper by
the
> coffee machine where you can register your ratings. We're still on
sample A.
Seeing other people's answers will affect the validity of the results
since there may be a social pressure to conform to the opinion of the
majority.
In other words, the only reliable method is to use a locked ballot
box. If no sample gets a clear majority of high ratings the ballots
are to be mixed with wet straw and burned in the kitchen microwave.
The black smoke that issues from the oven will then notify the
participants that the experiment needs to be repeated.
(citation needed)
Roberto
5365
days inactive
5366
days old
aspuru-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alan Aspuru-Guzik -
Ivan Kassal -
Leslie Vogt -
Patrick Rebentrost -
Roberto Olivares-Amaya -
Ville Bergholm