Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Actual time and new eigenvalue.

Maliki Javier Martinez

Published Mar 30, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

I did it. People are trying to steal this so im just uploading it as is. I dont have a degree in math or physics. I know enough to see that this will rewrite all of physics and recover every formula. And it'll get you new proofs. Whatever though, I dont want every award.
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.19324483

Related papers

Mutually Unbiased Bases in Composite Dimensions What I've Already Done in a More "Proper" Tone Pff Whatever...You Go Ahead And Close An Open Problem of 28+ Years With Not One Single Collaborator And Catch Every Stupid Typo That Some Stooge Will Try to Harp On Don't Make Me Laugh. Objections to Tone Are Not Real Objections. The Literature to Date on This Matter Is Pathetic and Inexcusable. It is a Black Dot On Math History. I Can Write Volumes of Fury On This.

Christopher Pompetzki

Mutually Unbiased Bases in Composite DimensionsChris PompetzkiDecember 2025Fine. Here is the original with the ”proper” tone. Lame. Where’s the fun in that.Whatever. Oh how I much prefer people cite my version with the insufferable tone complete with Moby Dick, Shrek, and Drake references. What else would one expect when one man has done what others haven’t done for what 28+ years now in profound isolation. Though sure, I suppose I’ll do the ”right thing” and post my clean(er) version. Imagine my excitement at the notion of some stooges trying to steal my proof and act like they solved the problem when I actually did. Imagine even claiming it without citing me. Hehe. Oh I hope some do. I do not consent to any posting of this on the pathetic, outdated, obselete arXiv that apparently requires some kind of code to publish. We prove that the maximum number of mutually unbiased bases in dimension d is at most p + 1, where p is the smallest prime factor of d. The proof is three steps: (1) mutual unbiasedness forces bi-unimodularity of overlap functions, (2) bi-unimodularity factors through the Chinese Remainder Theorem to prime factors, (3) the Zp factor admits at most p 1 pairwise compatible bi-unimodular families. For d = 6, this gives M (6) = 3. Oh and by the way, yes I do declare that M (6) = 3 ought to be called the Pompetzki-Ahab-Shrek Theorem or something to that effect. Imagine the audacity of all the people who threw in the towel on M (6) = 3 trying to claim credit for what I, the absolute madman have done. Ha. Only a true psycho would stick with this problem for more than a day tops. Oh I know I ought to have ”proper” toned papers and go get a PhD in pure math apparently. Though then I’d have to do some BS that someone else wants me to do instead of doing what I want to do: brutally advancing mankind’s closure of open problems with all the ”Furor Teutonicus” of zee David Hilbert at least cubed hehe. Ja. Gut. You know vat. I zhought about giving zee Verldt zee fully clean und zee neutered und zee ”proper tone” und zhen I zaid NEIN! Ja. Gut. Vhy. Becauseit makes me smirks. Schadenfreude. That’s why.You know what. I just don't care enough to give it to the world fully clean. I must insist that I coat it with zee Scheisse ja. Zat iz vat is required after all zee Scheisse zat zee stupid have talked about the great German Mathematician, David Hilbert, who is sadly no longer with us. Imagine the extent of his fury at how much of the math world has thumbed their noses at him as they say to Hell with the notion that existence matters in math carry a moral imperative for mathematicians to resolve. I'm too furious. I'm too disgusted. The world didn't deserve David Hilbert. Nor Gauss. Nor Euler. Herr Hilbert said: Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.Many agreed when he was alive. Then he passed. Then people lost their fear of that Germanic fury. Then M(6) went unclosed for what 28+ years GTFO. There's no excuse for it. I'm furious.

•Dec 27, 2025•0 citations

Using the Schrödinger wave equation

A. F. J. Levi

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 1, 2006•1 citation

Euclidean time method in generalized eigenvalue equation

Mi-Ra Hwang, Eylee Jung, MuSeong Kim +1 more

arXiv:2307.14640•Quantum Information Processing•Feb 15, 2024•1 citation

Statistical Validation of the Formulon Physics Legendre Encoder: Shot-Noise Scaling, Decoder Efficiency and Deterministic Accuracy on a PennyLane Simulator

Sri Kaleeswarar S

WHAT THIS PAPER IS ABOUT Imagine a quantum computer wants to understand a number, say 0.35. It cannot just read it. So the number is first converted into a special pattern called Legendre features. These come from Legendre polynomials, a set of smooth curves in maths that act like a fingerprint of the number. WHAT WAS TESTED Formulon Physics is a Python library that does this conversion and can also reverse it, getting the original number back. I wanted to check two things: is it correct, and how accurate is it? HOW I TESTED IT 1. Correctness check: I compared Formulon's answers with SciPy, a trusted maths library. Over 1,312 values, the biggest difference was about one part in a quadrillion, which is just computer rounding. 2. Accuracy check: A quantum computer gives answers by measuring many times. Each measurement is called a shot. I ran 4,100 tests using 100, 500, 1,000 and 5,000 shots, on a simulator in Google Colab. WHAT I FOUND - More shots means a smaller error. It follows a simple rule: 4 times more shots cuts the error to half. This is just like a coin toss. Flip it 10 times and the result is rough; flip it 1,000 times and you get close to 50-50. - The error matched the maths prediction. It was within about 5% of what theory says, so nothing strange is happening inside the tool. - Higher degree recovers the number better. Using more features (degree 12 instead of 2) brought back the original number much more accurately. - The decoder is nearly perfect. It gets almost the best accuracy that is mathematically possible. LIMITS This was a simulator, not a real noisy quantum machine. I ran only 5 repeats per setting. The code also reused some random seeds. I also did not claim any quantum advantage. WHY IT MATTERS Anyone using Formulon now knows how many shots they need for the accuracy they want. For example, about 516 shots give an error of 0.01 with degree 8.

•Oct 29, 2026•0 citations

Science AMA Series: I’m Adam Becker, astrophysicist and author of WHAT IS REAL?, the story of the unfinished quest for the meaning of quantum physics. AMA!

Adam-Becker, r/Science AMAs

Hi, I’m Adam Becker, PhD, an astrophysicist and science writer. My new book, What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, is about the scientists who bucked the establishment and looked for a better way to understand what quantum mechanics is telling us about the nature of reality. It’s a history of quantum foundations from the initial development of quantum mechanics to the present, focusing on some people who don’t often get the spotlight in most books on quantum history: David Bohm, Hugh Everett III, John Bell, and the people who came after them (e.g. Clauser, Shimony, Zeh, Aspect). I’m happy to talk about all of their work: the physics, the history, the philosophy, and more. FWIW, I don’t subscribe to any particular interpretation, but I’m not a fan of the “Copenhagen interpretation” (which isn’t even a single coherent position anyhow). Please don’t shy away if you disagree. Feel free to throw whatever you’ve got at me, and let’s have a fun, engaging, and respectful conversation on one of the most contentious subjects in physics. Or just ask whatever else you want to ask—after all, this is AMA. Edit, 2PM Eastern: Gotta step away for a bit. I’ll be back in an hour or so to answer more questions. Edit, 6:25PM Eastern: Looks like I’ve answered all of your questions so far, but I’d be happy to answer more. I’ll check back in another couple of hours. Edit, 11:15PM Eastern: OK, I’m out for the night, but I’ll check in again tomorrow morning for any final questions.

•May 1, 2018•0 citations

The Eigenvalue Equation and the Evolution Operator

Michele Cini

UNITEXT for physics•Jan 1, 2018•1 citation
Mutually Unbiased Bases in Composite DimensionsChris PompetzkiDecember 2025Fine. Here is the original with the ”proper” tone. Lame. Where’s the fun in that.Whatever. Oh how I much prefer people cite my version with the insufferable tone complete with Moby Dick, Shrek, and Drake references. What else would one expect when one man has done what others haven’t done for what 28+ years now in profound isolation. Though sure, I suppose I’ll do the ”right thing” and post my clean(er) version. Imagine my excitement at the notion of some stooges trying to steal my proof and act like they solved the problem when I actually did. Imagine even claiming it without citing me. Hehe. Oh I hope some do. I do not consent to any posting of this on the pathetic, outdated, obselete arXiv that apparently requires some kind of code to publish. We prove that the maximum number of mutually unbiased bases in dimension d is at most p + 1, where p is the smallest prime factor of d. The proof is three steps: (1) mutual unbiasedness forces bi-unimodularity of overlap functions, (2) bi-unimodularity factors through the Chinese Remainder Theorem to prime factors, (3) the Zp factor admits at most p 1 pairwise compatible bi-unimodular families. For d = 6, this gives M (6) = 3. Oh and by the way, yes I do declare that M (6) = 3 ought to be called the Pompetzki-Ahab-Shrek Theorem or something to that effect. Imagine the audacity of all the people who threw in the towel on M (6) = 3 trying to claim credit for what I, the absolute madman have done. Ha. Only a true psycho would stick with this problem for more than a day tops. Oh I know I ought to have ”proper” toned papers and go get a PhD in pure math apparently. Though then I’d have to do some BS that someone else wants me to do instead of doing what I want to do: brutally advancing mankind’s closure of open problems with all the ”Furor Teutonicus” of zee David Hilbert at least cubed hehe. Ja. Gut. You know vat. I zhought about giving zee Verldt zee fully clean und zee neutered und zee ”proper tone” und zhen I zaid NEIN! Ja. Gut. Vhy. Becauseit makes me smirks. Schadenfreude. That’s why.You know what. I just don't care enough to give it to the world fully clean. I must insist that I coat it with zee Scheisse ja. Zat iz vat is required after all zee Scheisse zat zee stupid have talked about the great German Mathematician, David Hilbert, who is sadly no longer with us. Imagine the extent of his fury at how much of the math world has thumbed their noses at him as they say to Hell with the notion that existence matters in math carry a moral imperative for mathematicians to resolve. I'm too furious. I'm too disgusted. The world didn't deserve David Hilbert. Nor Gauss. Nor Euler. Herr Hilbert said: Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.Many agreed when he was alive. Then he passed. Then people lost their fear of that Germanic fury. Then M(6) went unclosed for what 28+ years GTFO. There's no excuse for it. I'm furious.
WHAT THIS PAPER IS ABOUT Imagine a quantum computer wants to understand a number, say 0.35. It cannot just read it. So the number is first converted into a special pattern called Legendre features. These come from Legendre polynomials, a set of smooth curves in maths that act like a fingerprint of the number. WHAT WAS TESTED Formulon Physics is a Python library that does this conversion and can also reverse it, getting the original number back. I wanted to check two things: is it correct, and how accurate is it? HOW I TESTED IT 1. Correctness check: I compared Formulon's answers with SciPy, a trusted maths library. Over 1,312 values, the biggest difference was about one part in a quadrillion, which is just computer rounding. 2. Accuracy check: A quantum computer gives answers by measuring many times. Each measurement is called a shot. I ran 4,100 tests using 100, 500, 1,000 and 5,000 shots, on a simulator in Google Colab. WHAT I FOUND - More shots means a smaller error. It follows a simple rule: 4 times more shots cuts the error to half. This is just like a coin toss. Flip it 10 times and the result is rough; flip it 1,000 times and you get close to 50-50. - The error matched the maths prediction. It was within about 5% of what theory says, so nothing strange is happening inside the tool. - Higher degree recovers the number better. Using more features (degree 12 instead of 2) brought back the original number much more accurately. - The decoder is nearly perfect. It gets almost the best accuracy that is mathematically possible. LIMITS This was a simulator, not a real noisy quantum machine. I ran only 5 repeats per setting. The code also reused some random seeds. I also did not claim any quantum advantage. WHY IT MATTERS Anyone using Formulon now knows how many shots they need for the accuracy they want. For example, about 516 shots give an error of 0.01 with degree 8.
Hi, I’m Adam Becker, PhD, an astrophysicist and science writer. My new book, What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics, is about the scientists who bucked the establishment and looked for a better way to understand what quantum mechanics is telling us about the nature of reality. It’s a history of quantum foundations from the initial development of quantum mechanics to the present, focusing on some people who don’t often get the spotlight in most books on quantum history: David Bohm, Hugh Everett III, John Bell, and the people who came after them (e.g. Clauser, Shimony, Zeh, Aspect). I’m happy to talk about all of their work: the physics, the history, the philosophy, and more. FWIW, I don’t subscribe to any particular interpretation, but I’m not a fan of the “Copenhagen interpretation” (which isn’t even a single coherent position anyhow). Please don’t shy away if you disagree. Feel free to throw whatever you’ve got at me, and let’s have a fun, engaging, and respectful conversation on one of the most contentious subjects in physics. Or just ask whatever else you want to ask—after all, this is AMA. Edit, 2PM Eastern: Gotta step away for a bit. I’ll be back in an hour or so to answer more questions. Edit, 6:25PM Eastern: Looks like I’ve answered all of your questions so far, but I’d be happy to answer more. I’ll check back in another couple of hours. Edit, 11:15PM Eastern: OK, I’m out for the night, but I’ll check in again tomorrow morning for any final questions.